If you say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans

[scheming daemons]

.....then you have to argue that the following statement is true:

There is no difference between Justices Alito/Roberts and Justices Sotomayor/Kagan.

Justices serve for two, three, or even four decades.

Nothing a President does.... nothing... is more permanent and has more impact than the judges he appoints.

Legislation can be repealed. Foreign policy decisions can be reversed.

But the thing that impact the country the most, the thing that lasts 5 or 10 times longer than a Presidential term is the judges that get appointed.

And not just at the Supreme Court level, but at the lower federal court level as well.

Ronald Reagan has been dead for a while, but we'll be feeling the impact of Justice Scalia for many more years.

So.....those of you who STILL make the nonsensical "tweedledum and tweedledee" argument when discussing the parties.... Tell us all how Sonia Sotomayor is no different than Clarence Thomas.

[zipplewrath]

1. Or, the other explanation

You're engaging in hyperbole. Arguing against the hyperbole is a tad pointless. By definition it is meant to be excessive.

[dmallind]

3. Really? You ahve never seen that claim made here?

That there is no difference?

[zipplewrath]

9. Yes, I have

And I have generally considered it hyperbole.

[dmallind]

4. Really? You ahve never seen that claim made here?

That there is no difference?

[MineralMan]

5. Or, the other explanation:

You have no argument against these points, but you're against them anyhow, so you apply a very, very weak argument.

If you can refute the statements, then refute them. Simply saying they are hyperbole is specious.

[zipplewrath]

15. It is a statement of fact

The common usage around here of "there is no difference" is either confined to specific cases, or is in general a use of hyperbole. There is nothing "specious" about that. It is practically a statement of fact. Arguing against hyperbole is really easy and I'm sure feels very good, but is rather pointless.

[SPedigrees]

43. I've read this statement applied in a very general way

in quite a few posts over the past months.

Furthermore several of these same posters have announced their intentions to refrain from voting or to vote for a 3rd party candidate.

[zipplewrath]

52. Okay, engage them

Next time you see it, engage them specifically on the topic. The times I have, it has become obvious they were basically expressing hyperbole. Their basic point is that on the topics most important to them, the differences were insignificant.

[unpossibles]

13. are you seriously saying you've never seen people here (and elsewhere)

claim that both parties are the same?

Also, for what it's worth, that is an old rightwing strategy (claiming both are the same) to get people to not vote; the conservatives know they don't have the numbers we do which is why they tend to do things to reduce the number of voters every year, hook or crook (typically the latter). Making people think their vote does not count is a great way to accomplish this, I suppose.

[zipplewrath]

18. Around here

I'm making reference to around here, and with respect mostly to the issue of Obama. Other than when folks are discussing a particular point of policy (for which the SC appointments would be meaningless) the use of that expression is fairly obvious a case of hyperbole. More general references to the two parties are mostly expressed in the sense of outcomes. As in regardless of who gets appointed, or elected, or what gets passed in congress, the outcome will basically be functionally the same. Again, that really isn't addressed by the post about supreme court nominees.

[MineralMan]

19. So, you reject the OP's points, because they aren't the points

you'd like to see made? Really? The OP addressed a single issue. You are arguing a broad issue. Get to what the OP actually said, if you would. Argue against his points. He did not address the points you're discussing.

Could it be that you're changing the subject because his subject was inconvenient for you? Sure seems like that to me.

[zipplewrath]

28. Borders upon a strawman

His original point was stated in the context of the vague assertion that there is a difference between the two, and he focuses in on a particular issue, supreme court nominations. I haven't particularly seen such an assertion made around here with respect to that narrow issue. It is made either about other specific issues, or more broadly, and as hyperbole. There's nothing to argue about with respect to supreme court nominations, and no one has particularly attempted to make that point. At best he's comparing apples to oranges, and at worst he's engaging in a strawman.

[unpossibles]

79. I don't agree. In fact, his point - that the SCOTUS nominations can make a lasting difference

and illustrate well the difference between the two parties, is valid. Not being able to argue against it does not make it a strawman.

[zipplewrath]

88. But he's not arguing AGAINST anyone

That's where the strawman leanings come in. No one is claiming that the equivalence between the two is based upon supreme court nominations. The claims are made about specific issues, mostly around military/security issues but also on other issues such as health insurance and treasury issues. Yes, folks aren't always very specific about it, but it is plainly obvious that it is either a focused comment on an issue, or a broad bit of hyperbole based upon the wide variety of issues upon which they feel it is functionally true. Pulling some odd argument out of thin air about the Supreme Court isn't responding to any of those points.

He could have easily said, "regardless of the similarities, the singular difference that makes the others pointless is...." and he could have in essence drawn them out. Instead, he rests his point upon a foundation of arguing against the hyperbole.

[unpossibles]

92. no, clearly the OP states that he is addressing those who claim they are the same

and used a single example of how they differ.

Frankly, although I am not pleased with the Dems on health care or the military, they have a better track record than the Republicans on both of those too. And on the economy, especially while the GOP still deep throats the ghost of failed Voodoo Reaganomics and worships it as if it worked.

[zipplewrath]

100. He ignores their context

And makes a separate point. Their context is not with respect to the supreme court, which is why he didn't write this screed in response to any PARTICULAR poster, but as a broader and more general comment. Because otherwise it would clearly stand out as an out of context argument. Which is why it is basically a strawman.

[unpossibles]

101. I still disagree. You cannot simply say "well, the SCOTUS does count" because

that's not the example people use to draw a similarity.

As an analogy, if someone said "carrots and habanero peppers are the same thing! They're both orange!" and someone else pointed out that one is a fruit, the other a root, a difference not referenced by the initial statement, it still counts as a way to show they are not the same. The statement that the Dems are the same as the GOP - one I see quite often here and elsewhere - is hyperbole based on selected criteria without looking at the whole picture, which includes the SCOTUS nomination. It strikes me as nothing more than an attempt to make people apathetic about voting at worst, and at best an attempt to get people to vote third party, which sounds good on paper but will not change most of the problems in our system.

