US Politics: Corporations are made out of people

[Crazydog7]

some of those comments are out of this world even for Tea Party people.

Paid for voters? Who honestly believes this shit?

[DanteGabriel]

some of those comments are out of this world even for Tea Party people.

Paid for voters? Who honestly believes this shit?

Vote fraud is a storyline that Republicans trot out every four years, if not every two. Mostly, it seems, because they find it difficult to fathom how few non-white-Christian-males want to vote for them.

[Shryke]

some of those comments are out of this world even for Tea Party people.

Paid for voters? Who honestly believes this shit?

The people passing laws about it? The people who struck down or helped strike down the VRA in the SCOTUS?

[awesome possum]

As we've seen over the years, if the Republicans are screaming loud and angrily about something, it's likely projection. The fact that Republicans have primarily been the ones caught in the very few cases of voter fraud that have been brought to light these last several years only serves to back this up.

[TrackerNeil]

Single payer was impossible after the midterms, but when it was possible is between January 2009 and January 2011. And I do fault the president for working so hard to be bipartisan that he left the American people with nothing except an insurance requirement (which the HMOs LOVE by the way), some very basic regulations, and so much political backlash after years of battling over the law that we're seeing states ignore a federal mandate on a level not seen since the fucking Jackson presidency.

I disagree with this for so many reasons.

A) Single-payer was NOT possible 2009-2010, simply because there was insufficient congressional support. Hell, the Democratic Senate couldn't even get a public option, so I can't see how on earth single-payer had a realistic chance.

B ) If you think the ACA is just a mandate plus a few regulations, look again. It's much, much more.

C) The backlash against the ACA was inevitable and not Barack Obama's fault. The GOP had (and still has) no interest in making sure all or most Americans had health insurance, but they lost and they were not going to go down quietly. It's possible that the Republican Party of the 1950s might have been amenable to a deal, but that's not the party the Democrats had to deal with in 2009.

[Queen Ayras Lord Commander]

rable, Rable, RABLE!

[awesome possum]

rable, Rable, RABLE!

That adds nothing to the conversation. I mean, except nothing.

[karaddin]

Tracker - while I don't disagree with any of that I do find it annoying that it feels like the ACA has generated just as much back lash as single payer would have for substantially less gains. I know they couldn't have passed it due to lack of support within the Dems but it's just a real shame to have this much blow back over the compromise result.

I also think the technical screw ups with the opening of the exchanges was really really bad PR that didn't help, even if it's a non issue in the long term.

[awesome possum]

So it's pretty well known that Joe Lieberman was a major headache near the passage of the ACA in that he knew his vote was needed and that he had leverage and that he quite possibly killed the so-called public option. But I'd forgotten the subtext which was that he faced a Thad Chochran-esque attack from his left from Ned LaMont. So did he really do it for the insurance industry as was widely presumed, or did he do it to say "fuck you" to the left for daring to challenge him in his Senate re-election?

I think it was a bit of both. He wanted to give a big middle finger to the party that threw him out and at the same time get some nice kickbacks.

[Shryke]

Everything that Neil said is true, unsurprisingly, but I have to confess a shameful blind spot that I don't recall from the past discussions of the ACA.

So it's pretty well known that Joe Lieberman was a major headache near the passage of the ACA in that he knew his vote was needed and that he had leverage and that he quite possibly killed the so-called public option. But I'd forgotten the subtext which was that he faced a Thad Chochran-esque attack from his left from Ned LaMont. So did he really do it for the insurance industry as was widely presumed, or did he do it to say "fuck you" to the left for daring to challenge him in his Senate re-election?

I think it's mostly that he's not that liberal a guy.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Everything that Neil said is true, unsurprisingly, but I have to confess a shameful blind spot that I don't recall from the past discussions of the ACA.

So it's pretty well known that Joe Lieberman was a major headache near the passage of the ACA in that he knew his vote was needed and that he had leverage and that he quite possibly killed the so-called public option. But I'd forgotten the subtext which was that he faced a Thad Chochran-esque attack from his left from Ned LaMont. So did he really do it for the insurance industry as was widely presumed, or did he do it to say "fuck you" to the left for daring to challenge him in his Senate re-election?

The issue with Lieberman though is that not only did he lose the Democratic primary, he stood as an independent with the tacit support of the Democratic Establishment, won, then screwed over that same Establishment that had defended him against the insurgents.

[ThinkerX]

http://www.nbcnews.com/storyline/immigration-border-crisis/murrieta-protesters-supporters-clash-no-buses-sight-n148481

Murrieta, a town of about 103,000 about 80 miles southeast of Los Angeles, became a flashpoint in the immigration crisis after protesters on Tuesday blocked the road to an intake facility and prevented three buses carrying about 140 migrants from getting through. The buses eventually turned around and went to another facility.

Demonstrators opposed to the transfer — part of a federal plan to relieve Texas facilities overwhelmed by more than 50,000 unaccompanied children who have poured across the border since October — weren’t the only ones who showed up in Murrieta Friday.

