Jump to content

U.S. Politics part X


EHK for Darwin

Recommended Posts

In recent speeches, President Obama has gone from his original point of view - that a serious and working overhaul of the healthcare system called for single-payer insurance; to saying that a tweaking of the existing system is called for, and nothing "drastic". But with whom is he compromising?

Now call me a liar again, and damn your eyes!

:) I don't disagree with what you want, not at all, I just don't see that he's flip flopped on this. What he appears to be going for is what I remember from the campaign, so I don't see the inconsistency you do. I looked up his campaign website and a couple old articles & it's consistent with my memory. The single payer mentions I saw since he's been in office I took for playing politics "I could work more toward this, so it would be better to work with me on this Big Pharma and conservatives" and/or just sending up a balloon.

I also agree with whoever said it earlier; Dems do have the bigger tent, there's a greater variety of them. Or, a less flattering way of putting it is that they don't walk in lockstep like Republicans often do. From what I've observed, it's *work* winning all their votes, plus snagging a Republican or two. Ramming isn't as easy as I would have thought six months ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would assume that a SCOTUS nomination is about as big-ticket as it gets.

Health-Care Reform.

It makes a SCOTUS nomination look like renaming a Post Office.

In recent speeches, President Obama has gone from his original point of view - that a serious and working overhaul of the healthcare system called for single-payer insurance; to saying that a tweaking of the existing system is called for, and nothing "drastic". But with whom is he compromising?

Um ... the American Public?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll never understand the hate. The man has been in office for less than half a year, and has been trying to actually run the country in a responsible way compared to the shit-platter he was handed on Inauguration Day. He isn't able to keep some campaign promises, but what politician ever has? Do people forget that Barack Obama is a politician first and foremost? Are people still deluded into thinking he's Liberal Jesus who will sweep through the country making everything all warm and fuzzy with a wave of his fingers?

I, for one, think the man is doing a good job. Maybe not as good of a job as he could, but he has two jobs at the same time: correcting the previous administration's screw-ups while trying to keep the country on the rails that lead to a prosperous future.

People who still think Obama should be able to do all of this as easily and as beautifully as he gives a speech are just as deluded as the people who still think George W. Bush did a good or even adequate job as president.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Come to think of it, I recall having little surprise regarding our military commitments either. Thought he's pretty much done what he said he was going to do wrt Iraq and Afghanistan. Not sure where he's strayed significantly, at any rate.

The increase in military spending (despite the proposed cuts) did surprise me.

Do agree that he screwed up closing down Gitmo and asking for funds to close down Gitmo before having a plan ready. And on a number of things on the civil liberties/national security front. As for money to Wallstreet I thought there was some oversight, just not enough - I admit, I don't know much about that though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

the American Public overwhelmingly supports single-payer healthcare. The margin is vastly higher when you consider Democrat and likely Democratic voters.

Last I remember, they overwhelmingly supported Heath Care REFORM.

Single-payer? Harder sell. And might not even be a great idea right away.

Obama has always been more "taking steps towards Single Payer", not actually going for it right off the bat.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What "fiscal conservatism" are you refering to? The largest new entitlement program in 40 years with Medicare part C? Lowering taxes while pushing two wars? Determining particular banks and insurance companies are "Too big to fail" and then "saving" them with taxpayer dollars? Would that be the "fiscal conservatism" you mean?

Ah, fiscal conservatism. I believe the fiscal conservatism he is referring to is that old Trojan Horse that the right has been swindling America with forever.

Fiscal conservatism will always have its adherents: it's never been proven to fail, if only because no one who has ever run on a campaign of fiscal conservatism has ever actually been fiscally conservative. Fiscal conservatism never fails, it is only betrayed.

It seems that by invoking fiscal conservatism one is announcing that one is not trustworthy (for politicians and pundits at least). Reagen, the famous fiscal conservative, presided over the largest tax hike in US history, as well as the greatest increase in debt. Statistically, its those damn liberals who actually keep the books balanced and the economy growing steadily.

