Obamacare proving deadly to it's supporters

[cpwill]

ya'll were warned by your own constituencies not to support this thing; no sympathy for any of you.


[W]hat about the districts of the House Democrats who cast the key votes that made Obamacare law? Those Democrats have an interest in persuading constituents of the law's merits. So how are they doing?

In general, not very well.


Take Betsy Markey of Colorado's 4th Congressional District, who in 2008 beat a Republican who seemed fixated on the same-sex marriage issue. Markey cast a late-in-the-roll-call no in November, then publicly switched to yes in the week before the March 21 roll call. She's currently trailing Republican Cory Gardiner by an average of 44 to 39 percent in three polls. Her Web site links to a video she cut the week after the vote saying she had "the honor" to vote for the bill. But otherwise it seems to be silent on the issue.

Or consider John Boccieri of Ohio's 16th District, who switched from no to yes in a TV press conference in which he said the bill would do great things for his constituents. Boccieri's district was represented by Republicans for 58 years until he was elected in 2008.

It looks like it will be again next year. In three polls Republican Jim Renacci leads Boccieri by an average of 46 to 36 percent. Boccieri's Web site links to a recent interview in which he defends Obamacare and challenges opponents to say which provisions they'd give up.

Then there is Suzanne Kosmas, a longtime real estate agent who beat a Republican with an ethics issue in 2008 for Florida's 24th District seat. She announced her switch from no to yes late in the week before the roll call. She's now running behind Republican Sandy Adams by an average of 47 to 40 percent in three recent polls.

To put these numbers in perspective, it's highly unusual for an incumbent House member to trail a challenger in any poll or to run significantly below 50 percent. But these three Democrats are running 5 to 10 points behind Republican challengers and none tops 40 percent...


Two of the Stupak five, freshmen Steve Driehaus of Ohio 1 and Kathy Dahlkemper of Pennsylvania 3, are in dreadful shape. Driehaus trails by an average 51 to 41 percent in his Cincinnati area district; Dahlkemper trails by an average of 45 to 37 percent in her Erie area seat.

Another two are from West Virginia. Alan Mollohan, first elected in 1982, lost in the May primary; Nick Joe Rahall, first elected in 1976, won his primary and seems well ahead for November.

Doing best is Marcy Kaptur of Ohio 9, first elected in 1982. Her Republican opponent reportedly wears Nazi uniforms in World War II re-enactments.

But that's an exception. The rule seems to be that casting a decisive vote for Obamacare tends to be a career-ender...

 

[Whovian]

Can you say...

 

[Deuce]

Can you say...

I can say "systematic effort by the right to cloud the issue and create a negative image of a bill that was a Republican idea in the first place."

 

[cpwill]

i find that last bit particularly hilarious. trying to blame Republicans (who voted lockstep against the thing) for Obamacare :lamo.


life does imitate farce.

 

[Boo Radley]

i find that last bit particularly hilarious. trying to blame Republicans (who voted lockstep against the thing) for Obamacare :lamo.


life does imitate farce.

That's not what he did. Dishonest to suggest that's what he did. Perhaps you could read it again.

 

[American]

I can say "systematic effort by the right to cloud the issue and create a negative image of a bill that was a Republican idea in the first place."

That's right, Republicans stuck their collective hand up Obama's ass and worked his mouth for him during his presidential campaign, and during the healthcare debate when he declared his PROMISE to fix healthcare. :roll:

 

[Boo Radley]

That's right, Republicans stuck their collective hand up Obama's ass and worked his mouth for him during his presidential campaign, and during the healthcare debate when he declared his PROMISE to fix healthcare. :roll:

No, they helped in the promotion of misinformation. The single reason I can no longer vote for grassely, who's been a good iowa senator, is that he bowed to tea party nutters and didn't correct the idea of death panels, going against what he had supported previously. Too many sullied the debate with misinformation, and continue to do so, leading us away from informed debate and towards nutterville.