A crowd supporting the immigrants also turned out, and the two camps at times shouted at one another from across a country road. Chants of “USA!”, “Go home!”, and “Stop breaking the law” were met with “Refugees are not illegal!”, “Racists! Racists!”, and “Si se puede!”, which in English means “yes, we can.”

No solution required for anytime this decade, of course.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

The issue with Lieberman though is that not only did he lose the Democratic primary, he stood as an independent with the tacit support of the Democratic Establishment, won, then screwed over that same Establishment that had defended him against the insurgents.

Actually Lieberman ended up with the tacit support of the Republican establishment, which ignored its own candidate (who could never have won) to help Lieberman. Republicans who made an endorsement in the race endorsed Lieberman. The Democratic Party and big-name Democrats endorsed and supported Lamont.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

RBPL,

The issue with Lieberman though is that not only did he lose the Democratic primary, he stood as an independent with the tacit support of the Democratic Establishment, won, then screwed over that same Establishment that had defended him against the insurgents.

Arlan Spector was borderline, got reelected with Republican support, and then switched parties.

[TrackerNeil]

So it's pretty well known that Joe Lieberman was a major headache near the passage of the ACA in that he knew his vote was needed and that he had leverage and that he quite possibly killed the so-called public option. But I'd forgotten the subtext which was that he faced a Thad Chochran-esque attack from his left from Ned LaMont. So did he really do it for the insurance industry as was widely presumed, or did he do it to say "fuck you" to the left for daring to challenge him in his Senate re-election?

I wish I knew, I really do. Ego, petty spite, greed...any of these are plausible explanations.

Tracker - while I don't disagree with any of that I do find it annoying that it feels like the ACA has generated just as much back lash as single payer would have for substantially less gains. I know they couldn't have passed it due to lack of support within the Dems but it's just a real shame to have this much blow back over the compromise result.

Honestly, I think that in today's political environment, Republicans were going to throw a giant hissy fit no matter what reforms the Democrats enacted. They didn't want any change, and they certainly weren't going to allow their opponents to score a political victory if they could help it, so here we are. Of course, in angling for a political victory they sustained a major policy loss, but that's the GOP.

Edited to add: What's even funnier is that the GOP really hasn't even gotten a political victory out of the ACA. I think Democrats were screwed in 2010 primarily because of the economy and the fact of the off-year election, not because Americans were pissed off about health insurance reform. The attack-dog mentality of the Republican Party doesn't really pay off long term, as we're going to see over the next few years when millions more Americans sign on to the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

I wish I knew, I really do. Ego, petty spite, greed...any of these are plausible explanations.

Honestly, I think that in today's political environment, Republicans were going to throw a giant hissy fit no matter what reforms the Democrats enacted. They didn't want any change, and they certainly weren't going to allow their opponents to score any political victory if they could help it, so here we are. Of course, in angling for a political victory they sustained a major policy loss, but that's the GOP.

Did they sustain a major policy loss? They got the healthcare policy that they had advocated for only a decade earlier. And they got it while getting the benefit of capitalizing on the public's general fear, particularly in the area of healthcare, of major policy change. They got their policy, then won an election on opposing it, then forced austerity on the country from one chamber of Congress.

My feeling is that Obama and the Democrats really fucked up in 2009 and 2010. As soon as the Republicans showed not only their unwillingness to compromise, but insistence on using the filibuster in an unprecedented manner to obstruct all major policy even after Democrats unilaterally compromised, on the issue of stimulus, they should have gone nuclear option and eliminated the filibuster and then passed all of the policies they had just resoundingly won an election running on.

[Fez]

Edited to add: What's even funnier is that the GOP really hasn't even gotten a political victory out of the ACA. I think Democrats were screwed in 2010 primarily because of the economy and the fact of the off-year election, not because Americans were pissed off about health insurance reform. The attack-dog mentality of the Republican Party doesn't really pay off long term, as we're going to see over the next few years when millions more Americans sign on to the largest expansion of the welfare state since Medicare.

They sort of did though. The ACA didn't start doing much of anything until Jan. 1, 2012, so back in November 2010 when the economy was still in complete shambles Republicans could plausibly say that Democrats wasted their time on this "horrendous attack on freedom" instead of focusing on job creation. Tackling health reform was the right policy move, but it should've come after a much, much greater focus on the economy. The stimulus should've been much larger, they should've been prepared for additional stimulus bills, and they should've passed a shitload of smaller bills about things like job-training and new hire tax credits. The economy would've still probably sucked, but not by quite as much, and Democrats would've had a lot of additional accomplishments to run on; which would've helped counter Republican attacks.

[TrackerNeil]

Did they sustain a major policy loss? They got the healthcare policy that they had advocated for only a decade earlier. And they got it while getting the benefit of capitalizing on the public's general fear, particularly in the area of healthcare, of major policy change. They got their policy, then won an election on opposing it, then forced austerity on the country from one chamber of Congress.

My feeling is that Obama and the Democrats really fucked up in 2009 and 2010. As soon as the Republicans showed not only their unwillingness to compromise, but insistence on using the filibuster in an unprecedented manner to obstruct all major policy even after Democrats unilaterally compromised, on the issue of stimulus, they should have gone nuclear option and eliminated the filibuster and then passed all of the policies they had just resoundingly won an election running on.