[zipplewrath]

103. No one has said that the SC doesn't count

No one but the orignal poster has said anything at all about the SC appointments. THAT'S THE POINT. He's the only one talking about them and he did so completely out of context. It's not that it isn't a good point that one benefit, despite other considerations, of having ANY democratic president is that you don't get Scalia, or Roberts. Nothing wrong with that point. But it doesn't answer the point that others are making that on a wide variety of issues, having nothing to do with the Supreme Court, they perceive very little difference between a dem president and a GOP president. The advocates of those points of view are typically speaking within the context of a specific issue, or a specific set of issues. Pulling some supreme court nomination issue out of thin air just ignores the context and their point. That's virtually what the purpose of a strawman is for, to argue against a point your opponent wasn't making.

[flamingdem]

76. Did you see the poll going on earlier? Many said Obama was WORSE than Bush

Here at DU, yup.

[zipplewrath]

89. No, I did not

I have seen variations upon that which was based upon the concept that it is "worse" when a democrat does the exact same thing that a republican would.

[MineralMan]

2. Recommended.

This OP will also get many unrecs. It's not that anything you said is incorrect. Some will unrecommend your thread simply because you say inconvenient things, and people who wish to see the Obama administration go down in flames don't like to hear those inconvenient things.

It's a pity. It truly is. There are people who would rather see the Republicans regain control of our government than see the Obama administration succeed over two terms.

Just watch the unrecs come in.

[txlibdem]

11. Another Inconvenient Truth

Dang. I don't know if Al Gore is available.

[Ignis]

82. MM, when did you become so concerned about Recs/Unrecs?

IIRC, you previously dismissed them as meaningless. What has changed? :shrug:

[Touchdown]

110. Bundling more strawmen I see.

Nobody you just described exists on DU.

[DCBob]

6. precisely..

and irrefutable.

[OHdem10]

7. May i respectfully suggest it would be more accurate to say

there is little difference between Republicans and
Conservative Democrats(DLC, Blue Dogs).

It was a Democratic President who joined the Republicans
and gave us Nafta(Free Trade Policies which favor
Business over American People.) Likewise, he joined
the GOP to do welfare reform.

Conservative Democrats are almost as Pro-Business
over the Working Class as Republicans.

Now we have another Democratic President who appears
ready to dismantle the Social Safety Net. This
has been a goal of the Republicans since the day
FDR was elected President.

Other than the Justices of Supreme Court, every
piece of legislation has been from the Right under
our Present President. The HCR turned out to be
Robert Dole(former Senate Leader)Health Care Plan.
It is a right of Center Plan.

This is why people tend to generalize and say Democrats
are no different than Republicans.
More accurate to say Conservative Democrats who run the
Party are not much different.

[MineralMan]

12. And that's why the Republicans have attempted to block

every significant legislative issue, right? Because those issues are from the right. Is that what you're saying? Truly?

Facts are inconvenient, I know, but we do have longer memories than you may think.

[MineralMan]

21. I don't believe the OP was addressing legislation at all.

You are attempting to change the subject of the thread. His points are rather inconvenient, aren't they?

[jaxx]

22. HCR would have never been introduced, and passed

if it were not for our current President. The current President isn't ready to dismantle the social safety net, but some like to say it's so. The current President is pro-the people, look at the legislation he has signed. Blue dogs are to the left of the repubs. Saying there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans is inaccurate, to say the least.

[zipplewrath]

34. It was written by the GOP

Even Obama explained that the bill was very similar to something written by the GOP in the '90s. As such, on mandatory health insurance (something McCain ran on, along with cadillac taxes) you don't have much of a case that there is a big difference here. It wasn't health CARE reform, it was health INSURANCE reform. There are massive differences between the two parties, and between Bush and Obama, but this ain't one where you'll find alot of daylight. Bush passed Medicare part D remember? Obama kept restrictions on drug price negotiations in his negotiations with Big Pharma. Again, not leaving alot of day light here.

[jaxx]

41. We have tried to change health care for 100 years.

This time it was done. You can try to pick it apart all you want, but the truth stands. The bill was passed and signed into law by President Barack Obama. It will help millions of people. Pull up your shades, the daylight is bright and shiny.

[zipplewrath]

57. The issue is the difference

No one has been trying to pass mandatory health insurance for 100 years. Various people have been striving for something approaching universal health CARE. We still don't have that by any stretch, and this bill was originally written to try to prevent that from happening.

If the discussion is the difference between the two parties, this isn't a really good example to use. It was written predominately by right leaning democrats, utilizing a bill written by the GOP to try to avoid Hillaries attempt at universal health care. It contained significant items upon which McCain campaign ON and Obama campaigned AGAINST. And it was missing significant features upon which democrats had complained about with Bush and Obama ran upon. If you're making the case that there is a big difference between the two parties, this bill isn't the best example.

[jaxx]

59. The issue the Democrats passed it.

The pubs tried to stop it. There is a great deal of difference between the two parties.

[zipplewrath]

65. Not in the results

Apparently not it the resultson this bill. I don't think most folks care about the method, only the outcome. If it would have been a "win" for them, it's a "loss" for us, even if it happened on our watch.

[BzaDem]

96. The Republican plan to healthcare would be for those with pre-existing conditions to lose all their

assets, and then go on Medicaid.

THAT is the Republican plan. You are going back 20 years to say that our current plan is similar to an alternative plan that moderate Republicans proposed back then. That is not an appropriate comparison. The alternative plan is just that: an alternative plan. It would NEVER have passed, and that's why Republicans introduced it (because it would make them look like they have an alternative, even though they knew it wouldn't pass). After all, Republicans did take over Congress in 1994, and they never even THOUGHT about introducing it.

