What can the democrats learn by the loss of Cockley

[Craig234]

The media drives the narrative. They intentionally did no exit polling in Mass so there would be no record to contradict their lies (for the five of us in the country that would look it up). Democrats make up around 33% of the Mass electorate. The rest are "ignependents".

The media narrative:

1. Since 2006 (when the Democrats supposedly took control) it takes 60 votes to "pass" legislation in the Senate. If the Democrats don't get 60 votes they have to move to the "center". Republicans don't have to move on anything.

2. Bi-partisanship (just watch any Washington press corp news conference and listen to the right wing questions and accusations from the so-called liberal media) is the sole responsibility of the Democrats. If the Republicans won't budge on anything it's not their fault. It's always the fault of the Democrats who need to move to the "center". Any Democrats who side with Republicans are called "moderate" or "centrist" Democrats by the media. That includes the endless obstruction of Obama's appointees too. Less than half have been confirmed. And from 2006 to 2008 when Bush threatened to veto legislation (if it ever got that far) the Democrats had to "move to the middle" in order for Bush not to veto it. It was not Bush's fault he threatened to veto it from when it was first introduced in the House. It was the fault of the Democrats who need to "move to the center".

3. For the first time in history, the losers in an election deserve as much air time as the winners. Example Dick Cheney, Sarah Palin, John McCain. Plus the endless stream of Republicans on the Sunday brain washing shows and during the week at prime time (proof: Nexis database search). The media narrative for ignorant Americans: "The Republicans seem to be doing a better job of getting their message out than the Democrats".

4. The Supreme Court case that was heard (Citizens United v FEC) is on the minds of all politicians in Washington. It was always known that they would rule in favor of Citizens United and against the FEC overturing yet another lower court ruling and trashing stare decisis thereby displaying once again that the activist judges are Alito, Roberts, Kennedy, Thomas, and Scalia. Due last week , but the Supreme court has delayed the writing of their decisions to at least this week. No one reported on this monumental case in network and cable news. The case will trash existing restrictions on Corporate funding of campaigns forever. All future elections will be completely funded by corporations thereby ensuring that Republicans have a permanent majority. Many Democrats have moved to the right in anticipation of this decision to attempt to hold onto their jobs. Yet none of this is newsworthy.

Americans deserve what they get because they are lazy and would rather use their remote control from their armchair to find the "truth". With the corporate media all that is apparently necessary for Americans to "learn" is repetition. Ivan Pavlov would have been proud.

John

Excellent post. On that last point, I've tried one small thing to point people in the right direction. Number of comments I've had from anyone that they've look at anything in months: zero.

 

[craftech]

How is this a "medical malpractice" problem?

See, tort reform can screw the little guy. That's why most dems don't like it.

October 2009

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent"

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

1. CBO Analysis requested by the Republicans

2. Results showed little effect

3. Results covered up by news media

4. Republicans and news media continue the lie.

5. Americans continue repeating it.

John

 

[shiner]

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent"

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

1. CBO Analysis requested by the Republicans

2. Results showed little effect

3. Results covered up by news media

4. Republicans and news media continue the lie.

5. Americans continue repeating it.

John

So saving .5% isn't worth it? Typical wrongheaded thinking.

Decreasing costs should always be preferable to just continuing to throw good money after bad.

 

[Craig234]

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent"

http://cboblog.cbo.gov/?p=389

1. CBO Analysis requested by the Republicans

2. Results showed little effect

3. Results covered up by news media

4. Republicans and news media continue the lie.

5. Americans continue repeating it.

John

Many issues in our economy are a balnace between competing forces.

In a simplistic model:

Too few rights for victims called by tight-wing marketers "tort reform" - is injustice to them. Too many rights for victims gets their lawyers rich and adds huge burdens to the providers and prices to patients.

Because there are competing groups - lawyers (the public isn't organized and doesn't donate) and those who pay the lawsuits - providers, hospitals, insurers - it's natural for them to align with a party.

The thing is, this simple model doesn't mean the pendulum is where is best. What if the provider side has been dominant and aoready shifted the pendulum way to its side?

The fact people might say 'that's not what I hear, I hear all the time we need tort reform', doesn't make it right, it can be an indication of how the providers are dominating BECAUSE you are hearing their side.

