Obama Already a Lame Duck? Obamacare Going Down
Barack Obama is already one of the least popular presidents since World War II. Well, of course we don’t know the end score yet, but only George W. Bush and Bill Clinton scored worse at this point of their presidency.
Yes, including Jimmy Carter, of all people.
Of course there is still hope for Obama. Clinton may have been unpopular during the first year – two years of his first term, but he made a major comeback afterwards. How did he do that? Right, by transforming himself into a pragmatist, a moderate; he learned to reach across the aisle and work with rather than against Republicans. And why did he do that? Because Republicans won the elections of 1994 – they took back Congress and the U.S. Senate. They forced Clinton to take them serious.
The same could happen to Obama. Let’s hope so; that’s best for America and the rest of the world.
Sadly, I get the distinct impression that Obama is determined to hang on to his far-left plans, and that he will continue to dismiss critics as pesky parasites. He repeated recently that he’s not willing to take Republicans serious. In fact, he’d veto Sen. John McCain’s health care plan if approved by Congress. As the Wall Street Journal recently opined, Obama is many things, but post-partisan isn’t one of them.
No wonder his approval rating continues to drop.
In the meantime, from the looks of it, Congress could very well choose to vote against Obamacare. That’s good news for Americans and pr0-America foreigners, of course, but less good for the president himself. If he faces defeat now, so early on in his presidency, he could quickly become a lame duck. After all, what member of Congress wants to support an unpopular and incompetent president? Right.
As if the above isn’t enough, yesterday proved to be yet another horrible day for Obama. When talking about the plan currently debated by Congress, Obama proved to have no idea what the plan is all about. Can Americans still opt for a private insurance? Their president doesn’t know.
Typical.
Yes people, he’s in way over his head.
And so, once again, it’s becoming clear that experience matters. Obama has only been in office for six months, but he’s already in trouble, and makes major mistake after major mistake.
Lastly, be sure to read this column by David Brooks. Brooks is, as most will know, America’s most famous moderate conservative – he was extremely positive about Obama only a few months ago. Today; not so. For Brooks only pragmatism matters; ideological solutions aren’t solutions at all. His correct conclusion: Obama is no pragmatist.
Townhall meeting in MD – on WUSA9.com
and the response.
Lets translate that from the tax and spend Left.
- You’ll either pay for it, or we’ll fine you (and you still wont have it). If you can afford it or not doesn’t matter. And oh yeah – we’ll raise your taxes and double that if the costs aren’t met.
The funny part is that the same instinct causing these Blue dogs to obstruct proceedings – protection of their careers and interests via kowtowing to the lobbyists who finance their campaigns – will be the same instinct that makes them vote for the bill when it comes down to actual voting.
They hope it will go away, because their lobbyists don’t like reform, but they know their own careers will be in severe risk if reform falters again (democrats were struck hard by their voters for failing to provide reform under Clinton) and this, rather than the fact their party or their constituents would also suffer if reform failed, will make them vote for a bill. The “conservative” democrats (in quotation marks because no American politicians actually base their decisions on philosophy or anything consistent) know their districts (and therefore their precious careers) will be in trouble if reform fails, so if they have to vote they’ll bite the bullet and vote for reform.
Lets translate that from the tax and spend Left.
- You’ll either pay for it, or we’ll fine you (and you still wont have it). If you can afford it or not doesn’t matter. And oh yeah – we’ll raise your taxes and double that if the costs aren’t met.
This is why it is fundamentally inaccurate to decree that health care is a ‘right’. Asserting human rights more correctly affirms freedoms, not restricts them. We can debate about whether or not it is wise (or humane, or moral) to affirm universal health care as an entitlement, but it can’t possibly be called a right when making it available to all necessitates the seizure of some people’s property in order to fund an entitlement for other individuals.
” it can’t possibly be called a right when making it available to all necessitates the seizure of some people’s property in order to fund an entitlement for other individuals.”
Actually, you sign up for the possibility of having your property seized by staying in America, a country were a majority are allowed to vote for such an event. This assent by the would-be tax-payer is the key.
Of course, taxes should never be levied frivolously and governments should always prioritize, erring on the side of providing less but preventing waste. I think the fact that health-care has now been a known economic and utilitarian issue for sixteen years and more ought to give it a high place on the list. The republicans had many chances to address the problem and their criticism right now could only be described as constructive and valuable by the most lenient. Rand and Reagan are long since dead and “Taxes/government = bad/evil” is no longer an interesting or plausible argument.
Of course, taxes should never be levied frivolously and governments should always prioritize
Of course, they generally are and the never do.
