Hoyer Finally Admits the Obvious: Health Care Bill Killed the Dems in 2010 - FDL

[WillyT]

Hoyer Finally Admits the Obvious: Health Care Bill Killed the Dems in 2010
By: Phoenix Woman - FDL
Saturday March 10, 2012 6:45 am

<snip>

Finally, over two years after Vic Snyder resigned after FDL confirmed what internal polling told him about it, over two years after Martha Coakley went from a nineteen-point lead to a loss to Scott Brown in the space of four weeks in part because of it, and a year and a half after the Democrats lost the House in large part because of it, Steny Hoyer says, in the wake of a new study proving it: http://mysite.du.edu/~smasket/Nyhan_et_al_APR.pdf what everyone in Official Washington circles knows to be true but most of the time won’t admit — the health care bill was frigging kryptonite to the Democrats in 2009 and 2010:

A top Democrat acknowledged Thursday that President Obama’s health care bill hurt his party in 2010. And a new study suggests it cost the Democrats something pretty specific: their House majority.

“It was clearly a liability in the last election in terms of the public’s fear,” House Minority Whip Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) said Thursday during a briefing with reporters.

<...>

The study ran 10,000 simulations of a scenario in which all vulnerable Democrats voted against the health care bill and found that the rejections would have saved Democrats an average of 25 seats, which would have made the House parties close to a tie. (Republicans won 63 seats overall, but the study suggests around 25 of them would have been salvaged.)

In 62 percent of the simulations, Democrats were able to keep the House.

Dear Reader –

What caused the members of Official Washington’s institutions, particularly those part of or linked to the institutional Democratic Party, to go after Jane Hamsher hammer and tongs?

Answer: Her insistence on pushing for at least a public option in the health care bill — and her warnings that without a public option (which poll after poll showed was the most popular part of the health care reform proposal as originally conceived, but which Obama and the Dems dumped in order to please industry lobbyists), the bill would become a deadly stinky rotting albatross of a millstone around the Democrats’ collective necks in November of 2010.

She was right, she was proved right, and now Steny Hoyer’s finally admitted it.

<snip>

More: http://firedoglake.com/2012/03/10/come-saturday-morning-hoyer-finally-admits-the-obvious-health-care-bill-killed-the-dems-in-2010/

[JSnuffy]

1. In other news.. water is still wet...

[leveymg]

2. I still don't forgive the Dem Pols for that legislative cop-out and betrayal to the insur. industry.

Nice to see that some of the leadership are beginning to admit that going Right after the election, a cut to the face of the Progressive wing, was costly. It continues to be. They haven't redeemed themselves.

[annabanana]

3. GODDAMNIT!! The healthcare bill itself wasn't the problem.. It was the relentless,

unopposed temper tantrum drummed up by FOX screaming at the ....um.. "low information voters" that death panels werre gonna kill grannie..

The bill has done a lot of good for a lot of people.

The Dems need to get that info OUT there better, or the repubs will be able to do it again on "obamacare" crap

damn it

[russspeakeasy]

4. It seems to me that a lot of dem's enjoy being the victim.

[yardwork]

5. The lack of a public option, lack of universal health coverage, is a problem.

The albatross for Democrats is the mandatory purchase of private health insurance. That is really indefensible, and it was a gift to the health insurance industry by Obama and the DNC, a gift with a very specific cost - Democratic majority in Congress.

[sufrommich]

23. That's bull, the right wing argument against the health bill

was "omg socialism" and it worked.

[WillyT]

27. Not Really... Because When They Bailed On The Public Option, Many On The Left...

withdrew their support. And at THAT point, it looked like this particular Health Care Reform plan was a bad one.

Really not interested in being made to buy private insurance with out an opt-out... Public Option.

[LoZoccolo]

56. Why did that "withdrawal" seem to mostly affect Blue Dog districts?

The thing is, we have here evidence that there wasn't enough support even from the bill that was passed in the form of a report, and then we have a few professional left who know about this paper and try to pass it off as meaning exactly the opposite of what it says. This is what these people will do to us. Instead of working to get more support for something they want, they'll instead run in and make a mess of the facts and the perceptions of the (few) people willing to look at them.

[yardwork]

36. The legislation wasn't socialist enough.

[Jackpine Radical]

38. Exactly. I saw exactly that in Wisconsin.

When I was phoning for Feingold, I encountered a lot of anger at the Dems, mostly on the part of people who had voted for Obama & felt betrayed on health care. They were not discriminating among Dems; they were out to punish them all. That's why Feingold lost to Sunspot Johnson & why Walker came in with majorities in both Houses--a total flip from the Doyle era, with a Democratic Governor & 2 Democratic Houses.