If you want to compare results, you need to look at what Republicans would actually do versus what Democrats actually did. Not some plan that was introduced as a stage prop that Republicans would never have voted for had it had any chance of passing.

[zipplewrath]

104. I'm listening to Obama

He was the one that made the claim that these two bills weren't all that different. He apparently felt that was significant. I tend to agree with him. It does look alot like a GOP plan. It even included items that McCain campaigned upon, and Obama campaigned against, in the 2008 elections. It includes things that Romney got included in Romney Care, which was hardly 20 years ago.

You can choose to ignore what Obama says, but I haven't gotten that far yet.

[BzaDem]

107. Of course Obama would say that. He would be committing political malpractice NOT to.

If Republicans want to introduce a fake plan that they would never support just to beat back Clinton's more expansive plan, then they should suffer the political consequences of being called on their hypocricy. GOOD for Obama for pointing out this hypocricy.

But that doesn't change the fact that it is hyporcicy (not an actual plan they would consider enacting). If Republicans were in power (as they were in 1995 onwards), they would NEVER EVEN THINK about introducing such a plan. (And they didn't even months after they proposed it, once they took over both houses of Congress.)

[zipplewrath]

109. None the less

It was based upon republican free market principals designed to protect the insurance companies and avoid universal health care. McCain actually ran on portions of it. Principals of it were included in the Medicaid part D that the GOP did pass over the last 8 years. What it DIDNT' include, to appeal to the conservative democrats (and an attempt to appeal to some of the GOP) was the progressive concepts of the public option or taxes on the wealthiest to pay for it.

[BzaDem]

112. And?

The goal was to insure everyone (or as many as possible), with mandated-high-benefit plans and profit limits. (You can continue to deny that insurance has anything to do with care, but based upon the mandates on insurance companies and the medical loss ratios in the bill, that is transparently false.)

Sure, we did not get our preferred pay-for (taxes on the wealthy) or method as to how to do that (public option), though some taxes on the wealthy were in the bill (the increase of the Medicare payroll tax on those making over 250k/year).

But we did achieve much of the goal itself.

The Republican goal is to not do ANYTHING for the sick (those with pre-existing conditions), or poor (those who will be getting subsidies). Many Republicans believe that we should waste "productive resources" on the "unproductive sick." Others simply think that we can't afford it. But regardless of the PR proposals they may or may not have made at some previous point in time, their REAL goal is to do nothing to help the poor or the sick. This has been transparent and obvious for decades. If they were in power, they would do nothing to help them. If they had one more vote in the Senate, they would have killed this bill and prevented any help to them.

The fact that we were able to help 31 million poor and middle income people plus all with pre-existing conditions is a tremendous victory.

[zipplewrath]

114. When was that the "goal"?

The goal was universal health CARE, and we didn't advance that at all, and what we did do was copy a plan meant to obstruct that.
We achieved virtually nothing towards that goal. I know folks NOW who have health insurance and can't afford to use it. Forcing folks who can't afford the premiums now, to buy it anyway isn't going to allow them to afford health insurance. The subsidies go to the health insurance companies, you can't use them to pay medical expenses.

And the reason health insurance is so expensive is because health CARE is so expensive. It was health CARE costs that needed to be brought under control. And we gave up several of the features of this bill that could have done that. No drug price negotiations, no public option, no single payer. Worse, the plans that people did have that paid for medical costs very well, we decided to TAX them as Cadillac plans, something Obama campaigned against. Health CARE will still get more expensive, and more and more people will be exempt from having to buy insurance because as care gets more expensive, so will insurance. How is ANY of that "the goal"?

When this is all done, there will still be 25 million americans without health insurance, by the White House's own estimate. The bill very specifically designates who will not be subject to the fine. Mind you, that doesn't mean they still get health care OR insurance, but they don't have to pay the fine, because their premiums are too high, and their income too low.

And the GOP that you love to claim would do NOTHING, passed Medicare part D, and without worrying about whether they could balance the budget doing so. They didn't care about scoring. They didn't do it to increase revenues to the budget. And when THEY get back in power, I can't wait to see what mandates they dream up, or what cadillac taxes they invent. Heck, they invented the concepts to begin with, and got Obama to pass them.

[BzaDem]

120. In 2014, 31 million people will say otherwise.

People who opposes this bill from the left are no different than the plenty of people who opposed social security from the left. They will be proven wrong with time and try to hide their previous stances.

The idea that insurance doesn't result in more care in general is a pure fantasy that is essentially religious (as opposed to fact based). The subsidies dramatically lower premium bills for the poor and middle class, and the bill caps deductibles and cost sharing through actuarial value mandates (and even subsidizes deductibles and cost sharing for lower income people). Plenty of studies have shown that having insurance reduces death rates, sickness, and bankruptcies. You can spew all the anecdotal evidence relying on misinformation about the bill you want, but that doesn't actually change reality.

[zipplewrath]

126. Again, when was that the goal?

You completely ignore the point, with absolutely no reference to actual information, just assertions. When was universal health INSURANCE ever the goal? Universal health CARE was the goal. It was what Hillary tried to achieve 15 years ago.

The majority of the people being forced to buy insurance with subsidies already qualified for assistance in obtaining health insurance. This "historic" legislation was a bill written predominately by the GOP in 1993. How is that any sort of progressive accomplishment?

[BzaDem]

127. I've already explained multiple times how more insurance generally leads to more care

(notwithstanding the people here who say otherwise), and how the idea that this is similar to the GOP alternative is a complete red herring.

We're just going in circles.

[zipplewrath]

128. You keep avoiding the point

Universal health insurance was never "the goal". That was created was a replacement for Universal health care by the GOP. The historical record bears that out. The fact that something like and additional 8% of the population will have access to health insurance ignores the overall goal of universal health care FOR ALL. People already insured were unable to use their insurance because they could not afford it. There will still be 25 million people uninsured after 2014. Health care will still be unaffordable, and getting drastically more so, after 2014. Again, how is any of that "the goal"?