Actually, you sign up for the possibility of having your property seized by staying in America, a country were a majority are allowed to vote for such an event.
But we should always be vigilant against that tyranny of the majority, and should always recognize that we give up freedoms if we ourselves decide to vote for such entitlements.
Rand and Reagan are long since dead and “Taxes/government = bad/evil” is no longer an interesting or plausible argument. Wanna bet? Watch the polls and the progress (or lack of progress) on this bill.
“But we should always be vigilant against that tyranny of the majority, and should always recognize that we give up freedoms if we ourselves decide to vote for such entitlements.”
The freedom to get shafted by private insurers with near-monopolies in their respective states? Not all freedoms are effectively that important. There are cases where we have to accept that the government has to step in and vice versa. It’s not realistic to scrape the surface of the HC issue or pretend that the GOP needs to be supported in order to outweigh the bad aspects of the DNC.
“Wanna bet? Watch the polls and the progress (or lack of progress) on this bill.”
The democratic party will never survive in 2010 unless it passes reform, and once it is passed then the fear-mongering will be inert. It will be accepted just like Medicare was.
The democratic party will never survive in 2010 unless it passes reform, and once it is passed then the fear-mongering will be inert. It will be accepted just like Medicare was.
Only a partisan Democrat cares if the party surives the midterms. Most of us know that we get better governance when the branches are under separate control of the two parties.
Not all freedoms are effectively that important.
You can decide which are important to you, but you don’t get to decide what is important for Americans.
The freedom to get shafted by private insurers with near-monopolies in their respective states?
A perfect example of how we should get the govt OUT of the way (or have it function properly, to limit monopoly and increase competition in the marketplace) instead of giving more control to the same govt that has already mucked things up.
True that. I suppose Sweden’s being 2nd highest tax impact amongst industrialised nations is a worthy goal to folks like Garland.
“Only a partisan Democrat cares if the party surives the midterms.”
That is, all the people who voted for democratic congresswomen and men? Listen, reform being shoved into 2011 or whenever is not in the interest of anyone, not even the people who didn’t vote for democrats. The democrats in congress would be doing themselves a disfavor, sure, but they would be going against the will of their voters as well. Can you honestly say that you think the GOP would let HC reform happen if someone proved today that all of their concerns for the bill were invalid? They know that if reform doesn’t happen the democrats and Obama will be punished (that is, they will make gains in 2010 because of disgust with democrats, not because voters will reward them for bravely stopping the mega-socialist death-reform of rationing and death) and they would gladly oppose any reform for that goal. Their criticism so far has been completely useless.
“Most of us know that we get better governance when the branches are under separate control of the two parties.”
Governance measured in what? Not only growth I hope.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yBU2IH33oeM/RdW7TYVHjiI/AAAAAAAAACM/pN8xeaMIbCo/s1600-h/God+Punishes,+part+4,+Table+2.jpg
“A perfect example of how we should get the govt OUT of the way (or have it function properly, to limit monopoly and increase competition in the marketplace) instead of giving more control to the same govt that has already mucked things up.”
The costliest HC after the US is in France, and they still get more coverage for less of a buck. Are you going to tell me France accomplished this by going the way you or the GOP would rather have it?
Only, really? Ford’s 39% was better than Obama’s 55%?
Of course he is in a virtual tie with Nixon, Reagan, and Bush 43. As far as popularity at this point in his term he is in the middle of the pack.
Kastanj, you have a lot to learn about American voters if you believe that everyone votes along party lines and deliberately chooses a “D” or “R” representative based on a desire to see one party or the other in charge. Many, many, many of the voters in ‘06 and ‘08 who elected D Congresscritters did so for other reasons- mostly disgust with the way the R party had been behaving, and others because the D candidate campaigned on conservative platform (thus the problem between Nancy and her Blue Dogs right now, who know they are very vulnerable if they support her far left agenda.)
What you seem to fail to realize is that even the voters who wanted ‘change’ in the form of healthcare reform recognize that the current offering is a pile of dog mess- and they’ll reward the Blue Dogs if they pull together a coaltion to block it in favor of more meaningful reform on the next go around.
The costliest HC after the US is in France, and they still get more coverage for less of a buck. Are you going to tell me France accomplished this by going the way you or the GOP would rather have it?
