Democrats: calm down and regain some perspective...

[ProSense]

Democrats: calm down and regain some perspective. Yes, we'll suffer losses this fall, but there's actually not any profound Anti-Obama or pro-Republican attitude shift going on. This may sound wildly at variance with the polls you've seen, but it's true.

In recent days, as increasingly negative projections regarding the November election have appeared, a substantial number of Democrats have been seized with a genuine sense of panic. Many political commentaries have tended to suggest that what is happening may not be just the result of structural factors like the lower participation of pro-Obama groups in off-year elections or the deep recession. Rather, they suggest that a major shift in basic attitudes is occurring - that many Americans are now shifting their allegiance to the Republicans and abandoning Obama and the Democrats. Many Democrats have a sinking fear that support for Obama and the Dems is somehow collapsing.

<...>

In broad, long-term perspective the data simply do not suggest that Obama or the Democrats are in political "free fall." The fact that the elections this November may shift the balance of power in Congress is basically due to the fact that America is still essentially the same "50-50 nation" that it was in 2000. As a result of this sociological reality extremely small changes - such as a lower participation of pro-Obama demographic groups relative to others in off year election -- can easily shift control of Congress.

If Republicans do win control of the House this fall it will be because of the painfully close political balance of power between the two cultures and two political coalitions in America at this point in history and not because major shifts are occurring in the attitudes of the electorate.

To be sure, this will not make the pain of any Republicans victories in November any easier to tolerate, but it does help substantially to keep a balanced view.

So Democrats, step back, take a deep breath and look at the big picture. Obama is attempting to achieve significant progressive reforms with which substantial numbers of Americans do not yet agree. The long-range demographic trends run in our favor, but for the short and medium term, furious, powerful and very substantial opposition is inevitable. The message Democrats should be deriving from the data is the need for firm resolution, renewed commitment and fierce determination - and certainly not justification for demoralization, panic and dismay.

A perfect illustration of this is Nevada and Harry Reid's position.

[Vincardog]

1. What " significant progressive reforms" Are those? Repeal NAFTA? Single payer? Card check?

Prosecute war criminals?
End Illegal wars of aggression?


I submit the Dems are in trouble for acting too much like the GOP.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. I submit that you've not read a single poll in your life. (nt)

[ProSense]

4. The goal

is to distract from the point of the OP: There is no Democratic Party free fall.

Still, mention progressive reforms and it must be pointed out that Dems are like Repubs.

[zipplewrath]

6. Conversely

One must always describe Obama's reforms as "progressive", despite the dispute over that fact. Can't just discuss Obama without asserting that his is a progressive. Because if he isn't progressive, someone might get the idea that the party is in freefall.

[ProSense]

7. This makes sense?

"Because if he isn't progressive, someone might get the idea that the party is in freefall."

Isn't the point of all the handwringing that the Democratic Party isn't progressive? So why on earth would a party that no one believes is progressive be in freefall because it's not doing anything progressive?

Here's the deal: All the claims that the President's policies are not progressive are noise.

Health care is progressive when even Medicare recipients get free preventive care for the first time in history. It's progressive when for the first time in history the uninsured get coverage. It's progressive because it establishes for the first time in history a health insurance exchange administered by the government.

Wall street reform is progressive because it established the first-ever consumer bureau. It's progressive because it gives the FDIC more power than it previously had. It's progressive because it re-regulates the financial industry, and this includes some regulations (credit rating agencies and hedge funds) for the first time in history.

I know damn well what it means to want more and recognize what more can be done, but the botttom line is that the claim that these accomplishments aren't progressive is noise.

[zipplewrath]

8. Where to start

Cadillac taxes are regressive.
Mandates are regressive. Worse, these mandates only apply to those the government wants to support, otherwise you just don't get insurance.
Establishing that buying health insurance is a legal obligation, but that health care and access to it is an option of the free market, isn't progressive.

So how much progressive stuff balances out all the regressive crap?

[ProSense]

9. Really?

"Cadillac taxes are regressive.
Mandates are regressive. Worse, these mandates only apply to those the government wants to support, otherwise you just don't get insurance.
Establishing that buying health insurance is a legal obligation, but that health care and access to it is an option of the free market, isn't progressive."

Mandates are a part of every universal health care plan, including single-payer.

And where did this claim come from: "otherwise you just don't get insurance"

Insurance is your choice, 83 percent of Americans already have it. The reform extends it to another 32 million people.

Again, pick at the bill all you want to, it establishes a univeral health care system that has already reduced the cost of coverage for millions through the high risk pools and will benefit more and more Americans throughout its implementation.

[zipplewrath]

10. hardly

They weren't part of single payer. They weren't even part of Obama's original plan, he campaigned against them. Said solving health care with mandates was like solving homelessness by forcing people to buy a house.

And read the law. If your premiums are too high, and your income is too low, you are exempt from the mandate and its associated fines. You just don't get insurance. The White House Estimates that 8 million folks will fall into this category. They estimate that for various reason 25 million folks will still be without insurance even after HCR is fully implemented. Nice an progressive eh?