[Greybnk48]

82. Yes! I worked the phones in WI too

and got my head screamed off over and over again about healthcare. That the process was too secretive/Pelosi "ramming it down our throats" or that the President sold out to the insurance companies and broke his promise about universal healthcare. It was awful, especially since I felt the same way about universal coverage.

The President's team and the Dems in general did a horrid job of countering repub attacks and I felt they sold us out.

[CreekDog]

41. that's how i feel

things were accomplished by the bill, mostly because our system is so bad that it doesn't take much to improve it.

but dozens and dozens of countries provide more healthcare to more people for less money, all in socialized or more regulated systems than was set up by health care reform.

[mackattack]

79. the right was gonna scream "socialism" anyway

If you have to have to endure the tantrum, you might as well get something you want.

So why not at least try to push the public option?

[Mimosa]

98. ^ True. ^

I'm now without health insurance, my partner soon will be. Health insurance is priced too high at our age. It would cost us each about 1K a month, high deductibles.

[Vincardog]

7. They wouldn't have to push the "Spin" if they had done the will of the PEOPLE in the first place.

The implications of the premiss that INSURANCE COMPANIES were required to be part of the solution;
as opposed to the MAJORITY of the PROBLEM;
is the crux of the matter.

The corporate (AKA Economic Royalist) slant of the Democratic Leadership is what cost them in 2010.
It will continue to cost them until they renounce their money centered ways.

[rudycantfail]

47. +1

Great post.

[Initech]

8. In the future what is going to be blamed for the downfall of America?

Fox News of course! It's the network that called Florida for Bush (despite every exit poll claiming Gore won), it's the network that turned racists against Obama, and it's the most preferred network of the "I've got mine so fuck you crowd" (leaders: Bill O'Reilly and Glenn Beck) and is the mantra of the anti health care people. Oh and they also spawned the tea party on us.

[iemitsu]

9. no, it was the lack of a single payer option that poisoned the

healthcare legislation. no one, including me, wanted to be told they had to buy expensive, private sector insurance.
the cost problems associated with our system have not been resolved. health care is not affordable.
the rich get richer and everyone else suffers.
democrats and republicans alike have many legitimate reasons to feel like this did little to improve access to healthcare or to address the economic liability our system creates for american families.
i'm still angry that this administration blew that opportunity to fix a real problem in this country.
obama's position on public education is also a big problem for me.

[terrencers515]

15. Fox has the money to spend

we have word of mouth

[ThomThom]

73. yes, it was the right wing lies about the bill that hurt Dems

and we still have not corrected the record

[SidDithers]

77. The temper tantrum didn't only come from Fox...

Jane Hampsher was "tantrumming" just as loudly.

Sid

[RBInMaine]

99. You are largely right, but here is some more to add to why the GOP has a good election in 2010.

As to the healthcare vote, the Dems needed to do a better job of explaining the law. They and their allied organizations didn't counter the organized right wing lie machine enough nor their astroturf TeaBag protests. The law is a STEP in the right direction, is NOT "socialized medicine", and yes, while not perfect it certainly does a lot of GOOD and as a moderate bill included many planks which many R's used to support. The second Obama took office, the right wing went into obstruction/attack mode, and Dems did not hit back hard enough. Part of the problem was the progressive base did not support the law enough so would not stand up to the TeaBaggers on it hard enough. They wanted to shoot for the moon with single payer (which I support but it can't pass nationally anytime soon), and then when they had to drop the public option they had a rea; hissy fit. The problem was that the public option sadly would NOT PASS in the Senate, and the RePUKES were determined to defeat him on it to make it his political "Waterloo". It did pass in the House. Obama supported it. But governing is compromise, like it or not, and ALL progressives needed to strongly support a STEP toward some PROGRESS. Instead, the corporate sponsored TeaNuts got tons of airtime by the corporate media and progressives where not out there slamming them back down. At least not nearly enough.

So in 2010 the right wing lie machine kept talking about "government takeover" and "death panels" and "cutting Medicare" (as if they care about Medicare), and this emboldened the right wing base and scared some independents. So yes, this was an issue.