This whole tort reform issue is one more big marketing push by the paid representatives of the providers/insurers - the Republican party. They're as objective as a car salesman.

People have to really look for independant facts to make an iinformed opinion - but we hear mostly from people who 'heard' propaganda and took it at face value.

It's terrribly effective how public opinion is changed by money.

 

[craftech]

So saving .5% isn't worth it? Typical wrongheaded thinking.

Decreasing costs should always be preferable to just continuing to throw good money after bad.

Nice try. The (R + news media) argument is that tort reform is the answer. The fact that they covered up the CBO analysis says it all.

 

[shiner]

Nice try. The (R + news media) argument is that tort reform is the answer. The fact that they covered up the CBO analysis says it all.

You didn't answer my question....is saving .5% not worth doing?

.5% of 2.2 trillion is a lot of $

 

[hal2kilo]

Yep, that is exactly the kind of BS the Republicans will run on. If the health care bill fails, it doesn't matter what was actually in it, the Republicans will swear up and down it was death panels. The Dems didn't even try for real reform and have now suffered, in a small way, the result of their timidity (cravenness and beholding to insurance industry donations really).

This isn't the end of the world for the Dems by any means, they still hold the House, the Senate, and the White House. Now they just need to stop acting like a bunch of girly men and do something with their majority.

This/

 

[craftech]

You didn't answer my question....is saving .5% not worth doing?

.5% of 2.2 trillion is a lot of $

Show me the proof of $2.2 trillion!

However,

"President Obama further described his plan in a September 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress. His plan mentions: deficit neutrality; not allowing insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions; capping out of pocket expenses; creation of an insurance exchange for individuals and small businesses; tax credits for individuals and small companies; independent commissions to identify fraud, waste and abuse; and malpractice reform projects, among other topics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

CBO also found the Senate bill would not only pay for itself through a raft of cuts and taxes, but would actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. Likewise, the House bill would put $138 billion back into the budget.
"CBO also noted that it "has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more," but it said that "the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits."

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf#page=15

"In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP."

Similarly, CBO's July 2 analysis of the Senate HELP bill shows that the bulk of cost is for subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans purchasing insurance. And CBO found that the House bill's proposed Medicaid expansion and subsidy provision for some families to purchase insurance through the exchanges would cost roughly $891 billion over 10 years, which would be "more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $427 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $594 billion over that period."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10431/07-02-HELPltr.pdf

With consistent and clear (but covered up by the news media) analysis that those proposals with the strongest public option present the largest cost savings are you now in favor of the public option for REAL savings?

 

[GoPackGo]

The dems are saying this is the candidates fault and not a referendum on the state of our government, economy, etc...well who selected the candidate to run for "Ted Kennedy's Seat"???

 

[Craig234]

The dems are saying this is the candidates fault and not a referendum on the state of our government, economy, etc...well who selected the candidate to run for "Ted Kennedy's Seat"???

Some of the most unpopular Democrats in the nation. Your point doesn't contradict theirs.

 

[GoPackGo]

Some of the most unpopular Democrats in the nation. Your point doesn't contradict theirs.

I think it does say then is that the dems in MA must be idiots then since they knew for a long time that Kennedy's time was limited.

Now this election only fills out the remainder of Kennedy's term right?

 

[craftech]

Show me the proof of $2.2 trillion!

However,

"President Obama further described his plan in a September 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress. His plan mentions: deficit neutrality; not allowing insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions; capping out of pocket expenses; creation of an insurance exchange for individuals and small businesses; tax credits for individuals and small companies; independent commissions to identify fraud, waste and abuse; and malpractice reform projects, among other topics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

CBO also found the Senate bill would not only pay for itself through a raft of cuts and taxes, but would actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. Likewise, the House bill would put $138 billion back into the budget.
"CBO also noted that it "has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more," but it said that "the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits."

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf#page=15

"In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP."