No, I’m telling you that you need to stop comparing apples to oranges. France’s population is closer to the size of one of our larger states than it is to the US as a whole, so there’s a big issue of scalability. And as I mentioned in the other thread about eldercare, our political system consists of heavily funded interest groups which lobby to prevent rationing of care (in this particular case, among the elderly.) Most of the additional cost in the US healthcare system as compared to France or other EU nations is in what we spend on people in their 70s, 80s, and above. Culturally and politically, I don’t see any way that we’re going to turn that around, so the current proposals do nothing to address the major driver of cost increases.
Governance measured in what? Not only growth I hope.
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_yBU2IH33oeM/RdW7TYVHjiI/AAAAAAAAACM/pN8xeaMIbCo/s1600-h/God+Punishes,+part+4,+Table+2.jpg
I have no idea what this means, especially since the table you linked to has no explanation or units of measurement attached to it.
“What you seem to fail to realize is that even the voters who wanted ?change? in the form of healthcare reform recognize that the current offering is a pile of dog mess”
That’s a quite propagandistic way of portraying things. It’s expensive, sure, but it has always been expensive and won’t become less expensive to address in the future. The democrats are among others considering a plan that will actually keep reform occurring over ten years to keep costs down, and the plans on the table are often bothersome to progressives on details, so maybe some of the flaws in the current plans are pretty much unavoidable rather than a result of ideology. Less coverage will only become costly later on, so it could be said that the more public a plan the better.
What matters is short-term and long-term results and with how much confidence the results can be projected. Trying to tinge words like “rationing” or “government” with verbal toxins is completely uninteresting and the GOP engenders no faith at all. It’s now or “maybe in 2011″, and that isn’t good enough. The republicans in congress haven’t played for a better bill, but to stall at all costs, since they know the cost will be paid by democrats in midterms.
Even if you could argue that all the democrats offer is “hope”, “hope” will always be better than “nothing at all”.
“they?ll reward the Blue Dogs if they pull together a coaltion to block it in favor of more meaningful reform on the next go around.”
Which is why democrat voters rewarded their party in ‘94…
Nate Silver, take it away: “Once a particular bill is put up to a vote, however, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to have a difficult time voting against it. Health care reform remains quite popular in theory and at least marginally popular in practice. It will probably do the most good for those districts where conservative Democrats tend to reside.
And then there is the oldest motivator of all: survival. The failure of health care reform in 1994 may have damaged Bill Clinton — but it really damaged the Congressional Democrats, who lost 54 seats in the House and another 8 in the Senate. Of the 36 incumbent Democrats who lost that year, only four (North Carolina’s David Price, Ohio’s Ted Strickland and Washington’s Maria Cantwell and Jay Inslee) would ever return to the Congress (whereas Clinton, of course, was re-elected). Any Democrat who votes against health care, moreover, can expect to be permanently shut off from the Obama-run DNC and from most or all grassroots fundraising drives, and many of them can probably expect a primary challenger.”
“Once a particular bill is put up to a vote, however, the overwhelming majority of Democrats are going to have a difficult time voting against it. ”
If so, it’s only because the DNC will fail to support their reelection campaigns. Basically, this all has little to nothing to do with what the voters in the districts want, and everything to do with what the Dem leadership wants and how far they’ll go to strongarm their party members into compliance.
“If so, it’s only because the DNC will fail to support their reelection campaigns. Basically, this all has little to nothing to do with what the voters in the districts want”
Could be both, no?
And seeing as how the focus according to you (and me, I’ll have you know) should be on getting a good bill for all Americans (something that also serves a lower priority for me; keeping democrats in control after the midterms) and also being economically prudent:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/07/21/AR2009072102961.html?hpid=topnews
“Among the range of options for health-care reform, there’s one that is sure to raise your taxes, increase your out-of-pocket medical expenses, swell the federal deficit, leave more Americans without insurance and guarantee that wages will remain stagnant. That’s the option of doing nothing”
It’s not the democrat’s fault that no one is spoilt for time when it comes to getting reform started. The party that tries to portray any public plan as hell itself (thus keeping things ideological and useless to anyone serious), rather than do any math or make detailed criticism, has had its chances, no?
Plus, a recent republican memo outlined a strategy for doing everything to stall proceedings. That is, a strategy devoted not to making better criticism for the bill or to make the case that waiting is better than an imperfect bill (shouldn’t conservatives, skeptics and pessimists in many cases, understand that perfection is impossible?), but just obstruct and keep things ineffective in government. That doesn’t make dem strong-arming okay, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking the GOP can bring anything different.
I think we can all agree that Healthcare reform should occur at some point, and I give the Obama Administration credit for bringing the issue to the table. That being said, “How” reform occurs, is a totally different set of questions.
