Archived material Access restricted Article
Rantburg

Today's Front Page   View All of Thu 10/08/2009 View Wed 10/07/2009 View Tue 10/06/2009 View Mon 10/05/2009 View Sun 10/04/2009 View Sat 10/03/2009 View Fri 10/02/2009
1
2009-10-08 Home Front: Politix
Passing health-care reform could be harmful to the health of congressional Democrats
Archived material is restricted to Rantburg regulars and members. If you need access email fred.pruitt=at=gmail.com with your nick to be added to the members list. There is no charge to join Rantburg as a member.
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-10-08 11:16|| || Front Page|| [11134 views ]  Top

#1 The GOP Is Winning the Health-Care Debate

Hardly. It's not been the Party at the head of the debate. It's been the people more than any cognizant organization on the part a very absent leadership that appears to be weeks if not months behind the growth of opposition. It's gaming in the Senate is not making any friends among the those mobilized either.
Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-08 12:49||   2009-10-08 12:49|| Front Page Top

#2 The Senate Pub leadership has a problem -- two of them, Snowe and Collins. Those two, and perhaps Voinovich as well, will vote for a health care bill that allows them to weasel by. Voinovich is retiring and the other two will be elected from Maine as long as they live.

The other 37 Pubs can't stop anything by themselves. So an astute Minority Leader has to play with a weak hand, and that involves a lot of feint, bluff and misdirection. He may not have get a single Blue Dog on his side if the 'public option' is set to one side (temporarily, it appears) or if the majority has some cunning plan to finagle said option.

So the Pubs are stuck in the Senate, and I don't blame them for the situation. I blame the 60 Dhimmicrats who are going to vote for this. They are the majority and they are responsible.

Ditto in the House, where the Pubs have fewer options.

It's not the Pubs that are the problem. They're powerless. Blame the ones responsible.
Posted by Steve White 2009-10-08 12:57||   2009-10-08 12:57|| Front Page Top

#3 They'll "win" the debate
The bill will be passed
Too many trunks will vote for it
They'll not win the next election.

The only Republican with balls doesn't have any.
Posted by Varmint Glath4987 2009-10-08 12:59||   2009-10-08 12:59|| Front Page Top

#4 the dems may well lose seats, as historically happens to winners of the last POTUS election, esp if unemp stays high. But they wont be hurt by passing health care. GOP congressional leadership, which chose a path of obstructionism not taken by Pharma, the Hospitals, the insurance companies, the AMA, or by GOP governors and mayors, will not benefit.

and its odd to see you guys still listening to Karl Rove.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 14:22||   2009-10-08 14:22|| Front Page Top

#5 Pharma Bought (Check)
AHA Bought (Check)
AMA Bought (Check) 18% of Doctors are AMA
Ins Co.s Bought (Check)
AARP Bought (Check)

Dems response to Republican Ideas
Tort Reform (Rejected)
Buy Ins across state lines (Rejected)
ID Check for participation in NH (Rejected)
Allow Small Bus and Individuals to band together (Rejected)

etc. (Rejected)
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-10-08 15:21||   2009-10-08 15:21|| Front Page Top

#6 Bought? They accepted that provisions of the legislation, esp having MORE people covered would help them. Thats how you make legislation, you balance interests and compromise.

As for tort reform, POTUS offered the GOP something, but not exactly what they wanted. The across state lines is about gutting states abilities to demand minimum components to an insurance plan, driving in the opposite direction from the thrust of the legislation. In general has the GOP said they would support the essentials of the plan - near universal coverage, individual mandates, exchanges, end to adverse selection, etc in exchange for getting ALL their ideas accepted? No. Why should the Dems make concessions that alienate their own supporters (including, yes, the tort lawyers) when the GOP wont support the legislation ANYWAY?
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 15:46||   2009-10-08 15:46|| Front Page Top

#7 "AMA Bought (Check) 18% of Doctors are AMA"

if you mean to say the AMA does not support the views of all doctors, of course you are correct. The AMA supports the Baucus plan, but opposes any public option. Many other physicians groups strongly support a public option. So yeah, doctors are divided.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 15:49||   2009-10-08 15:49|| Front Page Top

#8 More accurately: some physician advocacy groups are for, some against.

Many / most docs against, some (distinct minority) for.
Posted by Steve White 2009-10-08 16:38||   2009-10-08 16:38|| Front Page Top

#9 AMA Bought with CPT Coding Franchise
AARP Bought with cancellation of Medicare Senior Advantage Program
Pharma Bought with threats of Gov Price Controls
Posted by GolfBravoUSMC 2009-10-08 16:41||   2009-10-08 16:41|| Front Page Top

#10 Since the Democrats will do anything to get this crap passed, the only response that matters is when Republicans stand up and say, "If you elect a majority of Republicans, we will REPEAL this crap!"

Laws are NOT set in stone, but the Republicans have too long acted as if when the Democrats abuse the hell out of the nation, it cannot be repealed ever. Just because.

BULL CRAP. The Republicans should have repealed countless abuses of the Democrats when they were in power, and didn't.