It does NOT establish a universal health CARE system at all. It estalishes an obligation to obtain health INSURANCE. There is no obligation for providers to give access or care to anyone.

[ProSense]

11. You're throwing out your opinions to

refute things like increasing from 83 percent to 95 percent upon implementation. A number that will, like other countries, grow over time.

"They estimate that for various reason 25 million folks.."

Yes, and you also know that includes undocumented immigrants.

And a mandate is part of single payer whether you choose to accept that it is or not.

[zipplewrath]

12. It isn't in other countries

I don't know why you'd insist that single payer was synomous with a mandate, since other countries manage just fine without it. Unless you want to suggest that the fact that everyone pays taxes means its a "mandate".

8 million folks who aren't undocumented immigrants won't have health insurance. millions who do have health insurance won't be able to afford to use it. There is nothing about that which is universal.

Again, just how many regressive features can a bill have before it outweighs any progressive features in a bill? How many turds in the punch bowl before you won't drink it?

[ProSense]

13. Know your facts:

Universal health care systems vary according to the extent of government involvement in providing care and/or health insurance. In some countries, such as the UK, Spain, Italy and the Nordic countries, the government has a high degree of involvement in the commissioning or delivery of health care services and access is based on residence rights not on the purchase of insurance. Others have a much more pluralistic delivery system based on obligatory health with contributory insurance rates related to salaries or income, and usually funded by employers and beneficiaries jointly. Sometimes the health funds are derived from a mixture of insurance premiums, salary related mandatory contributions by employees and/or employers to regulated sickness funds, and by government taxes. These insurance based systems tend to reimburse private or public medical providers, often at heavily regulated rates, through mutual or publicly owned medical insurers. A few countries such as the Netherlands and Switzerland operate via privately owned but heavily regulated private insurers that are not allowed to make a profit from the mandatory element of insurance but can profit by selling supplemental insurance.

link

Germany has Europe's oldest universal health care system, with origins dating back to Otto von Bismarck's Social legislation, which included the Health Insurance Bill of 1883, Accident Insurance Bill of 1884, and Old Age and Disability Insurance Bill of 1889. As mandatory health insurance, these bills originally applied only to low-income workers and certain government employees; their coverage, and that of subsequent legislation gradually expanded to cover virtually the entire population.<2>

Currently 85% of the population is covered by a basic health insurance plan provided by statute, which provides a standard level of coverage. The remainder opt for private health insurance, which frequently offers additional benefits. According to the World Health Organization, Germany's health care system was 77% government-funded and 23% privately funded as of 2004.<3>

The government partially reimburses the costs for low-wage workers, whose premiums are capped at a predetermined value. Higher wage workers pay a premium based on their salary. They may also opt for private insurance, which is generally more expensive, but whose price may vary based on the individual's health status.<4>

Reimbursement is on a fee-for-service basis, but the number of physicians allowed to accept Statutory Health Insurance in a given locale is regulated by the government and professional societies.

Co payments were introduced in the 1980s in an attempt to prevent over utilization. The average length of hospital stay in Germany has decreased in recent years from 14 days to 9 days, still considerably longer than average stays in the United States (5 to 6 days).<5><6> Part of the difference is that the chief consideration for hospital reimbursement is the number of hospital days as opposed to procedures or diagnosis. Drug costs have increased substantially, rising nearly 60% from 1991 through 2005. Despite attempts to contain costs, overall health care expenditures rose to 10.7% of GDP in 2005, comparable to other western European nations, but substantially less than that spent in the U.S. (nearly 16% of GDP).<7>

<...>

Germany has a universal multi-payer system with two main types of health insurance. Germans are offered three mandatory health benefits, which are co-financed by employer and employee: health insurance, accident insurance, and long-term care insurance.

<...>

All salaried employees must have a public health insurance. Only public officers, self-employed people and employees with a large income above ca. 50000 EU (adjusted yearly) may join the private system.

<...>

A person that opts out of the public health insurance system and gets private health insurance can not go back later to the public system, even if income drops below the level required for private selection. Since private health insurance is usually more expensive than public health insurance one will be required to pay the higher premiums with less income.

link

[zipplewrath]

14. I do

You don't seem to understand the very bill you seem to support. Do you know all the reasons that people can be exempt from the mandate?

[ProSense]

16. "Do you know all the reasons that people can be exempt from the mandate?"

What happened to this discussion: "I don't know why you'd insist that single payer was synomous with a mandate"

Regardless of the exemptions, you seem to be arguing the the worst thing about the bill is the mandate when it will affect relatively few people. The fact is mandates are typical of universal health care systems.

[zipplewrath]

17. Because it isn't

But we don't HAVE a universal health care system. You're attempting to equate systems that deliver universal health care to everyone, regardless of the ability to pay, with a mandate to purchase insurance that one may, or may not be able to actually use. Calling a system in which everyone pays in, based upon their ability to pay, and mostly through taxes, a "mandate" is absurd in comparison to what was passed, which is a system in which a segment of the population is mandated to pay, regardless of their ability to actually use it, and if their preimums get too high, they are exempt from getting health insurance OR health care.

