1 edit
After the failure of the recent NHC plan, what was the primary reasons for its failure, considering that Obama had planned to have things rapped up last August. Here he presumingly has the full support of the American people and the full support of those within his party, but somehow it failed.
So which is it? Is it the failure of the evil corporations influencing the Dems who had the power to inact this legislation at one time? Was the the evil Republicans dancing on the side lines who somehow intimidated the Dems who had the power to make this deal, or is it the fault of pundits in the media? Of course, I left out the evil bankers Obama rails about and their bonuses. Was it their evil influence?
I think instead of Obama having a Q & A with the general public to convince them of his plan, he might first try doing this for those within his own party.
Originally posted by whodeyIt failed (if it has failed) because a few conservative Democratic Senators were willing to join a Republican fillibuster unless politically unpopular provisions were added (taxing of health plans, sweetheart deals for specific states, etc) and politically popular provisions were deleted (the "public option", income tax surcharge on the wealthy, etc.).
After the failure of the recent NHC plan, what was the primary reasons for its failure, considering that Obama had planned to have things rapped up last August. Here he presumingly has the full support of the American people and the full support of those within his party, but somehow it failed.
So which is it? Is it the failure of the evil corporations i ...[text shortened]... blic to convince them of his plan, he might first try doing this for those within his own party.
Originally posted by no1marauderDo you think that it would have been worth the price of adding the unpopular provisions just to pass health care?
It failed (if it has failed) because a few conservative Democratic Senators were willing to join a Republican fillibuster unless politically unpopular provisions were added (taxing of health plans, sweetheart deals for specific states, etc) and politically popular provisions were deleted (the "public option", income tax surcharge on the wealthy, etc.).
Also, what do you make of the election in MA? Was it a disgust with these provisions that drove them to vote for Brown, or was it a distaste for the NHC in general?
Originally posted by whodeyUnpopular =/= bad
Do you think that it would have been worth the price of adding the unpopular provisions just to pass health care?
Also, what do you make of the election in MA? Was it a disgust with these provisions that drove them to vote for Brown, or was it a distaste for the NHC in general?
I disagree with your question in general, that the election in MA had anything to do with a dislike of the healthcare plan. It was a combination of many things, the two biggest of which is dissatisfaction with the state of the country (mainly jobs) and Coakly running the worst campaign I have ever seen.
Originally posted by USArmyParatrooperBut focusing on health care instead of jobs is what this is really about. So you would say it was the failure of the Obama administration to fist tackle NHC instead of tackling the job issue?
Unpopular =/= bad
I disagree with your question in general, that the election in MA had anything to do with a dislike of the healthcare plan. It was a combination of many things, the two biggest of which is dissatisfaction with the state of the country (mainly jobs) and Coakly running the worst campaign I have ever seen.
Originally posted by whodeyBrown supports the Massachusetts health plan which has universal coverage. So no I don't think that Massachusetts voters are opposed to NHC.
Do you think that it would have been worth the price of adding the unpopular provisions just to pass health care?
Also, what do you make of the election in MA? Was it a disgust with these provisions that drove them to vote for Brown, or was it a distaste for the NHC in general?
Coakley ran a not so good campaign, but was still well ahead until the Senate passage of the bill containing the unpopular provisions esp. the special provisions for individual states represented by Nelson, Landrieu and a few others. That was a terrible political move for the Democrats and seems to have directly contributed to the Mass result.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderSo perhaps the people of MA are either happy with the health care provided by their state, which is more in line with federalism invisioned by the Framers, or they are so appalled by their own system they don't wish the nation to go down the same road. Had you ever considered these possibilities?
[b]Brown supports the Massachusetts health plan which has universal coverage. So no I don't think that Massachusetts voters are opposed to NHC.
Make no mistake, everyone knew the stakes involved in this campaign. Everyone knew why Obama was at her side in her campaign run.
1 edit
Originally posted by whodeyI think it was Bush's fault. Remember Obama inherited a bad economy. 🙂
After the failure of the recent NHC plan, what was the primary reasons for its failure, considering that Obama had planned to have things rapped up last August. Here he presumingly has the full support of the American people and the full support of those within his party, but somehow it failed.
So which is it? Is it the failure of the evil corporations i ...[text shortened]... blic to convince them of his plan, he might first try doing this for those within his own party.
Seriously though, no1 is right. The problem was within the Democrats in Congress.
Originally posted by no1marauderI wonder how much Brown's personal opinions will matter given the state of the US Senate. I imagine he'll vote in line with the party block (much like Snowe).
Brown supports the Massachusetts health plan which has universal coverage. So no I don't think that Massachusetts voters are opposed to NHC.
Coakley ran a not so good campaign, but was still well ahead until the Senate passage of the bill containing the unpopular provisions esp. the special provisions for individual states represented by Ne ...[text shortened]... ble political move for the Democrats and seems to have directly contributed to the Mass result.
Originally posted by whodeyIf either was true, they would have voted for McCain in 2008.
So perhaps the people of MA are either happy with the health care provided by their state, which is more in line with federalism invisioned by the Framers, or they are so appalled by their own system they don't wish the nation to go down the same road. Had you ever considered these possibilities?
Make no mistake, everyone knew the stakes involved in this campaign. Everyone knew why Obama was at her side in her campaign run.
Originally posted by telerionUndoubtedly. The Republicans seem to be able to enforce party discipline while the Democrats can't. It still boggles my mind that they were unable to get Nelson and a few others to agree not to support a filibuster even if they voted against the final bill.
I wonder how much Brown's personal opinions will matter given the state of the US Senate. I imagine he'll vote in line with the party block (much like Snowe).
2 edits
Originally posted by telerionAnd Bush is why McCain lost. The Dems did a good job connecting both men at the hip. Then when the economy went south Obama had an easy win. The problem is, however, people now look to who is president, which is a Dem. They fail to even recognize that the Dems controlled Congress from 2006 on during "W" riegn. For the masses, it was "W" fault even though this may not be the case, or at least, not the whole reason. Face it, the progressive movement has conditioned people to look to the president for all their answers. They look to him for things like how their children are educated to what medical care they get. It is the price they pay for coleecitism. That is why we need to get back to federalism and grass roots governing.
I think it was Bush's fault. Remember Obama inherited a bad economy. 🙂
Seriously though, no1 is right. The problem was within the Democrats in Congress.
The people of MA had it right, they solved their own health care system problems without federal intervention.
Originally posted by whodeyWith that "logic", we might as well dissolve the Union right now; the States can fix their own problems.
And Bush is why McCain lost. The Dems did a good job connecting both men at the hip. Then when the economy went south Obama had an easy win. The problem is, however, people now look to who is president, which is a Dem. They fail to even recognize that the Dems controlled Congress from 2006 on during "W" riegn. For the masses, it was "W" fault even though ...[text shortened]... ad it right, they solved their own health care system problems without federal intervention.
1 edit
Originally posted by no1marauderDesolve the union? Counselor, I thought you understood the concept of federalism? In fact, did the people of MA disolve the union when they took care of their own health care needs?
With that "logic", we might as well dissolve the Union right now; the States can fix their own problems.