(What changes can we the majority of American voters agree should occur and when, What specific changes are the majority of voters against and should therefore be axed from the bill?, Are the majority of American voters OK with rushing through this Bill without reading them going forward) These are only very few of these questions.
Some of these questions can be answered very easily. We see in the polls that most American *likely voters* are against a public option (for both personal and public economic reasons). Why a public option is being pushed against the majority of the American Voters will is political suicide in my opinion.
We also see that most American voters do want reduce costs and in line with this, the freedom to not pay for anything in terms of additional health care costs (either through taxes or privately) if they so choose to not be covered at all.
So, I think the question should be raised, What do politicians that support a public option have in common, and what do they have to gain in pushing this through with the public option? What special interest groups would benefit the most in terms of care and financial gain?
As far as those that want to stall this bill, it is not just Republicans. There are Democrats and Independents that are against this as well. We need to stop the democrat / republican banter. Making a change is not on its face good reform, plain and simple. To do the right thing here in the eyes of American voters, will take time, and I think, LOTS of it.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/business/healthcare/july_2009/53_now_oppose_congressional_health_care_reform
“Plus, a recent republican memo outlined a strategy for doing everything to stall proceedings.”
I agree that stalling procedings for it’s own sake and for personal political gain is not in the interest of the Republic. However, when a bill is attempted to be forced through without being read, and what little is known about the bill at this point, is not supported by the the majority of American voters, “going with the polls”, is the responsible thing to do. In this case, the politican gain is just a byproduct of being responsible to the voters (I think those that are against this bill (not just republicans) will gladly take that credit)
“We see in the polls that most American *likely voters* are against a public option”
I wonder how much they actually know about the current public plan being debated. This only goes to show that most people aren’t very rational either: The US system is the “goodest” system if one thinks that “more public system = ungood” but when one looks to actual results it remains the “baddest”. Well, there are also a sizable percentage of Americans who honestly believe homosexuality is wrong, and I would be unwilling to have a conversation with them, let alone take them as authorities on what nation-wide reform should look like.
“However, when a bill is attempted to be forced through without being read, and what little is known about the bill at this point”
There is plenty discussion and scrutiny being had of the bill. TNR has had lots of back and forth, and their perspective is certainly not one of “more left-wing = gooder”. Democrats know that if they don’t get good reform through it will harm both the country and themselves, and there are some left-wingers who are committed to explaining that trying to have an anti-public caveat is only an ideological fixation that has nothing to do with a good bill.
Republicans know that there is no chance in hell of anything happening in 2010, they know that reform would ultimately look good for democrats and they haven’t added anything to the discussion about reform. Their stalling isn’t conducted out of any concern for voters (who deserve a good bill, but also a little expediency) but strictly out of ideological or partisan reasons. For all their bluster about the supposed doomsday apparatus that is the democrats’ offer, they haven’t really done any hard work in crunching any numbers or making a case of their own.
It’s all “public plan = scary” and “rationing and euthanasia and Canada and waiting lines and and and…”. Which is all very impressive but never supported with any serious alternatives to the bill currently debated, any numbers or any explanation as to why the rationing that already exists isn’t just as bad. Bother them and their propaganda, and bother their supposed concern for the best of the voters. They utterly failed to be anything but demagogues and fear-mongers when it came to the stimulus and they are currently stalling – while claiming it is for the better of the bill *even though they haven’t spent any energy doing any real work on suggesting improvements to the bill or offering any serious alternatives*. Even the alternatives offered to the current bill came from retired republicans like Dole, or democrats like Wyden.
Who can be argued to be even ready to support a decent plan that happens to be reasonably constructed, but won’t appease republican ideological concerns? Apart from Snowe, I can’t think of one.
If their behavior now is anything to go by, there won’t be anything but ideological obsessions and rhetorical bluntness to be had from the GOP the “next go around”. But hey, it is kinda unfair they should be forced to actually use their brains and level constructive criticism while they are in the minority. Maybe we should wait until the democrats are punished in the mid-terms for not getting anything done so that the republicans stop sulking and actually start *thinking* about what the best bill would look like…
“I wonder how much they actually know about the current public plan being debated. This only goes to show that most people aren’t very rational either:”
I wonder if if our elected public servants (politicans) have taken the time to ask the question you posited above? Perhaps making it a priority of politicians to have a better informed public would help things.
If facts are kept from the public domain (like rushing through bills and not reading them) I can understand the hesitancy of the average Amercan voter. The politicians are working against themselves.
I argue that the most rational thing right now is the go the route of the American Voter and read up on the details and wait for the best option, not the quickest option.