[BzaDem]

130. No, you keep avoiding the point.

Just because universal healthcare is our goal doesn't mean that any step SHORT of universal healthcare does not move us toward our goal.

Our bill increases insurance for 31 million people. This results in more care for said people (again, not withstanding the essentially religious screeds on this board saying otherwise). More care leads us in the direction of universal healthcare. The fact that we did not achieve our goal 100% does not mean that any step towards that goal is somehow not a step towards the goal.

"People already insured were unable to use their insurance because they could not afford it."

This bill will help people who already have insurance better afford their deductibles/cost sharing (by allowing premium dollars that are now subsidized to go towards deductibles/cost sharing, and by directly subsidizing the deductibles for lower income people).

"Health care will still be unaffordable, and getting drastically more so, after 2014. Again, how is any of that "the goal"?"

Making healthcare unaffordable is not the goal, but luckily that isn't actually true (no matter how many times you repeat it).

[zipplewrath]

131. You can't state how we advance towards the goal

Just because universal healthcare is our goal doesn't mean that any step SHORT of universal healthcare does not move us toward our goal.

It also doesn't mean "doing anything" moves us towards it. Especially passing a bill intentionally designed to avoid it.

Our bill increases insurance for 31 million people. This results in more care for said people (again, not withstanding the essentially religious screeds on this board saying otherwise). More care leads us in the direction of universal healthcare. The fact that we did not achieve our goal 100% does not mean that any step towards that goal is somehow not a step towards the goal.

It was a marginal change at best. It covered about 8% more people (and that is being generous) than were eligible before, and did little to nothing for those already covered who couldn't afford care to begin with. It did little to nothing to address the longer term problems of steadily rising health CARE cost. It created a structure that will obstruct any real meaningful efforts to do so (as was the original intent when the GOP wrote it). It will leave 25 million people STILL uninsured, much less with access to health CARE (a White House estimate after 2014). And the rate of health care costs are still estimate, by the White House, to be at unsustainable rates in excess of inflation.

"People already insured were unable to use their insurance because they could not afford it."

This bill will help people who already have insurance better afford their deductibles/cost sharing (by allowing premium dollars that are now subsidized to go towards deductibles/cost sharing, and by directly subsidizing the deductibles for lower income people).

The vast majority of people will NOT recieve subsidized insurance. There are no subsidies for employer based insurance to the employees. Those people will still not be able to afford their health care. And the number of us falling into that category will increase every year. If the cadillac tax is not modified, more of us will qualify for it every single year, with out a single change to the nature of our plans.


"Health care will still be unaffordable, and getting drastically more so, after 2014. Again, how is any of that "the goal"?"

Making healthcare unaffordable is not the goal, but luckily that isn't actually true (no matter how many times you repeat it).

I agree, it isn't the goal. Nor was mandated insurance, or cadillac taxes or Big Pharma profit protections. The goal was universal health care and this bill did little to nothing to address that. Which isn't surprising because that was the intent when the GOP wrote it.

[BzaDem]

132. "There are no subsidies for employer based insurance to the employees."

Either the employers will have to increase their plans to become high actuarial value plans (which limits deductibles/cost-sharing) that cost less in premiums than 8% of their income, or the employees WILL be able to go onto the exchange and get subsidized insurance (regardless of availability of an employer-based plan). This was the Wyden amendment.

"It covered about 8% more people"

That's about 2/3 of the legal population here that was previously uninsured. You keep saying that 8% is somehow a bad thing, when it is (in reality) most of the uninsured.

"and did little to nothing for those already covered who couldn't afford care to begin with."

I have debunked this bullshit so many times that you either can't read or aren't going to benefit from your misinformation being continually corrected. Hopefully other people will benefit though.

[zipplewrath]

133. Those already covered still can't afford care

I'm not sure what you think you've suggested that "debunks" this, but since I know these people personally, they surely would like to know what they're missing. Their costs haven't gone down, they don't see anything in the bill that will bring them down, even the White House admits that the costs of health CARE will continue to rise faster than inflation. SOME costs will be covered by the preventative coverage provisions but the vast majority of costs they can't afford aren't related to preventative care.

[spanone]

80. written by the gop? pffft.

[zipplewrath]

90. Roughly what Obama said

He stated it a couple of times, in an attempt to counter all the "socialist" or "government take over" accusations. He explained it wasn't all that different than what the GOP proposed as a response to Hillary's plan. More than one observer had noted this, and there were some right leaning think tanks that were strangely quite through the whole thing because it contained several key elements for which they had advocated. Heck, McCain campaigned on at least 2 of them.

[BzaDem]

97. "wasn't all that different than what the GOP proposed as a response to Hillary's plan."

EXACTLY. It was a RESPONSE to Hillary's plan. It would NEVER have been introduced if they thought it had ANY chance of passing.

This game Republicans play is quite common. They say "I don't want to vote for YOUR plan, so I'll come up with a reasonable sounding alternative that I can trumpet to make me sound nice and reasonable." But if Clinton called their bluff and called a vote on that plan, they would have moved their plan further to the right. They would have kept doing this until they hit their real position, which is to bankrupt anyone with a pre-existing condition.

[zipplewrath]

99. Except they did in Mass

Elements of this were transported to MA and turned into RomneyCare. The very purpose of mandates (that McCain ran on and Obama ran against) and Cadillac Taxes (that McCain ran on and Obama ran against) was to ensure the "health" of insurance companies and avoid any concept of universal health CARE.

[BzaDem]

106. McCain did not run on a mandate. That is flat out false.

He did run on a cadillac tax, but there was no mandate or anything even resembling a mandate in his plan. Look it up.