 

[American]

No, they helped in the promotion of misinformation. The single reason I can no longer vote for grassely, who's been a good iowa senator, is that he bowed to tea party nutters and didn't correct the idea of death panels, going against what he had supported previously. Too many sullied the debate with misinformation, and continue to do so, leading us away from informed debate and towards nutterville.

No, it was all the bribery that was necessary to pass the bill in the face of public opposition. Not to mention the basic principle that govt shouldn't be running that industry in the first place.

 

[Boo Radley]

No, it was all the bribery that was necessary to pass the bill in the face of public opposition. Not to mention the basic principle that govt shouldn't be running that industry in the first place.

Bribery? I'm sorry, but that neither addresses or excuse the misinformation effort. And government isn't running the industry. If they were, we wouldn't need to appease insurance companies with n individual mandate. Spreadng more misinformation doesn't help your position.

 

[Deuce]

Obamacare is essentially the same as a bill the Republicans proposed under the Clinton administration. It wasn't called socialism then.

GOP did the same with Cap and Trade. Bush Sr. enacted it (relating to sulfur dioxide and some other pollutants), and Sarah Palin touted it as a great free market solution to environmental concerns during the 2008 election. Obama wins, and practically the next day she's talking about how it will kill jobs. McCain did the same, as did the rest of the GOP.

 

[Wiseone]

But that's an exception. The rule seems to be that casting a decisive vote for Obamacare tends to be a career-ender...

In other news, Congress changes hands every few years between the parties. In 2006 and 2008 it was Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm guessing you found this kind of smugness disgusting from a Dem in 06 and 08 pretty stupid. Seriously though whats the point of pretending its anything but politics as normal? In a few elections the Congress will be Democratic again, and they'll be some hot button issue that defines that election but everyone forgets about once its over.

 

[Cold Highway]

In other news, Congress changes hands every few years between the parties. In 2006 and 2008 it was Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm guessing you found this kind of smugness disgusting from a Dem in 06 and 08 pretty stupid. Seriously though whats the point of pretending its anything but politics as normal? In a few elections the Congress will be Democratic again, and they'll be some hot button issue that defines that election but everyone forgets about once its over.

You forgot to add that the people will continue to be screwed over.

 

[Wiseone]

You forgot to add that the people will continue to be screwed over.

Exactly, the only thing that really changed from Bush to Obama was a healthcare bill. The wars, the spending, the legal situation with prisoners, terrorism countermeasures, reduction of liberties, gov't involvement in business, its all a continuation of the Bush policies.

People don't see whats wrong with having the belief the government shouldnt be increasing the debt, but will support one President over another because one increased it a slower rate than the other but either way the trend is still DOWN DOWN DOWN. Its like arguing that death is bad but a slower death is GREAT because its not a fast one, either way you're gonna end up in the same spot.

 

[Zyphlin]

Obamacare is essentially the same as a bill the Republicans proposed under the Clinton administration. It wasn't called socialism then.

This isn't really true. As I've said in other threads:

I've still yet to see ANYONE actually provide Chuck Grassley's 1993 plan beyond comparison charts with vague "Yes" and "no" answers based on the interpritation of that particular site. And even when it has been shown there is far to little data available in them to see how it compares to what is in this plan, shows there are things that conservatives like that aren't anywhere in this plan, and has no sign of a number of the things conservatives disliked about this plan.

Not to mention implying conservatives are hypocritical for not agreeing with it becasue it has similar "roots", which are questionable at best, implying those that like Football should like Golf because they both have a ball as a root to their sport.

The mandate, while something I disagree with, is something I could stomach and could see as a necessary evil under the right circumstances that makes private sector choice a legitimate and cost effective option without a number of regulations and punative legislation that increases the likelihood of pushing people onto the public option. It appears, from a cursory view, that the 1993 bill provided for that FAR more than the current bill.

The 1993 bill had less regulations and punative legislation. It had far more republican ideas and items within it then the current one. Simultaneously there are Democratic pushed issues in this one that were not in the 1993 bill or that are stronger then they were in the 1993 bill.