But the MAIN reasons for 2010 Republican wins were a WEAK ECONOMY and MORE REPUBLICAN ENTHUSIASM. Many indies were simply angry in general about the economy. After two good Dem cycles, and since the economy wasn't fixed overnight. they were angry and voted AGAINST THE MAJORITY PARTY which in more cases were Dems. It wasn't so much voting FOR the R's. At the same time, WAY TOO MANY Dems and Progressives did not engage, did not campaign, and did not vote. We had more progress from 2008 to 2010, even if it wasn't purity, than we have seen since The Great Society, and yet WAY TOO MANY (not all, but too many) Progressives/Dems sat it out. NO EXCUSES for that, and am sick of hearing them. So, we got GOP ASSHOLES like Walker, and LePage, and Kasich, and Scott etc. at the state level and all kinds of TeaNuts in Congress.

And now the RePUKES have tried to use 2010 as a mandate to foist a hard right wing agenda on the nation, and it has backfired. Dems and progressive referendums did very well in 2011, and 2012 will be even better.

Moral of the story: GET THE HELL UNITED, STAND UP HARD TO THE REPUKES, AND DON'T BITCH AND WHINE AND REFUSE TO VOTE AND THEN BITCH EVEN LOUDER WHEN THE GOP WINS. Simple as that.

[ProSense]

6. This is

The study ran 10,000 simulations of a scenario in which all vulnerable Democrats voted against the health care bill and found that the rejections would have saved Democrats an average of 25 seats, which would have made the House parties close to a tie. (Republicans won 63 seats overall, but the study suggests around 25 of them would have been salvaged.)

...actually true, but I had no idea that it was in dispute. The Blue Dogs who voted against the bill lost. The Progressive Caucus actually picked up a few seats.

http://talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/11/crushed.php?ref=fpblg

[LoZoccolo]

25. Leave it to Fire Dog Lake to cite a study that actually says the opposite of what they want.

Then try to pass it off on to their readership as if they won't read it.

Now why would they go and do a thing like that?

[Robb]

40. Good question.

However if it requires reading the article, I'll never know.

...Ha HA! Two can play at the ignorance game! I've now raised the bar to not even knowing what the misrepresented issue might BE!!

I can feel my outrage growing even as we speak. About whatever it is.

[LoZoccolo]

44. As I used to say:

"Fire Dog Lake: automatic unrecommend n/t"

[abolugi]

39. Bingo!!

"The Blue Dogs who voted against the bill lost. The Progressive Caucus actually picked up a few seats."

Exactly!! People seem to forget that fact!

[Turbineguy]

10. It's not the health bill entirely.

It's also because Stupid in the U.S. has surpassed the critical mass point. The GOP's and Fox News' hard work is getting some results.

An older guy I know is dead set against healthcare reform. Luckily for his daughter (in her 40's) Medicare helps pay for dialysis.

[libtodeath]

11. It should have been a medicare for all

act,sweet and simple and funded by the fat cats who can afford it.
Once in place it would have so bettered everyones lifes that none would dare to go against it.
A missed chance.

[RBInMaine]

100. That could not have PASSED. What we got was a good STEP forward though.

[Faygo Kid]

12. You have to stand strong or stand down with this challenge to the status quo.

You can't be apologetic when you're advancing what's right. That said, the apologetic Dems were also bullied by Tea Party thugs sponsored by the Kochs. It was physical intimidation, not just electoral.

[jbnow]

67. The Dems didn't try explaining or defending

the bill barring a few of them (and maybe some that got no attention)
The right wing framed it and about 3 people tried to stand up to that

My Senator (Stabenow) was asked if she would be explaining the bill and she said something like no, people get too angry about it

The media was not much help either even when they easily could be. When Obama did town halls during the time and did a decent job explaining the fundamentals of it the press coverage would be about whatever tidbit was most titillating, ignored what added clarity.

I'd say a majority of people still don't understand what it is suppose to do or even when or how.

[Ruby the Liberal]

13. And yet, some Dems are reading this the opposite

and careening hard right this year. Pennsylvania's Bob Casey comes to mind. Co sponsored a bill with Lindsey Graham and Joe Lieberman on Iran and voted for the Blunt-Rubio amendment.

[Schema Thing]

14. Horseshit. Dems failure to embrace it and shove it in the face of Repubs

killed 2010.


Because while not perfect, it is IMPROVEMENT, ie PROGRESS on every single fucking front.

And it is chock full of really great stuff.

[cynatnite]

45. Exactly right. n/t

[SidDithers]

78. +1...nt

Sid

[jwirr]

16. A public option may have not have been enough to change that. Much of the fear was about what

HCR would do to Medicare. The other problem is that instead of starting it as soon as they could a lot of it is still waiting for 2014.