The idea that a cadillac tax on insurance companies ensures the "health" of insurance companies is laughable on its face, and does not deserve any additional time responding to it.

As for the mandate, the mandate is required if insurance companies are going to accept everyone with pre-existing conditions. They could have not passed a mandate, but they also would have had to remove the provision guaranteeing that no one is charged more based upon health status. There is simply no economic way of doing one but not the other.

And you comparing the Democratic party to the Republican party in Massachusetts is silly. The NATIONAL Republican party would NEVER have introduced a bill that removed pre-existing condition discrimination and had a mandate/subsidies, IF it had any chance of passing. Whether a Republicsn party in a very liberal state would do so has nothing to do with that.

[zipplewrath]

111. It was not necessary

Not only wasn't it necessary to include the mandate, but the GOP didn't even do it when they passed Medicare Part D. Instead, they merely allowed more to be charged once you DID sign up.

The proof is that the "fine" for not having insurance is laughably low. Truth is, anyone who can't afford insurance would probably be foolish to NOT pay the fine. You pay the fine, it's about $700 a year. You get sick, you go buy some insurance, they can't refuse you. $700 would be cheaper than an awful lot of insurance premiums, even after alot of the subsidies. The low fines was one of the (many) reasons that the insurance industry could never be pulled on board like Big Pharma was (by promising not to cut into their profits too much).

They don't "need" to have this provision, except for one reason, it increases revenues. They are actually anticipating a certain number of people won't get insurance. Their own estimates say that 25 million folks won't have insurance. Not all of them will have to pay the fine, but the revenue from this fine helps make the claim that HCR reduces the deficits. It helped with the scoring with the CBO. It was the same thing with the employer penalty. They actually are expecting employers to not provide health insurance, and just pay the fine. Again, it creates a revenue stream they were counting on for scoring with the CBO.

When they agreed to dump the public option, they should have dumped the mandate. The problem they needed the revenue stream it would create, especially in the CBO scoring, to be able to claim it cut the cost to the government.


HCR was about reducing the governments costs, not providing health CARE to individuals. To the degree that it does was basically a nice side benefit. There is little in this bill to reduce health care costs to individuals, or insurance companies. It is almost entirely about reducing the total cost to the government. He needs the money, he's got wars he wants to fight.

[BzaDem]

113. The mandate was absolutely required, as every serious healthcare economist knows.

If you still are under any impression that the mandate wasn't ABSOLUTELY required, look at the individual market in New York. They banned consideration of health status in premium calculation, but they had no mandate.

What happened?

There went from being over 750 thousand individual market policies to fewer than 35 thousand. Thats a 30-fold decrease. This is because no one in New York except the rich can afford an individual policy. The premiums are in the thousands PER MONTH. No one had any incentive to get insurance until they became sick, so the healhty left the pool and premiums went up. This caused more healthy people to leave the pool, and premiums to therefore go up further (to cover the sicker pool). In the end, their pool vanished, in a perfect example of an insurance-death spiral where there is no mandate.

That is exactly what happens when you don't have a mandate.

Massachusetts, on the other hand, has a mandate, and they have 97% of their population covered. Their fine is slightly higher than ours for some people, and lower for others. To the extent that they still have a free-rider problem, it is minimal (certainly no more than 3% of the population).

To the extent that the fine might be too low, that means the fine may have to be raised slightly, possibly to Massachusetts levels for everyone. It does not mean the mandate wasn't absolutely necessary.

(As for your argument that the mandate's main purpose was to lower the deficit, that is completely false. It raises something like 17 billion, out of a 900+ billion dollar bill. They could have removed the mandate and the total bill still would have cut the deficit by over 100 billion in 10 years. It did raise revenue, but the revenue raised was not relevant in the larger context of the bill.)

[zipplewrath]

116. It was part of it

The mandate was part of the revenue stream, as was the employer penalty. They actually got way more through the medicaid payment cuts, I suspect even they were surprised by the CBO score. But they still wanted the revenue, from both sources. They have things they want to do with that money. Clinton was saying 16 years ago that we had to get control of these costs so that we could do all the other things he wanted to do. The rate of growth of health costs to the government is overwhelming budget predictions.

And your NY example ignores the fact that the feds ALLOWED health status in premium calculations. In fact they allow upwards of 300% more to be charged for those will existing issues. Furthermore, they allow policies to be canceled for "fraud" which has a rather generous definition right now (the regulations haven't been completely written yet).

And you'll note that with Medicare Part D, the GOP didn't institute a mandate, they allowed a penalty to be charged once you entered the system if you waited. That's how they handled it. As I say, if what you are claiming is true, their low fine will destroy the whole system, mandate or not. Truth is, it will be destroyed anyway by the uncontrolled rise in health CARE costs. Soon, we'll talk about this plan the way we speak of NAFTA or DADT. Romneycare hasn't controlled medical expenses in MA, and it isn't gonna do anything nationally either. The feds will save money though. More cash for Afghanistan.

The public option wasn't just a "pony" that some leftists wanted, it was the only thing in the bill that had a prayer of getting contol of health care costs once they locked single payer out of the room. When they gave that up, they screwed us all. But they got their cost savings.

[BzaDem]

119. You are completely wrong. The 300% allowed variation is for AGE. Not health status.

The bill does not allow two similarly situated people (age, location) to be charged ONE PENNY less or more than the other based on health status. To the extent you argue otherwise, you are completely wrong.

The New York example is an obvious parallel, and your only attempt to refute it is based on a falsehood.

Even if New York wasn't a parallel (which it is), the death spiral is obvious to anyone with even a passive understanding of economics and incentives. Progressives who even attempt to argue otherwise make all progressives look bad. Saying that adverse selection death spirals do not exist is received about as well among liberal healthcare economists as denying evolution or global warming is among scientists. It is really that bad.