“Republicans know that there is no chance in hell of anything happening in 2010, they know that reform would ultimately look good for democrats and they haven’t added anything to the discussion about reform.”
so what of the Democrats and independents that are against this bill?
“Republicans know that there is no chance in hell of anything happening in 2010, they know that reform would ultimately look good for democrats and they haven’t added anything to the discussion about reform. Their stalling isn’t conducted out of any concern for voters (who deserve a good bill, but also a little expediency) but strictly out of ideological or partisan reasons.”
Question, should we stick to the facts, or continue with “all knowing” hyperbole. which one will get us more fair results?
I’m sure you don’t literally mean what you said.
great article…
http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=32791
“The President and Democrat leaders in Congress must think most Americans are not smart enough to realize the health care reforms they propose are equivalent to the bad loans and false promises that led to the current recession. But, unfortunately for them, many are catching on: 49% now oppose these reforms and only 45% support them, and the number of supporters is falling by the day. All Americans must demand time to read the bill, understand the provisions, and require honest long term accounting for the costs — for the beneficiaries of today, and our children who will be paying for it in the future.
How is the weather there is bizarro world?
I wonder how much they actually know about the current public plan being debated. This only goes to show that most people aren’t very rational either: The US system is the “goodest” system if one thinks that “more public system = ungood” but when one looks to actual results it remains the “baddest”.
Actually the public support keeps going down the more people learn about what is really in the proposals. People generally supported the idea of expanding coverage to more people, but not at the expense of being forced out of the health plan that they currently have.
On your other point here, it’s certainly true that one has to define the terms of the debate, and what is meant by a ‘good’ healthcare system. But it’s completely false to claim that the US is among the ‘baddest’, by any metric. Overally WHO rankings had the US at #37, and most of the negative factors had to do with cost, not quality. On one metric which is particularly important to American consumers, WHO ranked our system #1- that is, patient responsiveness:
And there’s the rub. If people believe that this plan could pass and not endanger the positive qualities that we enjoy in our current system, they might cross their fingers on the cost projections and tentatively support it. That’s why Obama keeps telling people over and over that if they like their current plan, they won’t need to change it. However, the text of the bill itself already show that there are going to be a myriad of ways that people will potentially lose their existing coverage or be forced out over time.
It’s really impressive how the health care business has rallied to attack health care reform- It’s been a long time since they defeated Clintons plan back in the nineties, and with the support of the do nothing Bush Administration they got a free ride for eight additional years.
I believe President Obama will ensure the integrity of his campaign promise on health care. The people are fed up with the corporate health care business. They’ve had us by the little hairs too long.
We should have health care that’s incentivized to heal people not make profits.
We should be able to keep our health care when we change jobs.
We should be able to move around the country and keep our health care (today it’s restricted to states or regions by design to control your access to health care)
We should be able to shop around for the best program regardless of where we live.
We should be able to obtain health care with pre-existing medical conditions.
We can’t do any of these things today. The system is broken, and the corporate medical industry wants to keep it broken. They like it just the way it is- low risk to them and very profitable. They care more about profit than people. It’s disgusting.
Health care is a business.
Nutrition is a business.
Dentistry is a business.
Vitamins are a business.
And right after we start giving away FREE health care whats next? Free Dental? Free health supplements? Free Vitamins? How about free Glasses and free braces and free pearly white capped teeth?
Its amazing how people think they are OWED. Our generation is a generation of YOU OWE ME> We dont seem to want to work for anything. YOU OWE US.
Sad. Life is a business. Your parents gave you life. What comes next is all business.
“We should have health care that’s incentivized to heal people not make profits”
Then your not listening. Obamas not talking about healing. He’s talking about managing health care. As he told the daughter of an elderly women that needed a pacemaker, “Maybe you’re better off not having the surgery, but taking painkillers.“ Implying that her mother is dead weight, and she dragging us down. And for bonus points, it will keep the social security payments down.
If this reform is so great then why are the congressmen and women exempting themselves from it? Why won’t BO commit to putting himself and his family on it? I would think that people would have at least half a clue to at least question why that would be but then I forget the power of koolade. This isn’t about reform this is about revenge, power and control. Nothing more, nothing less. Don’t believe me look for yourself who is bankrolling some of those groups who are such advocates of this so-called reform.
I can only sincerely hope the president chooses not to work with the obstructionist Republicans. That would be disasterous for America. When the Democrats win an even bigger margin in 2010, which from the looks of things, they will, maybe then Republicans will learn the American people are reacting badly to their ‘just say no’ approach to everything.
Thank God for the Blue Dog Democrats!