I am sure they are going to try to use this against us again. someone had better be able to get it explained this time.

[ProSense]

19. I'm

"A public option may have not have been enough to change that. Much of the fear was about what HCR would do to Medicare."

...really not sure what point the OP is trying to make. The Democrats who lost wanted to water down the public option and voted against the bill.

They didn't vote against the bill because they wanted to make it stronger. They were Blue Dogs.

[jwirr]

20. Yes, that is a good point.

[Johonny]

26. I agree or they would have run on adding a public option

instead they ran away from the health care bill their signature legislation. They also ran away from the president or any of the 400+ bills passed. They refused to present a national image of themselves and let the Republicans paint a national image of them and it killed them. Too scared to stand up for what they believed in, they fell in regional battles. This was what the blue dogs asked for, and most of them lost. Hopefully the Democrats in 2012 will run on their believes and their legislative accomplishments and not try to run 500+ individual campaign messages.

[AtomicKitten]

17. It was two steps forward and one back as progress often is.

[liberal N proud]

18. What killed the Democrats in 2010 was their lack of a spine

They let the TeaBaggers frame the debate and never countered the propaganda.

The Democrats always play by a different set of rules than their opponents. They play expect the truth to win in the end and integrity to be king, while the GOP and their Teabaggers don't believe in facts and have no integrity.

[FourScore]

83. Bingo. n/t

[LoZoccolo]

21. Oh that is some world-class spin.

I guess I'll ask a question here. Steny Hoyer says this:

“It was clearly a liability in the last election in terms of the public’s fear,”

What did they fear, if they actually wanted a bigger health care bill? What was there to be afraid of, by the Democrats? That they wouldn't pass one as good as the Republicans would? Serious, explain this one. In a way that fits Fire Dog Lake's characterization of the quote.

[bornskeptic]

43. Although the GOP ginned up opposition to the ACA by calling it a government takeover of healthcare,

as we all know, the true believers will continue to fantasize that a government takeover of healthcare was what the voters really wanted. Of course the Medicare for all that they dream of would cost over a trillion dollars annually at a time when deficits were running around 1.5 trillion already, but little details like that don't bother a true believer.

[socialist_n_TN]

51. Well gee, I wonder where some of that money could be made up..........

Maybe taxes could go up to match 50% of what the private insurance companies gouge out of individuals and companies every year for health care. And maybe wealthy people (you know the ones who've made out like bandits for the last 30 years) could get up off their dead wallets and chip in some more taxation.

That way no entrepeneur would have to sit on a GREAT idea because he can't leave his 9 to 5 because his wife or one of his kids has a "pre-existing" condition. And companies could hire without concern about providing health care for their employees. Health care whose costs go up whether it's used or not. That might even equalize the costs of goods produced in the USA compared to the rest of the world.

If America is SO exceptional, why can't we get a handle on HC costs and make it work LIKE THE REST OF THE WORLD???

[sufrommich]

22. Which means we will never see another

attempt to fix health care. How you see this as "proof" that a public option would have been welcomed by the voters is beyond me.

[socialist_n_TN]

28. Because the public option was the most popular part of the HC

debate. As I remember it anyway. I know that I recall a LARGE majority of people polled who supported a public option, but didn't support mandatory insurance purchases from private companies. Hell, I didn't support HC reform involving a mandatory purchase of insurance without the option to purchase it from the government.

[sufrommich]

29. That doesn't really explain people voting for the republican

alternative, which was "be afraid of the european type socialist health care".

[socialist_n_TN]

31. Well, it was an off year election with a fired up base..........

(and it's the bases that vote in non-presidential election years) and another base that wasn't fired up. In 2010 a lot of Dems felt betrayed by the HCR act that was passed BECAUSE it ordered mandatory insurance purchases WITHOUT a public option.

Off year elections are decided by enthusiasm. The Tbaggers had it and the Dems didn't. In addition, most of the Dems that lost were blue dogs that were running in the South. They were hurt most by that lack of enthusiasm AND by the lack of a populist result FROM the HC debate.

Of course, I'm not sure about how many of those blue dogs WOULD have run as populists even if the public option had been included in the act. I think that the blue dogs who lost were DINOs anyway. IOW, NOT populists. In fact, they are probably neoliberals economically. It would have been difficult for them to run as populists anyway.

[WillyT]

32. Great Analysis !!!

[sufrommich]

33. Actually, if you look at the analysis of who voted in

the 2010 off year election, it's pretty typical of past off year elections.