I don't think the GOP was ever serious about health insurance reform; I think the Heritage plan was, largely, a tactic to demonstrate Republican willingness to reform a system that desperately needed it. The instant the Clinton plan went down, Republicans quickly abandoned their alternative and went about their business. They are not secretly pleased to see the ACA working, and they'd repeal it if they could. They can't, though, without ticking off millions of Americans that might vote for them, so right now they're slowly and gracelessly surrendering.

I do agree with you, however, that in 2009-2010 Democrats could have and should have removed some implements from the obstruction tool box; namely, the debt ceiling and the filibuster. For example, Pelosi and Reid could have passed legislation raising the debt ceiling for ten years, thus preventing the GOP from using it as part of a hostage deal. Oh well.

They sort of did though. The ACA didn't start doing much of anything until Jan. 1, 2012, so back in November 2010 when the economy was still in complete shambles Republicans could plausibly say that Democrats wasted their time on this "horrendous attack on freedom" instead of focusing on job creation. Tackling health reform was the right policy move, but it should've come after a much, much greater focus on the economy. The stimulus should've been much larger, they should've been prepared for additional stimulus bills, and they should've passed a shitload of smaller bills about things like job-training and new hire tax credits. The economy would've still probably sucked, but not by quite as much, and Democrats would've had a lot of additional accomplishments to run on; which would've helped counter Republican attacks.

Carlos, greater stimulus just was not possible. The Republican Senators -- Specter, Collins and Snowe -- whose votes were needed to pass any stimulus simply balked at a figure greater than $800 billion. Pushing for more would have doomed the entire thing, and with the economy as bad as it was, failure was not an option. The Democrats took what they could get. As to a jobs bill, you might be right, but then again the ACA itself helps people weather the economy, so maybe not. Also, nobody expected that Republicans would prove intransigent enough to prefer economic hardship for Americans over a negotiated settlement with Democrats. Our system of government is predicated on the assumption that all involved parties want what's best for the nation, but today's GOP is so dysfunctional that said assumption is no longer true.

[Fez]

Carlos, greater stimulus just was not possible. The Republican Senators -- Specter, Collins and Snowe -- whose votes were needed to pass any stimulus simply balked at a figure greater than $800 billion. Pushing for more would have doomed the entire thing, and with the economy as bad as it was, failure was not an option. The Democrats took what they could get. As to a jobs bill, you might be right, but then again the ACA itself helps people weather the economy, so maybe not. Also, nobody expected that Republicans would prove intransigent enough to prefer economic hardship for Americans over a negotiated settlement with Democrats. Our system of government is predicated on the assumption that all involved parties want what's best for the nation, but today's GOP is so dysfunctional that said assumption is no longer true.

They voted for the stimulus, but their votes weren't needed. Well except Specter's, but once he switched parties he was a major team player because he wanted/needed help so badly for his campaign. The initial stimulus bill maybe couldn't have been much higher, but they could've and should've structured it so that it did more immediate things, and then they should've passed another bill in summer of 2009. Remember, Arlen Specter switched parties on April 28 and Ted Kennedy didn't die until August 25, for those four months Democrats had the 60 votes to do whatever their right flank was willing to do. Lieberman, Landeriu, Blanche, et al. weren't willing to go for single payer, but they supported economic stuff; remember they voted for the initial stimulus as well.

As for the ACA, it helps people weather the economy now, but the law did literally nothing when it was first passed. It was all delayed effects. The most minor of its reforms didn't take effect until Jan 1. 2011, which was already after the election.

[TrackerNeil]

They voted for the stimulus, but their votes weren't needed. Well except Specter's, but once he switched parties he was a major team player because he wanted/needed help so badly for his campaign. The initial stimulus bill maybe couldn't have been much higher, but they could've and should've structured it so that it did more immediate things, and then they should've passed another bill in summer of 2009. Remember, Arlen Specter switched parties on April 28 and Ted Kennedy didn't die until August 25, for those four months Democrats had the 60 votes to do whatever their right flank was willing to do. Lieberman, Landeriu, Blanche, et al. weren't willing to go for single payer, but they supported economic stuff; remember they voted for the initial stimulus as well.

As for the ACA, it helps people weather the economy now, but the law did literally nothing when it was first passed. It was all delayed effects. The most minor of its reforms didn't take effect until Jan 1. 2011, which was already after the election.

Actually, Spector, Collins and Snowe were all needed; none of them was willing to be the "deciding vote", so Harry Reid needed to keep them all on board. If one jumped ship, the other two were going to quickly follow. Yes, it's true that for four months the Democrats could have thwarted any filibuster, but it's hard to get big legislation ramped up, written, and passed in that time.

As to the ACA, since I don't think it significantly affected the 2010 election, I don't think it mattered what reforms happened when. Besides, even now when nearly ALL reforms are in place, Americans still poll negatively about the law. Admittedly, much of that comes from sheer ignorance, but there you are. I have no reason to believe Americans would have been less ignorant about the ACA in 2010 than they are now.