Calling them "essentially the same" is just a dishonest misrepresentation and pushed out propoganda by the DNC in hopes of trying and further point the republicans as hypocrites hoping that people won't actually take a legitimate look at facts and history and just accept what they and their supporters say.

There are similarities between the two bills, but they're hardly "essentially the same".

 

[CriticalThought]

There are similarities between the two bills, but they're hardly "essentially the same".

So specfically how are they essentially different?

 

[Zyphlin]

So specfically how are they essentially different?

Sure thing, where to begin.

First, lets be open and honest. The BS about it being the "essentially" the same basically came from people parroting articles that referenced the Kaiser Health News comparison chart. So lets look at that chart.

To begin with, the chart is essentially summarizes and bullet points. Notions like "reduce medicare spending" and "create more efficiency" are INCREDIBLY vauge with KHN giving ZERO extra information concerning the difference there. To simply suggest that both plans wanting to create more efficiency in health care equals having the same plan of reform is ridiculous. You could point to two different plans by Democrats and Republicans concerning say Welfare Reform, saying both want to reform it, and have entirely different things. So the notion right off of using a bullet point chart as "evidence" of the similarities is flawed in and of itself.

But even looking at that list you still have differences. Such as the current law mandating that businesses help pay for premiums for some employees where as the 1993 plan not requiring it. The 1993 plan had malpractice reform, a big thing for republicans, this one didn't. 1993's didn't make 26 year olds children "dependents". 1993 took steps to equalize the taxes for those that are self employed. This plan bans lifetime spending caps, 1993's doesnt. And those are just some of the ones they vaguely note. That's not getting into the fact that they cover HUGE swatches of things with a simple "yes" that to TRULY get a feel for if its similar or not one would need to read both bills in full.

Then lets go deeper. The current bill has a large medicare expansion that could potentially end up covering more people through its expansion, due to the amount of uninsured that would fall under the 133 percent poverty line, than through any other provision. This is a rather substantial thing in and of itself, and is something completely missing from the 1993 bill. The current Bill puts greater taxes on very expensive plans where as 1993 had a tax cap. Again, another large issue for Republicans.

Then you have the misrepresentation by people through implication that somehow this shows that Republicans are moving to the right or becoming more extreme, acting as if this was a majorly touted and supported plan by Republicans. In reality, it was a plan that rapidly lost support. The CBO wasn't scoring things as quickly or continually as it does not, so it took longer for the cost of things to truly come out. However once you did even big named proponents of the bill, such as Bob Dole, quickly moved away from it due to the cost of attempting that much coverage being unfeasable. The attempts at "moderating" and "bipartisanship" put too much bloat into the bill for the cost to be reasonable and it killed support by republicans in the long run. Not to mention it was just one of a number of health care proposals supported by republicans, such as the Packwood Dole one, none of which truly gained exceeding, long lasting party support as more information and facts came out about it.

Now, with all that in mind, there's the notion of history. Republicans pushing for health care plans when the entire government is filled with Democrats generally aren't going to work. If they push what they want, obviously it won't get passed. If they push a compromised or moderate bill, such as the 1993 bill, then it is still in their minds a negative for the country due to the expense of the matter and thus something that quickly lost support. So if you're not going to be able to pass what you want, and you aren't happy and can't fully support a compromised bill which in the end will cause it not to pass as well, in the future which are you going to do? Again compromise on your principles for something that's unlikely to pass if you do it and put your vote behind something you think is going to be broken, or realize that either way you're ideas aren't going to really get done or that what you think will hurt the country will happen so you may as well put forth a proposal you actually feel is GOOD and fits your principles.

Could you show me how they are "essentially" the same Bill besides taking VERY broad categories and statements and simply saying both touched on those things in some way shape or form and thus are similar?

 

[Boo Radley]

Obamacare is essentially the same as a bill the Republicans proposed under the Clinton administration. It wasn't called socialism then.

GOP did the same with Cap and Trade. Bush Sr. enacted it (relating to sulfur dioxide and some other pollutants), and Sarah Palin touted it as a great free market solution to environmental concerns during the 2008 election. Obama wins, and practically the next day she's talking about how it will kill jobs. McCain did the same, as did the rest of the GOP.