[joshcryer]

57. No, the MSM fired up the base by inventing the faux Tea Party.

The Tea Party ran against HCR because it was too progressive. "Government takeover of health care." The Dems who voted for HCR actually were able to stay in.

Blue Dogs weren't the only ones hit by the lack of GOTV by liberals. People like Feingold and Grayson were booted because their districts were split and all it took was GOTV from the right and they were toast. As the study cited shows those Blue Dogs would've been better off had they not voted for HCR.

The enthusiasm gap is a fair enough observation, but we have only ourselves to blame for that, if we weren't disillusioned by the right wing rise of the faux Tea Party we would've been fine. It took a special kind of self-delusion for us to allow the right wingers to get out 9% more votes than us.

[woo me with science]

81. Republicans and Democrats were used against each other

to pass a corporate gift of a bill that neither would have supported had it been presented honestly.

This is what happens when both parties are purchased. The whole debacle was an amazing illustration of how they play us against each other for their own profit. They managed to MANDATE that EVERY SINGLE AMERICAN purchase a for-profit, overpriced corporate product. What an achievement.

There is no way in hell that they ever would have been able to sell what was passed to the American people had they gone about it honestly. Not to Democrats, because of opposition to the corporate model, and not to Republicans, because of the government mandate. But fire up one side with the promise of universal coverage, and fire up the other side with the threat of government health care, and you can pass a COMPROMISE that nobody wants....except the corporations that will rake in the dough.

I remember, just before this passed, watching some pundit on TV discussing polls showing that Democrats hated the plan, and Republicans hated the plan. His conclusion was (I am not making this up), "This must mean they are charting a good middle course."

[Mojorabbit]

61. I believe a public option was polling pretty high at the time. nt

[rudycantfail]

71. 77%

[Better Believe It]

24. K & R

[davidthegnome]

30. We did not have the votes for a public option

During Obama's time campaigning for HCR, it quickly became clear that any attempt for a public option would be defeated by the Republicans and their democrat-lite allies. Now at first, I was angry as I thought it was given up on too quickly, I thought more could have been attempted. After all, had it been put to a vote to the American people in general, we'd have been in favor. Unfortunately, one thing made clear by that particular issue and many others was that our desires or needs are not as significant to our elected officials as they should be.

As for what we did get, there are good things about it. It may accomplish a great many things and lead us to a point where we can reconsider re-examining the public option, perhaps with a more democratic majority. I'm not crazy about the idea of having to buy insurance from private companies - I'm not sure I have faith in the vouchers that are supposed to become available to those with low/no income. As a young man with a part time job and no health insurance, I'd learned to take a lot of this with a grain of salt.

Time will tell - provided that the Supreme Court and the republicans do not actually destroy HCR. Should that happen, it could really set us back... or, it just might provide an opportunity to try to push through something better. Who knows.

That said, the failure of any public option or the single payer option was really not the fault of the Obama administration or the "real" dems who were in office at the time. Took me some time to get over it, but I think Obama did the best he could with what he had.

[Recursion]

74. I think a public option without a dedicated revenue source was a horrible idea

It would become another Medicaid.

[Alexander]

34. It's amazing how many DUers refuse to understand this simple concept.

Health care bill + Public Option = Popular

Health care bill with no Public Option = Radioactive

Do we really need to bring back polls from 2009-2010 showing about 1/3 of the country didn't like the health care bill because it didn't go far enough?

[rudycantfail]

72. It is amazing.

For some it's hard to acknowledge that elephant in their head for fear of the conclusions it will lead to.

[on point]

35. Backbone failure is what killed the dems. Especially failure on a public option

The mandate coverage without a public option is a gift to the insurance companies.

This plus the failure to explain why the healthcare bill is good for the US, its people AND its companies and foreign trade is what killed the dems. Without backbone hey will continue to loose.

[nolabels]

91. The whole plan, to me, seemed.......

like a way to derail any near or in the future single-payer plan that came around. It seems to have worked well for the insurance companies for at least that anyway.

[RagAss]

37. We had cowards in place at a time when courage was required......

Case fucking closed !

[Downtown Hound]

42. Um, economy, war, continued repression of our civil liberties?

Nah, I'm sure none of those things played a part.

[rudycantfail]

46. The party would have been

in a great position if they'd just passed a public option instead of scuttling it as they were obligated to do. The public option would be paying off for the Democratic Party and more importantly for regular Americans for many decades.

[muriel_volestrangler]

48. "Democratic incumbents who supported health care reform were seen as more liberal on average ...

