Do HCR opponents think we supporters are only motivated by politics?

[CreekDog]

The theory that we don't care what's in the bill --all we care about is a "win"?

I do see that implication from some posters and from Sirota's column.

I can't speak for others, but I support the bill because of what it's designed to do and the language in it. I really don't care what the political calculation is. Frankly, like the Civil Rights Bill (where LBJ feared he'd lost the South for his party for a generation), sometimes using your power like you won't have it in the future is a good thing.

And among the supportive blogs I read daily (Ezra Klein, Matthew Yglesias, Kevin Drum, Cohn) that talk about the bill, they spend nearly all their effort speaking about the content of the bill and very little about the political consequences.

I just feel like we are in 2008 all over again when a lot of us were thought of as unable to think because we liked a charismatic candidate. Then as now, our positions were portrayed as ones that thinking people simply couldn't come to...then it was kool-aid, now we are political creatures either doing what we are told, or too dumb (hey, we already drank kool-aid two years ago) to know what's good for us.

Sheesh!

To all that, I'll say first, if you ever hope to convince me, you are losing right there. Saying I'm only supporting the bill because of a motivation I don't even have? Not persuasive at all.

Second, why can't some people simply grant that their opponents substantively and sincerely support the bill for a combination of reasons that aren't seen as political or craven?

Do opponents of the bill like to be told they only oppose it because they hate Obama and want to see him fail? (as they are often told)

Then why do it to us? :shrug:

[DevonRex]

1. Now that's a great question.

:popcorn:

[bbinacan]

2. IMO

There is no desire for a good HCR bill. This is $1,000,000,000,000 that we'll spend for a campaign slogan.

[Oregone]

6. "There is no desire for a good HCR bill"

Interesting point. Certainly not from party leadership. They started by attaching the term "universal health care" to a low bar, and its only gotten lower since. Subsequently, its only garnered more and more support here the more watered down it has become, over this last year. Maybe it was a purposeful war of attrition against those who cared....cared at least temporarily.

[Hello_Kitty]

3. What do Ezra, Matthew, Kevin, and Jonathan think?

:eyes:

[CreekDog]

4. They support passage of the bill

:hi:

[Oregone]

5. Blind trust, loyalty, excitement, misunderstanding, sound bites, talking points, etc.

I mean, seriously, one of the most adamant pro-HCR posters here uses straw man arguments, arguments to authority, or just copies talking points on 95% of his or her posts. So...it can be a lot of things.

Just as well, many opposed are not entirely so on policy grounds.

[Deep13]

7. Well, I've gone from being a supporter to on the fence...

...and no, I think those who really support this bill think it will be helpful.

[depakid]

8. If people aren't motivated by politics here then they're fools

It's an important consideration- one that goes side by side with popular and effective health policy.

Trouble in this this case is, the bill and its very public process reflects poor policy and exceptionally bad politics alike.

But to answer the question, there's no doubt that some are motivated solely by their devotion to the President. That has been the case with past presidents, too- we saw it with Bush, with Clinton and Reagan- and even with Jimmy Carter.

As to being "unable to think" a lot of people have confessed to having ignored the warning signs while projecting their own hopes and aspirations for change onto Obama when the record (and often the public statements) showed otherwise.

This is also bound to happen. Campaigns based around charismatic themes of change (think Clinton in 1992) raise high expectations- and thus people become disillusioned when the expectations can't be met- or when they don't perceive the leadership to be putting up a fight for their beliefs and values.

People can deal with that in a number of ways, all of which have been displayed right here on DU. Collectively, in terms of political dynamics this has been called the politics of disappointment, which one sees in phenomena like "the enthusiasm gap" and in splintering coalitions and constituencies.

Dean sums the effects of all of it up rather succinctly: parties that don't use their majorities, lose their majorities.

[LWolf]

9. Yes.

The only other options are to think that supporters are either unconcerned about the amount of money that will be pouring in to for-profit insurance companies while people still go without care, or they are stupid.

And I'm not putting any effort into trying to convince you of something when your mind is made up. That doesn't mean that I don't feel free to express myself about the so-called "reform" effort.

[Name removed]

10. Deleted message

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

[mkultra]

11. on some occasions, very stupid people think they are very smart

thus the obstructionism.

[Cleobulus]

12. The problem is that, frankly the bill isn't good enough...

As with all types of bills of this sort, you have to way the good parts with the bad.

Good: Expansion of community health centers(underfunded).

Good: Forbidding insurance companies from using preexisting conditions to drop coverage or not pay claims(doesn't go far enough).

Good: Expanding Medicaid to single adults below a certain income level(doesn't go far enough)

Good: Subsidies to alleviate spending on premiums(doesn't go far enough).

Good: Cost sharing to alleviate out of pocket expenses(doesn't go far enough).

So So: Exchanges that require at least 1 non-profit and/or co-op per state(so so because even non-profits can be abusive)

So So: 85% of premiums have to be spent on medical care(not really going to be effective, especially in the long run, in slowing down premium increases).

Bad: Mandates to buy insurance from employer if they offer it, from exchanges if they don't.

Bad: Weak oversight of claims process, internal(within insurance company) appeals for claims and lack of federal framework for external appeals process means those who live in republican or right-democrat states are screwed, to put it simply.

Bad: No framework for cost controls, Government still can't negotiate for lower medical care costs, nor can states at this time.

Bad: No strict limitation on claims denial rate, we don't even know what percentage insurance companies can deny before the government can penalize them, or how they will be penalized.

Bad: No framework for transition to a better system, either public option or single payer that is enforceable.

Bad: The Anti-Choice provision.

As I said, its a balance, some bad, some good, but the good doesn't go far enough, and frankly, the effects of the bad, particularly the overall lack of oversight mechanisms combined with mandates, may bite us in the ass later. I think the biggest problem is that a lot of us opponents are afraid that the overall effect of this bill is that we will add a lot of Americans to list as insured, 30 million or so, and yet they still will not have access to affordable health care. In other words, the stats will look good, most Americans will be insured, but its only good on paper.

[Balbus]

13. Yes. Or...

you work for a health-insurance company. I can't really see any other reason.