Fiscal conservatism has always, and will always, actually meant doing whatever was necessary to keep the current rich rich and getting richer, and keeping the vast hordes of the dispossessed from rising up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Health-Care Reform.

It makes a SCOTUS nomination look like renaming a Post Office.

I think health care reform is about on a level with SCOTUS nomination. Depending on the age of the nominee (this one happens to be 54), this person could be affecting judicial rulings for the next four decades. Probably not the case here, but it is a very big deal.

Health care reform is huge, no doubt. It affects millions of people and businesses across the country. But SCOTUS is a pretty big deal, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I think health care reform is about on a level with SCOTUS nomination. Depending on the age of the nominee (this one happens to be 54), this person could be affecting judicial rulings for the next four decades. Probably not the case here, but it is a very big deal.

Health care reform is huge, no doubt. It affects millions of people and businesses across the country. But SCOTUS is a pretty big deal, too.

In it's long term impact? Maybe.

In the politcal shitstorm it will generate? Not even close.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In it's long term impact? Maybe.

In the politcal shitstorm it will generate? Not even close.

Ah, in that case I'd agree with you. :cheers:

Although Harriet Miers was a pretty ugly situaion for Bush and would have been even worse if he'd tried to press it forward.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Inigima,

What "fiscal conservatism" are you refering to? The largest new entitlement program in 40 years with Medicare part C? Lowering taxes while pushing two wars? Determining particular banks and insurance companies are "Too big to fail" and then "saving" them with taxpayer dollars? Would that be the "fiscal conservatism" you mean?

Harry,

Isn't a big plus for her that she was first appointed to the bench by George H. W. Bush? I'm not fond of the "Empathy" standard for Judicial nominees. There are two things I want in Judges: 1) Competent (i.e. understands the Law); 2) Impartial.

The "empathy" standard could be construed as looking for a judge who is biased in favor of those the Judge empathizes with.

I know most white people I know think that 'impartial' is the ideal. and most non-white people I know think impartial is a hoax, little more than a conservative buzzword that means 'partial to whites' because if the current subjective 'impartial' standard privileges whites then it's hardly objectively impartial.

A truly impartial justice would be good in many situations, Solomon dividing the baby in two but not just as a bait and switch trick, actually cutting a baby in half and giving each woman a half is a superb example of pure impartiality. I think the empathy standard that's being looked for is not to have a justice who is objectively unfair to those they don't empathize with but a justice who is not blind to the realities and history of the world in the name of 'impartiality'. Someone who's been subject with racism and sexism most of their life has probably a quite different picture of how racism and sexism are embedded in our society than someone who is embedded (or nearly embedded) with it and thus unable to understand it as well.

that's a terrible way to phrase it, what I'm trying to say is that I think empathy can be a Plato's cave situation, it could be the experience that lets you see the reality of the shadows the others who haven't had your experience outside the cave wouldn't have a picture of the full reality, only of what their experience encompassed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This poll does suggest that a majority do support single-payer but it kind of depends on the language. It says that 59% support national health insurance. I don't know if this is absolutely the same thing as saying that people support single-payer.

I definitely don't think this poll indicates that a majority of Americans support single-payer. What I read is that a majority of Americans want some kind of improvement, but I suspect most of them really haven't been willing to get into the weeds in terms of what form that improvement would take. That's what our legislators are for, ideally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

re: fiscal conservatism. in my lifetime the most fiscally conservative president has been Clinton.

I equate fiscal conservatism with a balanced budget and a tight rein on government expansion, ideally it would be working towards a more efficient and effective government rather than a more layered and ineffective inefficient beaurocracy. That would of course mean firing a few million beaurocrats, so it will never happen, and things will just get bigger and more ineffective with every new hire and new layer. in my mind, fiscal conservatism in the post-Bush-depression era (should we come out of his depression soon) would mean higher taxes (a more progressive tax code as well) and lower overhead. ;)

Impossible and silly, but I hope to someday see a balanced budget again.