...by their constituents than those who did not". And "the vote created “ideological distance” between the Democratic members of Congress and the median voters in their districts, compared with similar districts where the Democratic incumbent voted against the bill."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/study-shows-health-care-bill-may-have-cost-democrats-the-house/2012/03/09/gIQAc5fL1R_blog.html

People, this is saying that the bill was seen as too liberal by the people who voted. It is not saying that the bill should have been more liberal, for example having a public option. The Firedoglake poster is living in a fantasy world.

[joshcryer]

55. UP IS DOWN. BLACK IS WHITE. WAR IS PEACE.

[bornskeptic]

49. Yep! Damn' those death panels!

They ruined us. FDL warned us, didn't it?

[Lydia Leftcoast]

50. The Republicans were able to carry on their propaganda campaign BECAUSE

the Dems made their proposal too complicated and didn't provide easily accessible, easily understandable information.

I know. I looked for an executive summary of the bill. I could find one for Conyers' single-payer proposal, but none for Obama's proposal.

The Republicans ran with this opportunity to dig up every scare story in the British tabloid press for the past ten years.

When I finally found the executive summary (on the Kaiser Family Foundation web site, not from any Dem source), my heart sank. The proposal was incredibly complicated, would add extra costs to people's medical expenses instead of alleviating them, and seemed designed to bail out the medical insurance companies rather than to solve the twin problems of cost and access.

Look, name the health care system of any other country, and I can describe it in five or fewer easily understood bullet points.

Here's Japan, for example:

1. Most doctors are in private practice

2. There are both public and private options that cost the same and provide the same benefits

3. Premiums are based on income, not on age or medical status.

4. There are co-pays, but no deductibles.

5. If you have certain chronic or catastrophic conditions or spend over a certain amount per year, the government picks up the full tab.

Here's the UK:

1. Most medical providers are public employees, but some are in private practice.

2. There are no premiums or deductibles, and no co-pays except for medications.

3. The system is funded out of general revenues.

4. It has a "private option," which you pay for either on your own or with private insurance.

5. All legal residents of the UK are automatically eligible, and visitors receive (real) emergency treatment until they are stabilized.

The Dems should have come up with a system that could be described in five bullet points and sent their best speakers out to all the media to plug it. These speakers should have concentrated especially on local media where the Blue Dogs lived and urged their constituents to pressure these Blue Dogs.

Instead of meeting behind closed doors with the insurance company execs, the Dems should have told them that their gouging days were over and that they should prepare to convert their business model to offering supplemental insurance only. If they had publicized this move (telling the insurance companies to go fuck themselves), it would have made them look tough (the voters like tough) and concerned about the welfare of the people.

But no, they had to negotiate in secret, coddle the insurance companies, and come up with a patchwork of regulations, some of which will really piss people off. (Since the full bill won't go into effect till 2014 anyway, what was the big hurry?)

[bvar22]

52. Think it is bad now? Wait till 2014,

...and America finds out what is really in this bill.
Democrats may be unelectable for a generation.



You will know them by their WORKS,
not by their excuses.
[font size=5 color=green]Solidarity99![/font][font size=2 color=green]
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------[/center]

[BzaDem]

63. I wouldn't count on it.

The vast majority of Americans get their insurance through employers, and most of them aren't going to see much of a change. And fully half of the uninsured covered by this bill will be given Medicaid that they could not qualify for before. The mandate won't affect them at all.

The bill will certainly provide tremendous benefit to the uninsured (despite the tiny percentage of liberals who opposed the bill). But I find it hard to believe that the supposedly problematic mandate is going to change public opinion significantly in 2014, since the number of people that won't be affected by it at all (given their circumstances) is over 80%.

In 10 years, the little opposition to the bill from the left will be correctly analogized to the opposition to Social Security from the left in the 30s.

[dflprincess]

89. Medicaid will only be extended to people making 133% of the poverty level

Sounds impressive until you do the math and find out that for a single person 133% of the poverty level is a gross annual income of $14,483. After that people will be required to pay premiums that go up as income rises.

Love to see your source that "half the uninsured" will be "given" Medicare.

From what I can see the only ones being given anything by this bill are the insurance companies - they're being handed a whole new bunch of victims to fleece. Nothing in this bill guaratees access to health care it only requires that we or our employers be required to buy "coverage". While more of us are getting stuck with "insurance" we can't afford to use because of high out of pockets, the for profit insurers continue to post record income.

[joshcryer]

53. No, right wing fear and intimidation was what killed the dems in 2010.

The liberals didn't GOTV as the numbers show (they got out 9% more votes than we did), we drank the right wing propaganda hook line and sinker.