Similarly, CBO's July 2 analysis of the Senate HELP bill shows that the bulk of cost is for subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans purchasing insurance. And CBO found that the House bill's proposed Medicaid expansion and subsidy provision for some families to purchase insurance through the exchanges would cost roughly $891 billion over 10 years, which would be "more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $427 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $594 billion over that period."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10431/07-02-HELPltr.pdf

With consistent and clear (but covered up by the news media) analysis that those proposals with the strongest public option present the largest cost savings are you now in favor of the public option for REAL savings?

Shiner,

You haven't answered my questions. Put down the TV remote for a minute.

1. Show me the $2.2 trillion in costs. The rest of that CBO analysis about tort reform was as follows:

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)"

2.Are you now in favor of the Public Option because it will save $265 billion in administrative costs between 2010 and 2020 as CBO pointed out or not?


John

 

[StageLeft]

The dems are saying this is the candidates fault and not a referendum on the state of our government, economy, etc...well who selected the candidate to run for "Ted Kennedy's Seat"???

Their loss. Only a fool or a narcissist is incapable of learning from defeat.

 

[shiner]

Show me the proof of $2.2 trillion!

However,

"President Obama further described his plan in a September 2009 speech to a joint session of Congress. His plan mentions: deficit neutrality; not allowing insurance companies to discriminate based on pre-existing conditions; capping out of pocket expenses; creation of an insurance exchange for individuals and small businesses; tax credits for individuals and small companies; independent commissions to identify fraud, waste and abuse; and malpractice reform projects, among other topics."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Health_care_reform_in_the_United_States

CBO also found the Senate bill would not only pay for itself through a raft of cuts and taxes, but would actually reduce the deficit by $130 billion over 10 years. Likewise, the House bill would put $138 billion back into the budget.
"CBO also noted that it "has not extrapolated estimates further into the future, because the uncertainties surrounding them are magnified even more," but it said that "the legislation would probably continue to reduce budget deficits."

http://cbo.gov/ftpdocs/107xx/doc10731/Reid_letter_11_18_09.pdf#page=15

"In the decade after 2019, the gross cost of the coverage expansion would probably exceed 1 percent of gross domestic product (GDP), but the added revenues and cost savings would probably be greater. Consequently, CBO expects that the bill, if enacted, would reduce federal budget deficits over the ensuing decade relative to those projected under current law -- with a total effect during that decade that is in a broad range around one-quarter percent of GDP."

Similarly, CBO's July 2 analysis of the Senate HELP bill shows that the bulk of cost is for subsidies for lower- and middle-income Americans purchasing insurance. And CBO found that the House bill's proposed Medicaid expansion and subsidy provision for some families to purchase insurance through the exchanges would cost roughly $891 billion over 10 years, which would be "more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $427 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions, which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by $594 billion over that period."
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/104xx/doc10431/07-02-HELPltr.pdf

With consistent and clear (but covered up by the news media) analysis that those proposals with the strongest public option present the largest cost savings are you now in favor of the public option for REAL savings?

"NHE grew 6.1% to $2.2 trillion in 2007, or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2% of Gross Domestic Product."

from Here

As to the rest of your post. I'm for finding an option that provides at least the same level of coverage for those that already have insurance, doesn't force people who already have insurance to change, doesn't raise taxes or increase costs, covers those without insurance(who want it) and truly saves money.

As for Obama's plan. What has he done to get it passed? Seems to me he is content to sit on the sidelines and cheerlead while Harry and Nancy try to push through a mess of a bill that doesn't accomplish any of the things I stated I wanted to see above and is not a real improvment over the system we have now.

 

[lothar]

Learn to run a beer test before selecting candidates.

Who'd you rather have a beer with, Carter or Reagan? Reagan.
Who'd you rather have a beer with, Bush Sr. or Clinton? Clinton.
Who'd you rather have a beer with, Al Gore or Bush Jr.? Bush Jr.
Who'd you rather have a beer with, Obama or McCain? Obama.


Who'd you rather have a beer with Scott Brown or Martha Coakley? You can't possibly miss this one.

I don't drink beer so replace Coca-Cola with beer in my post. I only used beer since that's something most Americans will understand more.

 

[shiner]

Shiner,

You haven't answered my questions. Put down the TV remote for a minute.