I'd like to see Obama institute some 'war games' akin to the Louisiana Maneuvers for all departments of government. Those who succeed get promoted, those who fail get early retirement (since this would mean retiring 90% of the FBI, CIA and Homeland security staff who would refuse to work with other departments and thus fail the 'games' it's pretty unlikely) Then have the new leaders of beaurocracy begin a total overhaul of the way of doing business. Basically look at what Marshall did for the Army between becoming Chief of Staff in 38 and December 7 1941, he only had three years to prepare for the second World War he and Gen. Fox Connor had predicted, but he'd managed to cull almost the entire army of the incompetent officers and had substantially reoriented the way things were done. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John "torture memo" Yoo has opined that Sotomayor is a poor candidate for SCOTUS because she is likely to bend the law to desired outcomes.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05...yor.php?ref=fpc

Ye gods, what kind of shameless, debased creatures populate the right wing hackocracy...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

WASHINGTON, DC – Seeking to quell fears of terrorists somehow breaking out of America's top-security prisons and wreaking havoc on the defenseless heartland, President Barack Obama moved quickly to announce an Anti-Terrorist Strike Force headed by veteran counterterrorism agent Jack Bauer and mutant superhero Wolverine. Already dubbed a "dream team," their appointment is seen by experts as a crucial step in reducing the mounting incidents of national conservatives and congressional Democrats crapping their pants.

"I believe a fictional threat is best met with decisive fictional force," explained President Obama. "Jack Bauer and Wolverine are among the very best we have when in comes to combating fantasy foes." Mr. Bauer said, "We're quite certain that our prisons are secure. Osama bin Laden and his agents wouldn't dare attempt a break-out, and would fail miserably if they tried. But I love this country. And should Lex Luthor, Magneto or the Loch Ness Monster attack, we'll be there to stop them."

Ha

Link to comment
Share on other sites

John "torture memo" Yoo has opined that Sotomayor is a poor candidate for SCOTUS because she is likely to bend the law to desired outcomes.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/05...yor.php?ref=fpc

Ye gods, what kind of shameless, debased creatures populate the right wing hackocracy...

Wow. I mean...wow.

Back to health care for a moment. My company is closing its doors, and announced only Friday that the health care group is being shut down at the end of the month. No COBRA, no extenson, nothing. The company brought in a health care consultant to help educate the employees on how to insure themselves within five days, and she was blunt in saying a) this situation was primarily the work of a broken health care system; and b) if Hillarycare had been enacted we wouldn't be in this situation. She was of course correct, but you should have seen the glowers she got from the majority of my coworkers, who voted for McCain for president and probably would again. Yep...they would rather give up their own health insurance than vote Democrat. I just don't get that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But Scalia is a genius. I mean, say what you like about his personality and his viewpoints, but his reasoning, while often tortuous, is tight.

I used to agree with you. I haven't felt that way in a while.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I feel a little ignorant asking this, but I want to hear something from other than news outlets: Just how hard to get/expensive is medical insurance in the US these days? I have been fortunate in my life, with benefits available to me before I really understood how it was they were benefiting me. In Peace Corps, I had excellent health care, provided by the US government. Now, I get insurance through the Korean government. I have never had to shop around for health care, nor have I ever paid for it.

I am in favor of universal coverage, because too many stories tell of uninsured people getting little/no care for very treatable things. Because I don't think a child should ever perish because the parents couldn't afford better coverage, couldn't pay to protect them. But, I have never actually had to think about how it affects me, nor have I had to worry too much about my family, either (sister works for state, so she and her family are good, brother and his wife have the same as I had). My father, in his mid 50s, spent 2 years without any insurance when he was laid off. But he never wanted to talk about it with me.

Now, I'm a 25 year old, athletic, non-smoking male. How difficult would this be for me? And, more importantly for my question, how hard is it for other people? For their families?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...