[nanabugg]

54. Not enough Dems spoke up for it. It was the spin by the RW that hurt Dems in 2010 and no anti-

spin. The Dems put forth little effort to help because for some it didn't go far enough. They have only themselves to blame, not Obama. He did what he promised to do and his party caved on him afterwards...maybe they didn't want him to succeed to much either?

[Swede]

58. Baby steps.

It is,like Canada's healthcare,a work in progress.

[gulliver]

59. But it was because the bill was considered too liberal.

A lot of blue dogs lost to Tea Partiers because they voted for healthcare. It would be pretty stupid to think that the the bill not being liberal enough was the reason seats were lost.

[girl gone mad]

60. The blue dogs lost to candidates who promised to repeal the mandate..

which was and remains so deeply unpopular.

The public option was overwhelmingly popular in poll after poll. If the blue dogs had been able to go to their constituents and say, hey, you're going to be able to buy into a competitive program if you can't afford insurance, and your health care costs will be reduced as a result of this bill, they would have won. Period. Instead they had to run away from this bloated hunk of reconstituted Heritage Foundation junk as fast as possible. Weird spin you got there, though.

[BzaDem]

62. The candidates who wanted to repeal the mandate also wanted to repeal guaranteed issue and community

rating.

And even the liberals who claim they want to repeal the mandate without repealing guaranteed issue/community rating simply don't understand healthcare economics. Guaranteed issue can't exist without a mandate, and a public option certainly could not exist without a mandate. (The public option would get those with health conditions, driving public option premiums up and driving the healthy out.)

Even if we lost the majority due to the bill (which I think is debatable), it was well worth it. That happened to be the judgement of every single progressive Congressperson and Senator in Congress. They were correct, and those that disagree are wrong. Fortunately, those that disagree are such a tiny portion of liberals in the US that they are not sufficiently relevant to drive the party in the wrong direction.

[Umbral]

64. I bet there are at least a few people wondering why so many don't bother with this site anymore.

Question answered.

[WillyT]

65. Please... Elaborate...

Are your expectations not being met?

Because many of us have been here for over a decade and love the place.

And what are those expectations?

Just curious...

[Umbral]

69. You, and maybe half a dozen others here are among the most beloved personages on this site.

Since you are the OP, my apologies if my ranker seemed to be aimed at you - it wasn't. I just don't want to believe that the timber and tone of this place has gone from what it was a decade ago to the sad, sick mess it has become. I don't' know what it means to be a Democrat any more.

[woo me with science]

76. You are exactly right.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/?com=view_post&forum=1240&pid=32106

[Poll_Blind]

84. +1

And +1 for your linked OP as well.

PB

[Lydia Leftcoast]

86. I guess it means to defend people with D's after their name

no matter what they do.

You know, I once went through the selection process for the U.S. Foreign Service. I passed the written test, the interview, the simulation tests, and the language aptitude test. I got all the way to the point where they said that all that was left was the physical.

But then I talked to some people whose parents had been in the Foreign Service and had left it. The reason? A Foreign Service officer has to defend the foreign policy of the U.S., whether s/he agrees with it or not. If you disagree with something the U.S. government is doing, you have to keep it to yourself, except in correspondence with higher ups, and even such disagreements can damage your career. If asked by anyone, foreign diplomat or anybody else, you have to defend the policy.

I couldn't do that. By that time, the U.S. was already using the Central American countries as part of its chess game with the Soviet Union, without regard for the fact that the governments it was defending (El Salvador, Guatemala) were downright evil and that the government that it was trying to overthrow (Nicaragua) was the first one ever to try to improve the lot of the peasants.

So when the letter about the physical came, I withdrew my application.

Similarly, I can't defend bad policies just because Democrats think them up. We hated it when the Republicans did that with whatever Bush thought up, and now many DUers have become mirror images of the Republicans: "My party, right or wrong."

[WillyT]

88. + 1,000,000,000... What You Said !!!

Exactly !!!

