Why can't they just admit they were wrong?

[NJmaverick]

they were wrong about Candidate Obama

they were wrong about President Obama's Afghan Stategy

they were wrong about his leadership on the economy

they were wrong about his leadership on the HCR

yet instead of simply acknowledging the mistakes they work on a propaganda/misinformation campaign (that would do FAUX news proud) to try and cover up their mistakes.

We all make mistakes or get caught up in the heat of the moment. I was sure the Iraq surge would fail. During the primaries I took an intense dislike for Hillary (which I was wrong about, she is doing a terrific job as SOS). My mistakes are numerous but I am willing to admit them and learn from them. Why can't others?

[Peacetrain]

1. If you figure that out.. let me know..

It is almost pathological in its intensity. :shrug:

[goclark]

2. To see both sides of an issue takes a Care Gene

and they don't seem to CARE about any issues other than their personal issues.

If you look at the threads at BOG you will see posts that reflect that we are basically CARING people that can see why certain problems take longer to solve than others.

We may be disappointed but we are able to see both sides of the issue. We "See Wrong and try to RIGHT it."

Others, IMO, see WRONG and get stuck in their own mud puddle.

Even during the time of GW,we wanted to be problem solvers, offering positive ideas and ways to support our party. We wanted to figure out how to get a positive solution so we dust ourselves off and start over again.

IMO, At BOG,it is easy for us to be supportive of each other,we seem to have a gene that can see both sides of the issue.

Have you noticed at BOG how many times we thank each other and celebrate each other? It's beautiful.

Like my grandmother would say, "Baby, would you rather be YOU or that girl in your class that everyone says is a Bully?"

I would always tell her ` "I'd rather be ME, I'm a Happy Person!"

[Arkana]

3. I'm unsure why we still get calls for single-payer

when we know that it's really just a bunch of hot air that won't accomplish anything. Dennis Kucinich, for example, would rather draft bill after bill after bill calling for things like single-payer and a "Department of Peace", shit that will never, ever happen, so that he can be a darling to the left rather than get things done.

[quiet.american]

4. On that note, when I finally read the single-payer bill, I thought it was satire.

When I finally downloaded and read H.R. 676, I couldn't believe my eyes. I initially downloaded it following a link from another blog, and so thought maybe I'd been duped. Went to an official .gov site and downloaded it, but lo, it was exactly the same 30-page document.

For all the hand-wringing and teeth-knashing that's been going on about single-payer, I was shocked to find that not only does the single-payer bill not adequately address the conversion of the entire U.S. healthcare system to single-payer, it also provides not a single, NOT ONE, reform, restriction or regulation upon insurance companies. In fact, it seemingly provides for the transfer of even more tax-payer dollars to insurance companies and to the most-profitable private healthcare entities, as compensation for revenue lost due to "conversion," and it fails to give any parameters for the reimbursement. Further, insurance companies are still free to operate as they please for those who would choose them over "gubment-run healthcare" -- it offers not a single restriction on them.

And did I mention it would institute "a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income." I wouldn't mind paying it, but how to sell THAT in this political environment?

But in spite of the bill's awfulness, there are a few gems in it which were taken up and incorporated into the Senate and House versions: essential benefits package, Medicare tax on capital gains and a couple other things.

But my God, the bill delivers on a platter to the GOP all the ammunition they could ever need against Democrats. It's like it was going for every stereotype out there about Democrats. For instance, the bill states that funds are to be set aside for those in administrative positions in the insurance and medical industries who would be displaced by the conversion. It offers no estimates of how many people that might be, or how much money would be required, but it does say that workers would be paid their last regular salary for two years up to $100,000. Sounds great, but there's at least two issues -- what to make of the charge that some people would simply be paid $100,000 for two years for doing absolutely nothing? And what happens to the people who may not be able to find work in that time, but who, because of the government's actions, no longer have access to pay raises or bonuses for two years? And what happens after two years if these people can't find work? Can you imagine the hay the GOP would make out of this if this had been the prevailing bill?

Instead of yelling at Obama, I feel that single-payer advocates should be yelling at those in the House who put forth this piece of legislation that really falls short. To my view, it was doomed from the start by being very flawed. It almost reads like someone was too tired, distracted or busy to think it through.

[Number23]

5. Fantastic analysis. Thanks for that, qa

Definitely makes me want to brush up on what HR 676 is all about.

[quiet.american]

6. Hey, thanks, Number 23 - one correction to what I'd stated above:

In regard to restrictions on insurance companies, in re-reading the bill, I should add that the bill prohibits insurance companies from providing insurance for the same services covered by single-payer, and that is supposed to take care of that, so to speak. But I have to ask myself, is that strict enough? If single-payer pays for my crutches, couldn't an insurance company call "crutches" an "ambulatory support system" and still offer it? And if they did, there are no further restrictions or regulations on them as to how they sell it. Also, there are no further restrictions or regulations as to how they sell the benefits they offer that are outside of what is available through single-payer.

I suppose the argument would then be, well, if single-payer will pay for your crutches, why would you go to an insurance company? But we know, there are those who would rather die than take "gubment-run healthcare." In my view, the House and Senate bills offer tougher restrictions regarding insurance companies, and because of the way they're structured, they have to.