Medicare part D isn't as much of a problem because at age 65, a large proportion of the senior population need prescription drugs. There isn't as much of an incentive to wait. This is completely different for general health insurance at other ages. Young, healthy people have a HUGE incentive to wait decades until they develop a chronic condition.

The idea that the mandate's main purpose is to raise revenue is complete and utter bullshit. It is just made up out of thin air. As I said before, the total deficit reduction of the mandate was 17 billion out of over 900 billion (about 1.9 percent of the cost). But even that is overstating it, because without the mandate, fewer people would use the subsidies, which lowers the deficit. In fact, the CBO calculated that eliminating the mandate would REDUCE the deficit by 252 BILLION DOLLARS over the next 10 years for this very reason. That's right -- getting rid if the mandate would save the government huge amounts of money. It is there only because of its affect on premiums in the private market. Not on the deficit (which it increases by hundreds of billions).

I sometimes wonder if all the opposition here to the bill is due to pure misinformation similar to your last post.

[TheKentuckian]

121. That is desirable. If you can't beat them head on you set the rules in such a fashion that profit

is destroyed.

The death spiral is good for America.

[BzaDem]

122. Nah, it'll just mean that only richer and richer people will be able to afford care.

If you think that is true today, just wait until then. You would be looking back at the good old days.

If you think a unicorn is then going to come and pass single payer, just look at New York state. They have had community rating with no mandates for years. Premiums are thousands of dollars per month. Yet they aren't even considering passing single payer. In New York.

With the death spiral you are looking forward to, the rich win and everyone else loses.

[TheKentuckian]

125. Pain is a hell of a teacher.

I was not a single payer or even a public option diehard. There are bigger structural problems than a public option can adequately address unless everyone could access it.

[zipplewrath]

129. That was the ultimate plan

The reason that the public option, in almost any form, was important, and in fact the most important aspect of all, was because of the structure it created for the future. Medical costs are going to continue to rise as they have for decades. We are all going to soon be in a position where medical costs are exceedingly expensive and the insurance premiums will match. We're darn close as it is. The public option was going to create a structure such that more and more people would have to access it in order to have any insurance at all. As companies bailed out of providing it because of the cost, it would bring folks into the public option. Ultimately, it would have become a plan that companies could buy into directly. It was in effect "single payer" in steps. Because ultimately it would be Medicare by default since virtually everyone would be in it. At some point, the public option would have been so large, it would be able to start to control costs of everything, and dictate how care was delivered. When you have one customer, they get to write the rules.

The exchanges aren't the same, mostly because they are roughly on a state level and will never have that level of clout.

Single payer is coming, unfortunately at this point, much like Medicare part D, it will be the GOP that brings it to us. Hope you like the mandates they dream up.

[unpossibles]

8. +100000

For what it's worth, despite being upset about the conservative bent of the Democratic Party, I cannot see how anyone could legitimately say they are the same thing, even beyond the SCOTUS appointments.

If we want less corporate influence on politics in general and Democrats specifically, the very first and most important thing to do is to fight tooth and nail to make elections publicly funded and other methods of reducing not only corporate influence, but also time wasted on fundraising. Hell, without doing this, even if you truly believe the parties are the same, nothing will change with third-party wins because they too will just be under the exact same influences.

[SunsetDreams]

60. great points

[Bonobo]

10. Reductionism. Unrec. nt

[unpossibles]

14. that's all you have to say on the matter?

ok

[MineralMan]

17. One word responses are easy, aren't they?

I'm waiting for the point-by-point argument against the OP's statements that the poster is no doubt preparing...:rofl:

[ThomWV]

20. actually, if well selected, they are quite difficult.

because sometimes a point-by-point argument can be rebuffed with a single word. The thing is, you gotta pick the right word.

[Bonobo]

38. Yup. The OP is so reductionistic, that I wiped it out with that.

IF you understand logical fallacies and reductionism, that is.

[grantcart]

74. He's trying to reduce his use of words

And he is also trying to demonstrate that by using a term that everyone might not understand or have varying understandings of what it might mean he is of a superior intellectual level and disdains from actually discussing anything on a discussion board.

[MineralMan]

16. Refute the OP's points. then. if you can.

I'll be standing by to read your refutation. I have all day. I'll keep checking back from time to time as I go about my work, so if you don't have time right now, you can refute them at your leisure. :rofl:

[Bonobo]

40. I pointed out the logical fallacy inherent in the OP.

That is sufficient.

[unpossibles]

78. not really. Were you being serious you would back up your OPINION

that the OP's point is reductionism. Just calling something a name does not necessarily make it so, and even if true, you should qualify why you believe it to be so. You pointed out nothing other than a single word.

I love when people assume that their own opinions are Truth. There's a name for that too, btw.

Enjoy your island paradise with your annually growing rate liquid assets. Frankly you may be better off with semi-liquid assets.... </sarcasm>

[Bonobo]

91. Thread stalking is frowned upon. nt

[dionysus]

123. so is acting like you proved a point when you didn't, and tossing out false accusations.

:shrug:

[SoxFan]

75. .

[SunsetDreams]

23. K&R and a Rant!

Yeah let's let a Republican President back in the Whitehouse.
The freaking Supreme Court is already, even with Obama's appointments 5 to 4.
It's already lop sided. Obama has a chance to nominate a few more judges based off of their ages.
BUT NO

Let's make the United States suffer even more, for years to come!
Let's do away with Roe Vs. Wade
Let's do away with Civil Rights of any kind!
Let's have more "Corporations are people"
Let's give them ample opportunity to steal more elections!
Let's let them wreak havoc on the Constitution!

Don't believe me, go look up their ages.

All because we didn't get everything we wanted.

[MineralMan]

26. We didn't get everything we wanted....yet.

Not even halfway through his first term, and folks are lining up to throw Obama out of office. How silly that is. Right now, in 2010, it's the Congress that's in play. Not the presidency. That's what makes all this such nonsense.