[certainot]

66. the reason PO and 2010 was a disaster was because THE LEFT HAD NO CLUE WHAT TEAM RUSHBO WAS

DOING FOR THE LAST 20 FUCKING YEARS!!!!

they made single payer impossible because while they stood on every corner and stump in the country and screamed at the top of their lungs that canadians were streaming across the border to get good cheap american health care in emergency rooms we walked by with our iPods in ourears!

we need to get this right before the next elections.

the left are doing very well recently with RW talk radio. the left are finally noticing what's been kicking our ass on so many issues.

please keep it up and stop analyzing politics as if 1000 coordinated talk radio stations don't matter, along with all of the high paid 'pundits' WHO HAVENO FUCKING CLUE WHAT'S BEING BLASTED TO 50 MIL AMERICANS A WEEK BY THINK TANK- COORDINATED RADIO because there is no written record of it.

and coakly was another trophy on limbagh's wall. i heard the national campaign on talk radio to get scott walker in- hours and hours of NATIONAL talk radio the dems had no clue was happening. fucking idiotic. don't give me shit about she was an elitist idiot with a bad campaign, that was just another example of the right kicking democracy's ass with 1000 coordinated radio stations.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

87. It wasn't "the Left" that didn't have a clue; it was the Establishment Dems

Greens, Socialists, and left-leaning Democrats were extremely frustrated at the way the Dem Establishment let right-wing radio come to dominate the airwaves.

[certainot]

90. but until now there has been no organized opposition to RW radio and i've been told for years

that RW radio doesn't matter, no one but the nuts listen to it, etc.

this time it needs to go all the way and most americans will be very happy.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

93. AM radio's core audience is no more than a single-digit percentage of the population

They get more publicity than they deserve because the corporate interests are backing them.

But the Dems have been asleep at the switch. They forgot their populist roots and became yuppified, giving the wingnuts free rein among the blue collar and rural populations.

[certainot]

94. actually for a lot of the last 15 yrs 15% to over 20% have said they get their news from talk radio

which is 95% RW. over 1000 radio stations reach 50 mil a week.

it is coordinated - the biggest all day bully pulpit in history.

in most parts of the country there are no free alternatives for politics while driving or working.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

95. Yup, and the Dems let it happen

When Rush Limbaugh was getting started, there was nothing to prevent the Dems from buying up a bunch of station. But they did nothing when, for example, Jim Hightower, who was excellent at talking people down from right-wing hysteria, was canned by ABC, supposedly for "low ratings," even though his ratings were the same as some of the other talk show hosts on their network.

The Dems should have found some liberal media people to get him a program.

[certainot]

97. the dems, left screwed up big time

[NuttyFluffers]

68. Incorrect. It was abandoning Howard Dean's 50 State Strategy.

You need to contest EVERYTHING. No one has enough propaganda and GOTV to survive an assault upon every contestable location. And by contesting everything, it's not about the winning, it's about spreading your opponent's resources thin. By sheer majority numbers all Democrats and liberals/libertarians/progressives need to do is just get off their ass and show up.

Focus fire does not help when you control the foundation. When you control the foundation you foment total ground swell defense to keep all opponents destabilized. Basic art of war, guerrilla populous warfare 101. That's why feudal/tribal groups can survive and eventually oust imperial orders. Doesn't anyone read Sun Tzu, history, and the like anymore?

[eridani]

70. Why is no one mentioning the lies about "cutting Medicare" that were the critical factor

--in turning the high-turnout older demographic against Dems in 2010? The one thing that the Repukes were yelling loudest about is that HCR "cut Medicare." This is a lie--it merely eliminates subsidies to Medicare Advantange. What Democrats absolutely REFUSED to do was to defend the more efficient traditional GOVERNMENT Medicare. Instead they just went on about preventive care physicals for people on Medicare--nice, but not enough to overcome the fear about having benefits cut.

The fact is that HCR is extremely hard to defend on the basis of fundamental values, because the fundamental value that it is based on is that people ought to have access to health care determined by how much money they have. It is possible to go for a values defenst if you ignore that, though. What I am doing is just saying "It helps people. It would have helped even more people if we could have gotten big money out of the process."

[woo me with science]

75. K&R Wake up, America, and smell the collusion.

This law was a gift to the one percent who helped write it. Period.

It was not a mistake.

Wake up and occupy.

[Honeycombe8]

80. It was the Republicans successfully spewing lies about it that hurt the Dems in 2010, and...

and the Dems not successfully fighting back and advertising the truth. Like there are no death panels.

[woo me with science]

85. Kick

[Elric]

92. I've always thought the answer for the mid term losses

was the total focus on the health care bill and getting something passed, whatever it was. The public's focus was on the economy and their jobs, which seemed to take a back seat in the bus compared to the health care bill. During the Big Dog's first presidential campaign the mantra was "It's the economy stupid!", I think President Obama and the Democratic Congress took their eyes off that and it came back to bite them in the ass.

[BOHICA12]

96. Exactly ... lack of HC didn't have them on unemployment and underwater. nt