I get it, now.

[velvetpage]

I finally understand why support is falling for the health care reform as proposed. It's because you guys managed to elect the most cowardly bunch of idiots in the history of politics to do it for you. And it's not your fault - because the party that should have been doing it, not only didn't do it, but probably messed it up so badly that no one else will ever get the chance to do it right.

They should have gone for single-payer from the outset and then SETTLED for a robust public option. Now? Totally, completely fucked.

Comments

[merlyn4401.livejournal.com]

And you wonder why I grouse about the corruption of DC. Not to mention why I have zero faith in our government.

[threekidsinky.livejournal.com]

Yep. This is probably my biggest reason for being against a public option at this point (and most decidedly against a single-payer system where the government is the single payer!). Our government cannot do anything efficiently or effectively.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

I think it's more a matter of the legislative body cannot do anything efficiently or effectively. Once a government service is in place, it can often work fairly well - schools, roads, etc. are all examples. They can always be run better, but at least they run.

[threekidsinky.livejournal.com]

Ooooohhhh, don't get me started on that. First off, both of those examples are run by states, not by the federal government. Secondly, if you saw my city's school system, you would not use that argument. Efficient and effective are two descriptions that I don't think anyone here would use to describe our school system OR our roads department (which is currently in court due to a bribery scandal worth millions of dollars). They run, yes...but at what cost?

[pyat.livejournal.com]

In Canada, the provinces run the health care system. The Federal government legislates certain country-wide standards. I think a state-based single-payer healthcare might be good.

Are the schools as inefficient and ineffective as, say... an insurance company? :)

[threekidsinky.livejournal.com]

I never said we didn't need reform...I just don't think this is the right reform at this time.

And yes, as inefficient and ineffective as an insurance company. :-) Just as an example, our school system is busing hundreds of 5-yo kindergarten students (and thousands of older students) to opposite ends of the city. Spending millions of extra dollars on transportation alone to bus kids 20+ miles from their home, in the interest of "diversity" (but really, just to even out the test scores). Many of these 5yo students spend 90 minutes or more on the bus *each way*, many of them leave home at 6:30 and get home at 5:30, many of them have to transfer to a different bus halfway though, and none of them are allowed food or water (or potty breaks!) on the bus. A hugely inefficient use of resources (money and time), and really ineffective at diversifying anything but the color of the skin in each classroom. This is our government service at work.

[pyat.livejournal.com]

Well, what if you lived in, say... New York? Or Wisconsin?

[threekidsinky.livejournal.com]

I can't speak to that because I don't live there and have no idea how their systems are run. I do know that we are not by far the worst educational system in the country, so there are plenty of states that run things no better than we do.

[threekidsinky.livejournal.com]

And this isn't even the traditional busing method where kids from this neighborhood go to this school across town. Kids are assigned to schools based on a hierarchy list each parent sends in (which you can only list 2 schools in your geographic area...you have to list 4 schools in the other part of town). So literally, you could have 10 third-graders in the same neighborhood going to 10 different elementary schools (of which there are 89 to choose from!). CRAZY INSANE.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

How can this possibly be the wrong reform at this time? ANY reform is better than what's in place, or rather what isn't. And the current proposed reform is a hell of a lot better than it could be. Perfect? No. Good? Yes. Actually, it is. Or at least, it was until people started pandering to the lowest common denominator.

[threekidsinky.livejournal.com]

I don't mean health care reform is the wrong reform...just that the plan the President wants is the wrong way to go about it, IMO. There's a lot of reform that could happen between where we are and where he wants to be.

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

Personally, I think it's a case of terrible timing. I think Obama should have waited until the economy was on the upswing and then proposed it. People are scared atm and it's too easy for his opponents to capitalize on that fear. I guess it's possible that there are more racist idiots here than I realize...but in truth, I think it's that rising unemployment and costs and plummeting home values, etc., creates a bad environment in which to start a large new program. People are terrified of so many things right now; health care just happens to be the latest scapegoat.

I'm for health care reform, and I like Obama, but I still think the timing is sucky.

Also, bunches of our elected officials get contributions from insurance companies, medical groups, etc. So they're under a lot of pressure to please the groups that helped them get into office. Our whole election system is pretty fucked itself. :-/

[ladyperegrine.livejournal.com]

I should also probably actually read the link before commenting...sorry about that. :-)

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

Democrats never, ever walk in lockstep like the Republicans. Any road, neither one is like your parties. Each representative is supposed to vote their mind and represent constituents rather than party bosses.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

That has its downsides in cases like this. A party whip would make passing bills with meaningful improvements a much easier job.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

This. The GOP is well-known for playing extreme hardball with their candidates, and keeping them on a short leash after election. The Democrats are less "YOU WILL DO AS I SAY" and more the big-tent approach, which is fine, until you realize that the average American can't tell the difference between intellect and showmanship. =/

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

You've hit on part of it. You're leaving out the significant number of Americans who are unable to tell Fox News from reality, though.