It's distracting us from working to make gains in the Democratic majority. President Obama will be there, no matter how 2010 elections go. Time to stop beating up on him and work to keep the Republicans from making headway in Congress.

The next Presidential election is in 2012. Not this year. This year, we have Congress to worry about. I suggest we work on that.

[SunsetDreams]

30. I agree, but

we can't let that have a chance to happen, oh hell no.

:sarcasm:

[zipplewrath]

31. Who is "We"?

Some of us can do more than one thing at a time. If you can't, well fine but the rest of us might just do both at the same time.

[Name removed]

32. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Stinky The Clown]

24. Jingoism - unrec

Edit for an unfortunate spelling error, which was, of course, gleefully pointed out below.

The message remains. I unrecced this sloganeering. The OP posts his little screed as if no one knew that before.

[SunsetDreams]

25. Of course it don't matter

What's handing over the Supreme Court to Conservatives matter, for years to come?

Who cares, right?

[MineralMan]

27. Jigoism?

Uff da! Maybe you made a teensy-weensy Freudian slip?

Even if you spell it correctly, it has nothing to do with the OP:

"Jingoism is defined in the Oxford English Dictionary as "extreme patriotism in the form of aggressive foreign policy".<1> In practice, it refers to the advocation of the use of threats or actual force against other countries in order to safeguard what they perceive as their country's national interests, and colloquially to excessive bias in judging one's own country as superior to others – an extreme type of nationalism."

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

[Lindsey]

36. Absolutely agree. The appointments are of such importance-

I know the masses have no clue regarding this issue and it astounds me that those supposedly "in the know" are able to make statements such as those. I'm not going to elaborate on the horrific infighting as of late as I think there are several dynamics at play. However, that's all you need to say: Supreme Court Appointments.

[depakid]

44. The definition seems to apply

Oh the irony.

Of course,the concept applies to more than nationalism- and from what I've read, you're smart enough to know that.

[Individualist]

68. +1

[LoZoccolo]

87. How is it sloganeering when he produced a concrete example? n/t

[dionysus]

124. it's a new shiny buzzword... that's why.

[depakid]

29. Who voted to confirm Scalia, Thomas -and later Roberts & Alito?

Oops.

[SunsetDreams]

33. Who? be specific

That's alot of years there

[depakid]

35. You go back and look at the record and see for yourself

It's all there- public records and such.

A bit inconvenient- just as the US Constitution and Bill of Rights seems to be to those who follow politicians as they would high school sports teams.

[SunsetDreams]

37. Scalia, Thomas, Roberts, Alito.

Sounds like you are talking about ONE person who confirmed them

[depakid]

39. Dang- you go back and look at the record

See who controlled the Senate on the 1st 2 -and later, who crossed over and voted for the 2nd 2.

And while you're at it- see who criticised the advise and consent process that's purportedly caused so many problems for the President's agenda.

[SunsetDreams]

42. You are the one making the claims, it is up to YOU to prove it.

[depakid]

45. I'm just telling it like it is-

Look it up and see for yourself.

Maybe in the meantime start thinking for yourself.

Makes a difference.

[SunsetDreams]

48. So you have no answers,

That's a big brush you carry around, and then don't back it up with proof.

[depakid]

51. The answers are right there on the public record

Have a look.

[SunsetDreams]

53. ....

Rinse, repeat.

Since neither of us are getting anywhere, ie I keep asking for proof of your claim, you are unwilling to provide it.

Let's just leave it at that.

I'll be happy to keep looking if you ever should provide proof of your claim.

[depakid]

55. My claim is on the public record- you can deny it if you'd like, that won't make it "go away"

Have a look for yourself.

You might just find even more interesting things in the process of looking.

I always do.

[BzaDem]

98. I don't see how your point is at all relevant.

Scalia was confirmed 98 to 0.
Thomas was confirmed 52 to 48.
Roberts was confirmed 87 to 22.
Alito was confirmed 58 to 42.

...and...

Ginsburg was confirmed 96 to 3.
Breyer was confirmed 87 to 9.
Sotomayor was confirmed 68 to 31.

I'm not sure how this is at all relevant. The president picks the justice, and they are generally confirmed by the Senate barring unusual circumstances. You seem to be proposing that Democrats block Republican justices, as if Republicans would just sit back and allow Democrats to appoint justices if that happened.

Under your system, Democrat and Republican presidents would simply wait until their party controlled Congress, and then nominate justices to fill all the vacancies and confirm them (doing away with the filibuster for nominees if necessary). That would certainly be a different system, but that wouldn't change the makeup of the court. It would just produce long periods with lots of vacancies.

[Ignis]

83. Depakid made no claim. He asked a question.

You have the ability to answer his question, because those votes are a matter of public record.

[jaxx]

46. That's a broad brush.

Who are you talking about? And why don't you like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights?

[Name removed]

49. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[jaxx]

56. Elections have consequences.

Many senators abide by that premise and do vote for the nominees. If they have doubts they vote no. I don't see why you would bring 'another thread' into this one just to post a goofy picture that was from the 2004 election. The President has made it clear that policy has changed. If you are unable to see the change I guess you'll just have to wait it out.

[SunsetDreams]

58. Oh Puhlease

Now you are just twisting what I said, AND I might add carrying over an argument you think you had on another thread, because you JUST "knew" I said something I didn't. More of that knee jerk reaction.

I'm going on record to say you are twisting the crap out of what I said.
I'll not continue this, since it involves another thread.

[laughingliberal]

95. Here it is:

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=109&session=2&vote=00002

http://www.c-span.org/congress/roberts_senate.asp


http://www.eclipse.net/~tgardnet/thomasvote.html

http://www.senate.gov/reference/resources/pdf/267_1986.pdf

Sheesh! Nobody has Google?