WHY THE HELL NOT?
Posted by Anonymoose 2009-10-08 17:20||   2009-10-08 17:20|| Front Page Top

#11 SW - this survey shows support for the public option physicians across many variables

http://healthcarereform.nejm.org/?p=1790

unfortunately its a survey taken among AMA members, though Im not sure why AMA members would be more liberal than most docs independent of the demographic and other factors mentioned.

Havent seen any other physician surveys this year.

Basically though, if you want to get heard, you have to organize. Anyone can claim support based on anecdotal evidence.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 18:03||   2009-10-08 18:03|| Front Page Top

#12 WHY THE HELL NOT?

because they knew those programs were popular. Hell, they opposed Medicare, now they are using it to bash the Dems.

They live in America, not in the echo chamber.
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 18:05||   2009-10-08 18:05|| Front Page Top

#13 SW some for some against, the public option, yeah.

Do you know of any mainstream medical groups that are opposed to the Baucus plan from the right, that share the GOP position that any major changes to increase coverage are a bad idea?
Posted by liberalhawk 2009-10-08 18:06||   2009-10-08 18:06|| Front Page Top

#14 Dr. Ethel Percy Andrus founded AARP in 1958. AARP evolved from the National Retired Teachers Association (NRTA), which Andrus had established in 1947 to promote her philosophy of productive aging, and in response to the need of retired teachers for health insurance. After ten years, Andrus opened the organization to all Americans over 50, creating AARP. Today, NRTA is a division within AARP. According to Andy Rooney, AARP was established by insurance salesman Leonard Davis in 1958, after he met Ethel Percy Andrus. Ms. Andrus was at the time helping teachers get health insurance through the National Retired Teachers Association. According to Rooney, Davis saw the opportunity to sell medical insurance to the elderly rather than just retired teachers and for that purpose put in $50,000 establishing AARP. According to Rooney, Davis established the Colonial Penn Insurance Co. in order to control AARP, selling millions of dollars in insurance to its members through advertisings in AARP's magazine Modern Maturity and for several years Colonial Penn Insurance Co. became one of the most profitable in the U. S. In 1978, after a 60 Minutes report exposé, AARP got rid of Colonial Penn Insurance Co. and signed up with Prudential Insurance Co.[3] According to critics, until the 1980s AARP was controlled by businessman Leonard Davis, who promoted its image as a non-profit advocate of retirees in order to sell insurance to members.[4] In the 1990s, the United States Senate investigated AARP's non-profit status, with Republican Senator Alan Simpson, then chairman of the Finance Committee's Subcommittee on Social Security and Family Policy, questioning the organization's tax exempt status in congressional hearings. These investigations did not reveal sufficient evidence to change the organization's status.[5] - source

They're an insurance front standing to cash in on their piece of the action.

One week LH blasts the tea party members as just astroturf for the Republicans and the next week identifies the Democrats own astroturf game players. Freudian projection in work.
Posted by Procopius2k 2009-10-08 18:17||   2009-10-08 18:17|| Front Page Top

#15 or just infantile logic and unethical argument. You decide
Posted by Frank G">Frank G  2009-10-08 18:21||   2009-10-08 18:21|| Front Page Top

#16 another PR push by the democrats and liberalhawk appears right on cue to spew the dem talking points of the day.

Not one single thought in his little head that we couldn't guess simply by watching what they think on The View.
Posted by Jumbo Slinerong5015 2009-10-08 18:57||   2009-10-08 18:57|| Front Page Top

#17 you guys just don't understand macroeconomics...when W increases the debt it's bad, when Obama triples down on it, that's good for the economy...

(sarc/off)
Posted by Broadhead6 2009-10-08 19:57||   2009-10-08 19:57|| Front Page Top

#18 The Shifting Political Sand Pile
Why did the Tea Party / Town Hall protests surprise so many in the political establishment? Why did they make Democrats recoil in horror and send Republicans running for cover when confronted by them? Why did the White House claim to be unaware of the protests and the media feel compelled to ignore and diminish them even when they mobilized hundreds of thousands in demonstrations around the country?

Why did the NY Times find "unnamed ‘Republican officials'... fret over a backlash" to the Tea Parties and downplay their significance? Why are Republicans "wary of the anger directed at all politicians"?
Posted by SR-71 2009-10-08 20:00||   2009-10-08 20:00|| Front Page Top

23:47 Clolulet tse Tung9375
23:23 Spike Crusoth7697
23:10 Spike Crusoth7697
22:31 Frank G
22:27 Rambler in Virginia
22:24 Barbara Skolaut
22:19 Scooter McGruder
22:03 Mike N.
21:53 Zhang Fei
21:45 tipper
21:40 Broadhead6
21:33 phil_b
21:29 Broadhead6
21:19 Broadhead6
21:17 Frank G
21:13 Broadhead6
21:09 tipover
20:53 Alaska Paul
20:50 Alaska Paul
20:50 Broadhead6
20:40 Frank G
20:22 Alaska Paul
20:22 lotp
20:21 Alaska Paul









Paypal:
Google
Search WWW Search rantburg.com