There is no comparison and calling universal health care a "mandate" similar to this is absurd.

Do you know all the ways people are exempt from being subject to the mandate? Do you know why the administration estimates that upwards of 25 million won't be covered? Did you know that only 9 million of those are undocumented aliens? Do you have a clue what the other 16 million are? Do you know how many millions have insurance now and can't afford to use it?

Your suggestion that single payer has a "mandate" in any sense that this bill does is absurd and ignores the fact that the funding sources for those plans ensures universal health CARE and this doesn't even try, even for those that have to pay the mandate.

[Sheepshank]

31. Having lived in the UK and Australia

I can confirm universal, socialized medicine (whatever) is a tax mandate on all working people. It's paid for by the tax payer. It isn't funded out of thin air.

[zipplewrath]

32. Which is different from a direct tax on an individual for their care

First, since we don't have universal health care, there is little comparison to an Australian system. Furthermore, the taxes are either VAT, or other taxes on income and wealth. The "coverage" one receives is independent of the taxes one pays. Here, each individual is charged, and if they are deemed unable to pay, and don't qualify for medicaid, they don't get covered. Furthermore, even if they have insurance, they don't necessarily have the funds to actually purchase health CARE.

Comparing taxes that are paid by everyone, and fund care for everyone, to an individual mandate to purchase an individual insurance policy from a commercial company, regardless on ones ability to actually use the insurance, or receive care is absurd. It amounts to claiming we have a "mandate" to "purchase" fire insurance because we all pay taxes that fund the fire department.

[Sheepshank]

33. IF the US was ale to get universal health

you think it wouldn't be a mandate via payroll deduction?

in either case the mandate is there.

[zipplewrath]

34. Nope

Predominately it would be funded through payroll taxes, and income taxes, much like roads, and wars, and the FCC.....

[Cha]

15. Yes, and it's not working as usual. nt

[Vincardog]

18. The point is to point out that any fall is the result of faux 'centrist' policies that please only

the Monied Minority and leave the MAJORITY of the country COLD.

[Vincardog]

21. Why do the polls list some Progressive reforms I missed?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

26. The polls continually show this country as centrist, at best.

Going further to the left will have no better result than what happened when the Republicans went further to the right.

[Vincardog]

27. Like the poll showing the majority of the people wanted SINGLE PAYER?

Or the one that showed the vast majority opposed the Bank Bailout?

Those polls?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Well, funny you should ask about single payer.

http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/statements/2009/oct/01/michael-moore/michael-moore-claims-majority-favor-single-payer-h/

"But we'd like to note something else about the Kaiser poll. Among the eight options posed to increase the number of Americans covered by health insurance, the single-payer option fared the worst."

As far as the "bank bailout" goes, yes, it was unpopular but it was also passed bipartisanly - to rule out that this is a "left" position. So nice try.

[Vincardog]

29. The point of Single Payer was to increase to 100% the number of people receiving Health CARE

So nice try

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

30. Are you arguing with PolitiFact?

Because they shot this down as completely false. Not barely false, not a little false - FALSE.

[ProSense]

3. You're right

this feels just like when Bush was in office. Not a damn thing has changed.

[opihimoimoi]

5. I submit its the GOP who are in twoubles...its the WHACKO PARTY and peeps don't like WHACKOs

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

19. It's going to be interesting....

I think that in most cases, the Tea Party candidates are going to fail (maybe one might get through), and many of the other Republican candidates who went through primaries are going to tend toward the hard right. Give them two months in front of the cameras, and I think moderate and independent voters will break our way.

[opihimoimoi]

20. Reason common sense and logic will send many peeps our way

the GOPer Whacko Party is busy with self delusion and infighting

all they do is whine and Blame...how Lame

[Kweli4Real]

24. I think ...

many primary-induced republican candidates (with the possible exception of here in Arizona) will break more moderate in the next 40 days in order to pick up the right-leaning, non-fanatical independants and more moderate republicans.

But that said, I have confidence in President Obama's "closing quotient." I think the case he, and the rest of the administration, is hitting on will pay off.

We're not gonna end up as bad as the pundits/pollster are representing.

[RBInMaine]

25. Bull fucking shit. It is about the sluggish economy. YOU have had more PROGRESS in the last 19

months than we've seen since the Great Society programs. So take your purist attitude and go pound sand with it. We are in an election fight against the RePUKES, and there is ZERO fucking room for this fucking naysaying. We've heard it over and over. Give the negativity a rest.

[flyarm]

22. here is some perspective for you>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=103x558768

And please, you would be the last person I would listen to about calming down or perspective!

[damonm]

23. Also bear in mind...

That with all the shit the rethugs have been throwing, the generic Congressional polls are EVEN, per Gallup. The thugs have got their meme out, and it's getting tired. Now it's time for OUR swings.