You can speak the truth all you want, and so long as people are stupid enough to believe what they WANT rather than what IS, it won't matter.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

I don't think Obama & co. are cowardly idiots. I think they just vastly underestimated the right's capacity for spreading malicious misinformation. And single-payer would have been better, but the right-wing freakout would have been even more massive, possibly leading to health care reform failing completely. I'm not sure Obama could've even gotten enough support from the Democrats for that.

[velvetpage.livejournal.com]

But taking that line at the beginning, and then compromising on an unwatered-down public option, would have been preferable to starting out with the unwatered-down public option and ending up with the watered-down version.

[kisekileia.livejournal.com]

It would have, except that the level of freak-out from the right might have sunk the bill altogether. It's a difficult political calculation.

[bodhifox.livejournal.com]

This is an accurate assessment, as evidenced by the furor over the speech to students.

[thexphial.livejournal.com]

Except that it wouldn't have ended up with a non-watered-down public option, it would have ended in abandoning the idea AGAIN.

[dagoski.livejournal.com]

I don't get the cowardice either. For 30 years, Democrats have cowered and said 'Please don't hurt me Mr. Racist-In-Conservative-Clothing.' They ought be saying 'Please, Cracker... Do you know what kind of people live in my district? Screw with me and one of my constituents will bust a cap in yo ass.' There's already a lot of blood in the primary waters for 2010. My man, Arlen sure changed his tune on reform when Sestak threw his hat in. He seemed wobbly on a lot of the points including a public option, but he appears to have straightened up. I also think some of the Central PA inbreeds that showed up at his town halls really told him all he needed to know about the opposition to reform. Namely that they are waging a war over cultural identity not over policy. And, should they win that war, Jews like Specter will not be welcome in their US of A.

Coming down off my inflammatory language, the drama we're seeing played out in this so called debate is not about policy, but about differing views of the nation. Republicans, judging by the rhetoric of fringe elected leaders and the mainstream of the activists in the party, are pushing an Ethnic Nationalism. In other words, you have to be the right race and religion to belong in their nation. Damned if I know what they think is a distinct ethnicity in this country, but they think it's there somewhere. Meanwhile, the ever fragmented Democrat party adheres to Civic Nationalism, the view that the nation is community of consistent laws in which everyone who follows the covenant is a fellow countryman.

Anyone who is interested in the contest going on in the US should read Gellner's Nations and Nationalism. It's an anthropological view of the concept of nationalism and the introduction and opening chapter really seem to explain what we're seeing playing out in the US this year.

[morpheus0013.livejournal.com]

In an unusual outburst from the Republican side of the House chamber, Rep. Joe Wilson, R-S.C., shouted out "You lie" when the president said illegal immigrants would not benefit from his proposals.

I can’t help but look at this spineless response and see it in contrast to the previous administration. You know how gansta they are? DICK CHENEY IS STILL TALKING SMACK! (http://www.jackandjillpolitics.com/2009/09/when-will-this-white-house-learn-you-cannot-negotiate-with-terrorists/)

[neosis.livejournal.com]

After careful consideration, I think you both over and underestimate American politicians. I think Obama has been surprised by the actions of some of his fellow Democrats and the Republicans. I think Obama thought by taking the single-payer option off the agenda at the start he'd defang the Republicans and leave them unable to stir up controversy. Obviously he was seriously wrong.

Frankly, the Republicans are scared. Really scared. They're terrified that Obama will get the Democrats to pass a substantial health reform bill. Why? They don't want to see the "New Deal 2" coming to happen. Mostly they're afraid that if Obama comes through on his potential that they're going to spend long years, possible decades powerless and defeated.

The potential for the complete collapse of conservatism exists because much of their support is propped up on the idea that the U.S. government is inherently evil and incompetent. Health care reform, if done properly, would completely undermine one of the central memes of the Republican party. That's why they're fighting like rats trapped in a corners: because they are rats trapped in a corner.

On the Democratic side, the "Blue Dog" (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blue_Dog_Coalition) Democrats are in a sticky situation. They rely on the balance of power to keep their seats. A balance which, I might add, is going to slip away one way or the other. They don't want an amazingly successful health care reform bill because it means more Liberal Democrats would have a shot at replacing them in the primaries. On the other hand they also don't want the bill to fail because it means they might lose to a Republican challenger. They want a do nothing bill and right now they hold the balance of power.

Frankly, I think Obama probably needs to get the Democratic leadership to put the boot down on the Blue Dogs and give them the ultimatum, stop trying to derail the business or they'll be running independently. Of course, the problem is that without those 50 congressmen and senators, the Democrats have no majority in either house.

As far as the failure being "forever", I seriously doubt it. If 50 million Americans remain without health insurance the issue will come again and again until it's reaches some level of acceptability. You can't deny proper health care to a third of your population and expect things to stay that way. If it doesn't get fixed through proper channels, people with guns will be making sure other people die for the mistake.