[w4rma]

47. You're absolutely right. However, we do need to clean out all of these corrupt DLCers that have

lied and schemed to gain our trust just so that they can be in place to stab us in the back at just the right opportunity.

[SidDithers]

50. If you say that there is no difference between Democrats and Republicans...

...then you shouldn't be posting at DU.

Sid

Edit to clarify

[Bonobo]

54. You should change your screen name.

SCTV was funny and I have never seen you exhibit a sense of humor.

What's the deal with that?

[Oregone]

61. Big difference: Democrats have better marketing

We're talking Apple vs Microsoft here folks!

[roakes10190]

62. strange argument

I found myself confused when reading this argument. Frankly, I agree with most of the statements but I think there is a vast difference between the two parties on more fundamental beliefs. You might as well have argued that it there is no difference if you accept that both parties select their primary candidates through state primaries or caucuses. The differences are between core philosophies on role of government, taxes, foreign policy, in fact just about everything but beliefs about the Supreme Court.

[TheKentuckian]

63. Few say they are the same but rather inch more conservative seemingly everyday

Even the appointments to the bench grow more corporate friendly, less willing to preserve civil liberties, and more willing to turn a blind eye to civil rights issues.

The drift must be stopped or the day will come when our "liberal activists" will on the whole be too right wing for past Republican administrations to even consider appointmenting.

Not only that, if the Republicans insist on staying to the right of Democrats then they will be forced to absurd extremes and also drag the spectrum toward the reactionary.

This dance will not go any further with my efforts and tacit permission and denying that the dance is going on is a laugh.

The party can change from this disastrous course or wither on the vine and be replaced. The path we are on is deadly to self determination, our system of justice, and to broad prosperity and we must stop marching off the cliff.
Sure, it seems better than running headlong but the final step is still into the abyss.

Any argument other than we are going in a direction that will put regular people first and put these corporations under foot is ultimately hollow to my ears. I've made all of yours myself, I have not forgot them. Hell, their logic to varying degrees remains in effect but they do not stop the crash and burn course we are on.

It is past time to stop the insanity and playing this game is not doing that. We are not running on some eternal clock or a road that goes on forever. There is a such a thing as a point of return and if the course locked there then let it be while the air is breathable, the water clean enough to drink, the stars can be seen to give us inspiration, and the land can support seed and beast.

We cannot go on like this and come to any good end
and subbing liberals for moderates on the bench is not gaining us traction. Obama isn't making the court less reactionary but rather moving our four closer to their five so far.

Both parties have consistently put someone more reactionary on the bench with each appointment for years with the possible exception of Ginsburg and it has to be stopped long term.

[SunsetDreams]

64. Scheming Daemons,

thank you for this thread. This has all been rather enlightening, and I appreciate your effort.

[NJmaverick]

66. K & R

[bvar22]

67. Everybody KNOWS there is a difference,

just like there is a difference between Cholera and The Plague.
The results is pretty much the same no matter which one you have, especially for the Working Class and The Poor.


There ARE differences, especially on the "wedge" issues, and I would be happy to list them.
I wonder if you intellectually honest enough to list the ways they are the same since 1980?


"When we all do better, we ALL do better."

--- Paul Wellstone

[Barack2theFuture]

69. how is this not extortion?

vote for me or I'll burn down your supreme court

is no different from

pay me $500 a week or I'll keep throwing bricks through your store's window and beating up your customers.


If Democrats want the votes of progressives and independents, they need to give us reasons to vote FOR them, not just threaten us with the repuke "bad cop."

[LoZoccolo]

85. Sounds like you're doing a little bit of extortion yourself.

The truth is, actions have consequences, whether someone sets it up that way or not.

Take responsibility for yours.

[Deep13]

70. There's definitely a difference...

...just not enough of a difference.

[SunsetDreams]

71. kick

[walldude]

72. Well then it's a good thing I don't say that....

But I will say that the current Administration has made too many mistakes, too many bad appointments, too many Republican policy continuations for me to work for, support or donate to. From now on I will donate only to real liberals with a real liberal agenda. I know that's not what DU wants to hear but the reality is that moderate or right wing policies are not going to get us out of this mess. Moderate and right wing policies are what got us into this mess to begin with.

[Dappleganger]

73. There's little difference between a corporatist Republican and a corporatist Democrat.

[kentuck]

77. The differences are becoming more difficult to distinguish..

Personally, I do not consider "Democrats" that vote for corporations over people to be real Democrats.

[SunsetDreams]

93. It was a 5(conservative) to 4(Liberal) ruling

[blindpig]

81. Tell us all how Sonia Sotomayor is no different than Clarence...

They are both capitalist tools.

[Ignis]

84. ...then you'll get kicked off DU. So why are we discussing it?

:shrug:

[LoZoccolo]

86. I think everybody knows that, they just act like they don't as an easy way to try to manipulate.

Going out and getting more people to support progressive ideas is a lot of hard work; it's easier to sit down at the computer and troll like they are going to mess things up if they don't get their way.

[defendandprotect]

94. Unfortunately, on the basic premise there would be few who would agree with you ...

infiltration of the Dems by corporations has been ongoing for decades --

and Clinton made it official with DLC -- corporate wing --

Corporatism is a cancer working on both parties --

[Romulox]

102. Obama is handling BP just like W would've. nt

[mmonk]

105. How did radicals Alito and Roberts make it on the Supreme Court of the United States?

[scheming daemons]

115. Because Republicans controlled the WH AND Congress at the time! Exactly my point!!

[mmonk]

117. and the gang of 14 of the 109th.

Where is the gang today?

[SDuderstadt]

108. Excellent post...n/t

[moksha]

118. Of course there are differences. Like two sides to the same coin.

However, they share a lot. Both parties defend the status quo. Neither party is committed to social justice.

Within those parameters, there are differences.