1. Show me the $2.2 trillion in costs. The rest of that CBO analysis about tort reform was as follows:

"CBO now estimates that implementing a typical package of tort reform proposals nationwide would reduce total U.S. health care spending by about 0.5 percent (about $11 billion in 2009). That figure is the sum of a direct reduction in spending of 0.2 percent from lower medical liability premiums and an additional indirect reduction of 0.3 percent from slightly less utilization of health care services. (Those estimates take into account the fact that because many states have already implemented some of the changes in the package, a significant fraction of the potential cost savings has already been realized.)"

2.Are you now in favor of the Public Option because it will save $265 billion in administrative costs between 2010 and 2020 as CBO pointed out or not?


John

I'm at work....can't respond instantly. I'm only on here while on conference calls or other similar time wasters.

 

[shiner]

Learn to run a beer test before selecting candidates.

Who'd you rather have a beer with, Carter or Reagan? Reagan.
Who'd you rather have a beer with, Bush Sr. or Clinton? Clinton.
Who'd you rather have a beer with, Al Gore or Bush Jr.? Bush Jr.
Who'd you rather have a beer with, Obama or McCain? Obama.


Who'd you rather have a beer with Scott Brown or Martha Coakley? You can't possibly miss this one.

I don't drink beer so replace Coca-Cola with beer in my post. I only used beer since that's something most Americans will understand more.

I'd rather have a beer with McCain than Obama. McCain would have much more interesting stories about his time in Vietnam.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I'd rather have a beer with McCain than Obama. McCain would have much more interesting stories about his time in Vietnam.

HappyPuppy would top them both.

 

[StageLeft]

I'd rather have a beer with McCain than Obama. McCain would have much more interesting stories about his time in Vietnam.

But would they be true?

*SCORE*

 

[brencat]

You'd probably get a TON of support from both sides of the aisle, if you passed/proposed a law limiting the maximum payout to the lawyer in ANY class-action (of sufficient size, maybe with a "class" of more than 100 plaintiffs and/or a payout of over $25M) case to 5%-10% of the total amount awarded.

I agree and would support a proposal such as this! However I'm a realist and cynical as hell too, so I know the trial bar would never agree to work for less. That's like asking a Wall St firm to work for a 1-2% underwriting fee on an equity IPO when the normal fee is 5-6%. Nice concept, never going to happen.

 

[craftech]

"NHE grew 6.1% to $2.2 trillion in 2007, or $7,421 per person, and accounted for 16.2% of Gross Domestic Product."

from Here

As to the rest of your post. I'm for finding an option that provides at least the same level of coverage for those that already have insurance, doesn't force people who already have insurance to change, doesn't raise taxes or increase costs, covers those without insurance(who want it) and truly saves money.

As for Obama's plan. What has he done to get it passed? Seems to me he is content to sit on the sidelines and cheerlead while Harry and Nancy try to push through a mess of a bill that doesn't accomplish any of the things I stated I wanted to see above and is not a real improvment over the system we have now.

That analysis from 2007 is not a cost savings estimate as the CBO scores. I gave you several CBO analysis. You are doing your own analysis or listening to commentators. Read the CBO reports on all of this. No one from either party ever accuses the CBO of being dishonest. It's just that the Republicans and the news media don't like to cite them when they lie to the public (which is most of the time). The things you say you want were in the House bill (especially the original one HR3200). Americans are lazy and easily trained as I pointed out above. Their corporate trainers will have complete control of them after the covered up Supreme Court decision I described above. And no matter how bad it gets for Americans they will always point the finger at who they are told to and support those who are screwing them.

And yes, Obama in his zeal to appeal to independents took a back seat to the whole process instead of having weekly national addresses to counter the lies and move the process forward. Of course the media threatened not to broadcast him the last time he did that and only backed off last minute. The House bill would have saved the most money according to CBO. The Senate bill would save a lot less. All of it dependent upon the strength of the Public Option. Single payer (which was taken off the table from the beginning) would have probably saved the most. The Republican "plan" that they finally presented cost money with no savings. Not that any of it matters because the lies will always prevail as media is even further consolidated into the hands of fewer corporations and the internet as as source of information (like CBO reports) disappears after Republicans get rid of Net Neutrality. The "maverick" recently proposed it along with (R) Joe Wilson of Texas a long time advocate of "let's plug the final leak"... A lobotomy will be in order at that point

John

 

[Craig234]

I think it does say then is that the dems in MA must be idiots then since they knew for a long time that Kennedy's time was limited.