Well, of course not. The socialism tactic is as old as the union. I just wish we could see something a little more original.

 

[cpwill]

In other news, Congress changes hands every few years between the parties. In 2006 and 2008 it was Iraq and Afghanistan, but I'm guessing you found this kind of smugness disgusting from a Dem in 06 and 08 pretty stupid.

not really. i railed at their political spinelessness in turning on the war they had supported and their disengeniousness in pretending that Bush had lied us into war. I also attacked their willingness to embrace the extremes of the anti-war crowd (such as Michael Moore and his particularly off-kilter brand of truthism).

but i didn't pretend like the war was anything but a drag for Republican candidates. Just as i predicted that the success of the surge would make it a (minor) republican issue in 2008; it was a Dem issue in 2006.

the point is that this election is shaping up to be somewhat above what we would expect from a usual "mid-term" election; in particular usually safe candidates seem to be in danger, if not underwater.

as we would expect from such a radical move away from the center of American politics; shoved down our throat at the express outrage and disapproval of the American people.

Most Voters Oppose the Reelection of Anyone Who Voted for the Health Care Law, Auto Bailouts, Stimulus Plan

...most Likely Voters think their representative in Congress does not deserve reelection if he or she voted for the national health care law, the auto bailouts or the $787-billion economic stimulus plan. Those votes also appear to be driving factors in the GOP’s consistent lead over Democrats on the Generic Congressional Ballot. Most strong supporters of President Obama believe those who voted for the measures should be reelected. Even more of those who Strongly Oppose the president disagree.

Forty-three percent (43%) of all Likely Voters say someone who voted for the health care law deserves to be reelected. Fifty percent (50%) oppose their reelection.

Thirty-six percent (36%) say if their local representative voted for the taxpayer bailouts of General Motors and Chrysler, he or she deserves to be returned to Congress. Fifty-three percent (53%) say that person does not deserve reelection.

Similarly, 41% say their representative in Congress should be reelected if he or she voted for the stimulus plan. But 50% don’t see it that way and say the individual should not be reelected.... tellingly, voters not affiliated with either party also feel strongly that supporters of the health care law, the auto bailouts and the stimulus should not be returned to Congress.

 

[CriticalThought]

Again compromise on your principles for something that's unlikely to pass if you do it and put your vote behind something you think is going to be broken, or realize that either way you're ideas aren't going to really get done or that what you think will hurt the country will happen so you may as well put forth a proposal you actually feel is GOOD and fits your principles.

Realistically, the Republicans have been playing politics not policy since they lost big in November of 08. I'm not saying that the Democrats did much better seeing as how they had to slaughter the bill to pass anything, but talking about "principles" when it comes to this kind of reform is ridiculous and naive. This could have been great policy, but if the Republicans disagreed with it on ideological grounds, they would have resisted it. I'm not trying to be partisan, but the GOP went out of its way to demonize this legislation.

 

[Zyphlin]

Except there is no universal signal of "Great Policy". There's few if any policy that you show to a principled liberal and a principled conservative that both think "Great Policy!" What would've been "Great Policy" as described by some liberals on this forum was abhorrent policy to other conservatives. Yes, if this bill was "Great Policy" in the eyes of the Democrats I WOULD definitely have thought the Republicans would go against it because based on their veiws and principles it wouldn't be "Great Policy" it'd be "disasterous policy".

The better example is if the Democrats came up with a bill that was essentially the ones the Republicans had put out and said "will you sign on this" or even if they just TOOK the republicans and said "Would you work with us if we just used that". If they'd say no at THAT ponit then yeah, you're right, they're playing politics. I think they'd pick principle though and had gone along with it because it was what they thought would be best for health care.

Something you disagree with on ideological grounds does not look like "Good Policy" in your mind because it generally would mean its trying to do things, or do them in a such a way, that is opposite of what you think will work or is helpful or proper.