I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the bill.

HR 676:
http://conyers.house.gov/_files/HR676111th.pdf

[Number23]

10. Thanks for the link, q.a!

There are bills and there are BILLS. I can talk all day and night about some bills (bore you to tears, actually), but about others? Not so much. :) This bill would probably fall under the latter category at least for me. I'm into HEALTH (in fact, am helping to put together a workshop on Aboriginal health issues as we speak) but the mechanics of health care reform would probably not be a strong suit.

But I've read enough about the health care debate and Repub obstructionism to know that single payer never had the votes to make it through Congress so the insistence from so many here that it still be "on the table" seems to be the "left's" version of obstructionism.

As someone currently in Australia and able to utilize both public and private health care, I recognize the value of a public option. Every Aussie citizen and resident has access to public health care here which pays all or a huge chunk of your health care costs if you attend a public hospital or visit a doctor on a public plan. If you have private health cover too, it usually picks up any slack.

I've stayed quiet about much of the health care debate right now a) because so much of it is so complex and difficult to understand and b) I know that right now I'm in a good situation. But 90% of my family is in the States and I'll be coming back soon and I really want wants best and pining for something that is never going to happen is not my definition of "best."

[quiet.american]

13. Small world, N23 -- I'm currently affiliated with a rockin' Australian company here in the U.S.

Lest I be "Van Jonesed" (God bless that man) that's all I'll say. But have to give kudos to the Aussies, they've saved me during this GOP recession.

[cliffordu]

15. Good work.

[Blue_Roses]

7. I wonder that too...

In fact, Bush spoke the other night here in Texas at a private school and I read the write-up in the paper. When asked if he had anything to say about this adminstration, he said, "there are enough critics out there now," and that basically he's staying "out of it."

Here's an excerpt:

In a self-effacing way, Bush described his transition from U.S. president to resident of Texas, saying it was like going from 100 mph to zero. One day while resting on the couch, he said he exclaimed, "Free at last." He said his wife, Laura, responded: You are free to take out the garbage.

Bush said people have asked him if he intended to be "real public" when he left the presidency, and he has answered no. For instance, in Tuesday's heated Texas Republican primary for governor, the former Texas governor hasn't endorsed any candidate.

"I've had enough of the limelight," he said. "You will not see me opining."

Bush also said he will not be criticizing his successor in the Oval Office. "There are plenty of critics in America," he said.

more...

http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/news/localnews/stories/DN-bush_28met.ART.State.Edition2.4b9e00c.html
Hmmm...I actually found myself proud of him--for a change. So, I guess I was wrong that I could actually find something that I think can be admirable about him now. Who knew?

So in response to your question: who knows?:)

[Uzybone]

8. I don't think they care about the results

The only care about hate and snark and sounding smart and being on the extreme left on any issue and all that other rubbish.

[NJmaverick]

9. Very true

the one thing about people like that, you know compassion isn't what drives their liberalism

[cliffordu]

16. Then they aren't really liberals, are they?

[Arkana]

11. Now, President Obama hates unions and teachers

because of the RI school firings.

Yep.

[NJmaverick]

12. Grasping at straws, these people are pathetic in their denial

[Cha]

14. Because they're too busy

sliding into to the next negative campaign strategy.

[Bobbie Jo]

17. Isn't that the truth.

Already framing HCR as a failure because they know it's going to pass. These people are stuck on bitter.

[CBR]

18. Teachers --

is anyone on BOG a public school teacher, married to one, child of one etc...? I am just curious at the perception of the RI incident?

I am married to a private school "evil" teacher, so I am unqualified to state an opinion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

19. My wife's a teacher.

"Good - long overdue, probably" was her reaction.

[NJmaverick]

20. What's interesting is none of those pushing the teacher meme

care anything about the kids that are being short changed. so much for liberals showing compassion.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

21. Thing is, it can't go both ways.

Everyone, including teachers, would reasonably argue that teachers are the single biggest factor in student performance. But on the other hand, some argue that we can't measure whether or not teachers are doing their job well based in part on student performance. Further, when you have school systems where more than 50% of the kids are failing, how can you possibly argue that the teachers are doing their jobs if they're allegedly the single biggest factor? Then they'll argue that they themselves are doing fine, but the teachers in prior grades aren't doing THEIR jobs well, so you can't assess any teacher on those grounds. You really have to twist yourself into knots trying to figure out the circular logic involved here.

Granted, in the current system, it's very difficult to do that adequately, but what Duncan is doing is striving to make the system capable of doing exactly that in every manner imaginable (improving standards, improving assessments, and improving data quality). It's not like we're ignoring the current limitations at all.

[NJmaverick]

22. I agree

although I know no other profession where one could fail more than half the time and a person could find enough excuses to keep their job. Many jobs have outside factors that help or hinder success and teachers are no different. In my opinion though a lost generation is not an option. So firing every teacher and only hiring back those that were doing a good job seems to be the best approach for the kids.

[Number23]

23. My buddy Fire1 is a teacher, and a teacher in the inner city

I know I'd love to hear her perspective on all of this.