Now this election only fills out the remainder of Kennedy's term right?

To be fair, 'wrong' doesn't always mean 'idiots'. And parties have 'machines' that sometimes get not too good people. Two weeks agio polls showed her up 20 points and one one called them 'idiots'.

But they sure look like it in hindsight. If she won by 20 points, we wouldn't be talking about how bad she was.

It seeems clear she has a number of flaws, some which may have been more clear earler, that didn't seem to make her a bad pick.

And doesn't it seem pretty clear if not for the healthcare issue, she probably would have won?

What I heard in this forum is yes, his term expires in two years.

 

[brencat]

I don't think Keynsian economics is a failure. What you will notice in his theories that yes you do stimulate by issuing debt in times of trouble, but when times are good you need to PAY DOWN THAT DEBT and save CASH for the next rainy day so you can issue debt again. Its more about even keel than just spending yourself into oblivion. A lot of people don't get that and its easy to bash the system because we never do step 2 so its always looking like 'Keynsian economics are evil bla bla bla'

Bolded for emphasis. Again my cynical side coming out. Perhaps I shouldn't dismiss Keynsian theory outright, but the fact is there is NO political will to ever cut entitlements or spending to reasonable levels. Therefore, knowing what will happen every time we cut rates or ramp spending, that it becomes the new baseline for pork, we must conclude that Keynsian solutions are unworkable and unsustainable in the present day political atmosphere.

 

[craftech]

Bolded for emphasis. Again my cynical side coming out. Perhaps I shouldn't dismiss Keynsian theory outright, but the fact is there is NO political will to ever cut entitlements or spending to reasonable levels. Therefore, knowing what will happen every time we cut rates or ramp spending, that it becomes the new baseline for pork, we must conclude that Keynsian solutions are unworkable and unsustainable in the present day political atmosphere.

Keynesian theory requires that there is a circular flow of money in the economy, as my spending becomes part of your earnings, and your spending becomes part of my earnings. Hoarding money or suggesting that people do that puts the screws to the theory in terms of recession. As far as the Great Depression goes, his theory was rejected, but massive spending by the government did occur in the form of defense spending. So I guess Keynesian spending worked if one can attribute what happened to it. At least eight other world economies emulated it after WWII. But it did set up a phony war between liberals and conservatives post WWII. Enter the FED. Too little money in the economy means crushing unemployment; too much money means runaway inflation. Then of course you have Milton Friedman's theories which Reagan supposedly ascribed to, but he was thoroughly Keynesian.


Thanks for the discussion today. Gotta go. This was fun. Hope you all enjoy your day.

Regards,

John

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

That analysis from 2007 is not a cost savings estimate as the CBO scores. I gave you several CBO analysis. You are doing your own analysis or listening to commentators. Read the CBO reports on all of this. No one from either party ever accuses the CBO of being dishonest. It's just that the Republicans and the news media don't like to cite them when they lie to the public (which is most of the time). The things you say you want were in the House bill (especially the original one HR3200). Americans are lazy and easily trained as I pointed out above. Their corporate trainers will have complete control of them after the covered up Supreme Court decision I described above. And no matter how bad it gets for Americans they will always point the finger at who they are told to and support those who are screwing them.

And yes, Obama in his zeal to appeal to independents took a back seat to the whole process instead of having weekly national addresses to counter the lies and move the process forward. Of course the media threatened not to broadcast him the last time he did that and only backed off last minute. The House bill would have saved the most money according to CBO. The Senate bill would save a lot less. All of it dependent upon the strength of the Public Option. Single payer (which was taken off the table from the beginning) would have probably saved the most. The Republican "plan" that they finally presented cost money with no savings. Not that any of it matters because the lies will always prevail as media is even further consolidated into the hands of fewer corporations and the internet as as source of information (like CBO reports) disappears after Republicans get rid of Net Neutrality. The "maverick" recently proposed it along with (R) Joe Wilson of Texas a long time advocate of "let's plug the final leak"... A lobotomy will be in order at that point

John

The theory is excellent. Now imagine it being implemented by the people who brought us Coakley.