Left Wing Loons and Obamacare

[HankB]

We're all aware of the protests at various Town Hall meetings, but it turns out that even those on the left are not at all happy with Obamacare.

Take Camille Paglia, who writes at salon.com; she still likes Obama (she must have too much emotional capital invested in him to say otherwise) but she mentions a few things like:

The bureaucracy required to institute and manage a nationalized health system here would be Byzantine beyond belief and would vampirically absorb whatever savings Obama thinks could be made.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, whom I used to admire for her smooth aplomb under pressure, has clearly gone off the deep end with her bizarre rants about legitimate town-hall protests by American citizens.

Wow . . . just wow. We can only hope that with the Left's disenchantment with Obamacare, the plan will die.

Full article at: http://www.salon.com/opinion/paglia/2009/08/12/town_halls/index.html

[K Frame]

I have a very funny feeling that the Democratic party is doing an incredible job at underestimating just how deep the opposition to this is, and just how badly it might hurt them next year.

As I've noted in the other thread, they managed to do that in 1993, and it cost them big in 1994.

[Reifen]

I have a very funny feeling that the Democratic party is doing an incredible job at underestimating just how deep the opposition to this is, and just how badly it might hurt them next year.

The Democratic party believes it's own rhetoric that it's all being faked by the Republican party.  While the GOP has done some astro-turfing, I think the vast majority of the outrage is legitimate.

[xavier fremboe]

I concur.  I think they will have their butts handed to them in 2010.  I'm somewhat afraid that that will learn the lesson of '94 and move to the center, as did Clinton, and we'll end up with a second term.  Of course, he may be too arrogant to actually take that medicine.

The middle is fickle, but he seems to be totally misreading the sentiment of the flyover states.

[K Frame]

Those who are saying that the furor will die down are forgetting one very important thing...

The internet as a form of public communication.

[charby]

I concur.  I think they will have their butts handed to them in 2010.  I'm somewhat afraid that that will learn the lesson of '94 and move to the center, as did Clinton, and we'll end up with a second term.  Of course, he may be too arrogant to actually take that medicine.

Middle is far better than Socialism.

[Balog]

The issue as I see it is Pubbies winning big in 2010 and thinking their "kinda socialist but less than Obama" platform is what did it.

[HankB]

The issue as I see it is Pubbies winning big in 2010 and thinking their "kinda socialist but less than Obama" platform is what did it.

Exactly what cost them so badly in the last couple of elections - they thought that as long as they governed as "Democrat Party Lite" they were in.

They were wrong. And even after repeated defeats, many still refuse to admit it.

There's a reason that the GOP is known as (to quote Ann Coulter) The Stupid Party. 

[buzz_knox]

Exactly what cost them so badly in the last couple of elections - they thought that as long as they governed as "Democrat Party Lite" they were in.

They were wrong. And even after repeated defeats, many still refuse to admit it.

There's a reason that the GOP is known as (to quote Ann Coulter) The Stupid Party. 

We've got an opportunity to hammer some sense into them.  They've got to be reminded that the ole' rules are out the window.  People wanted change and got it, but are realizing that the change was simply replacing one group of oligarchs with pet projects for another.  Now, people are demanding change that makes sense.

We need to start demanding that any candidate who wants to run for office (including incumbents) publicly get on board with eliminating earmarks, eliminating deficit spending, etc.  Anyone who agrees to those things gets our support, regardless of party affiliation.  Anyone who refuses or votes another when in office, gets booted, regardless of party affiliation.

[MicroBalrog]

Frankly, earmarks are one of the most beautiful things in US politics. I am constantly stunned by the desire of Americans to kill them.

[buzz_knox]

Frankly, earmarks are one of the most beautiful things in US politics. I am constantly stunned by the desire of Americans to kill them.

Earmarks are a prime mechanism for both increasing budgets through useless pork, and for carrying out the politican's portion of a bribery scheme.  If a politican had to convince others to go along with pet projects via direct legislation, there would far less opportunity to get crap through, and far less incentive to bribe them.

[MicroBalrog]

Consider this, on the other hand:

Congressmen are individually elected and personally responsible for their earmarks. The earmark process gives the public a person who is individually accountable for public spending. Conversely, if earmarks were abolished (how would you abolish them?), then control over the details of spending (for example, deciding which district gets that massive order for Military Widget X) would be given to unelected bureaucrats. Then you would be like a European country, with all the corruption that entails.

[FTA84]

The earmark process gives the public a person who is individually accountable for public spending.

That is the problem that most Americans see.  Useless and wasteful projects which are done through earmarks, are usually done to benefit the voters of representative Y.  The problem is, the people who are short changed are precisely those people who can't vote for representative Y.

[MicroBalrog]

See, way I see it is:

Consider the alternative.

Either you apportion a large sum of money and let unappointed bureaucrats micromanage it, or you have elected representatives do the micromanaging.

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Either you apportion a large sum of money and let unappointed bureaucrats micromanage it, or you have elected representatives do the micromanaging.

Different incentives (using tax money to buy votes vs buying unelected bureaucratic positions), but the end result is largely the same.  People who spend Other People's Money don't care if they're doing the right thing with it.

[FTA84]

unappointed bureaucrats

I don't really understand the difference.  If district 1 contributes $300/yr to the fed tax rolls and district 2 contributes $100/yr to the fed tax rolls but district 2 is represented by representative 2, who is really sly, and gets district  2 $250/yr to spend.

From the stand-point of a district 1 resident, representative 2 is unelected and unaccountable to me either way.

[Balog]

I thought the idea behind no earmarks was that all spending had to be directly relevant to the bill at hand?

[buzz_knox]

I thought the idea behind no earmarks was that all spending had to be directly relevant to the bill at hand?

Yes.  This eliminates that "and for other purposes" language in the bill's title, which is used to get around the requirement that the title of legislation should accurately state what the legislation is about.

As for putting decisions about where money goes in the hands of the unelected, we have a massive procurement structure in place that does that everyday.  It comes with criminal penalties for misuse, and dispute systems that allow competitors to have their case heard without bribing someone.  Competitors do that routinely, and people go to jail for misuse.  Neither of those factors is present in the legislative process.

[agricola]

As an aside, if I was in the anti-BHO crowd on this issue I would be seriously worried about how wrong some of the anti-NHS comments are. 

[Headless Thompson Gunner]

Which comments would those be?

[roo_ster]

Which comments would those be?

I recall someone with no google-fu writing about how if Stephen Hawking had to rely on the NHS, he'd be dead. <facepalm>

SH commented that he'd be dead without the NHS.

Thing is, BOTH are wrong. 

SH has gotten life-saving care from the NHS, showing google-fu-less dude to be incorrect.  But, it is not as if in the absence of Brit NHS that there would be NO medical care to be found in the UK.  As a member of the academic elite and a best-selling author, SH would have been able to get life-saving care in the absence of the NHS.

[agricola]

Which comments would those be?

The IBD claiming that Stephen Hawking's life wouldnt be a priority if the NHS treated him is a good start:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html

I mean, its not as if he is British, works at one of the finest universities in England and has had a long history of being treated by the NHS....

[makattak]

The IBD claiming that Stephen Hawking's life wouldnt be a priority if the NHS treated him is a good start:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/how_stehpen_hawking_proves_tha.html

I mean, its not as if he is British, works at one of the finest universities in England and has had a long history of being treated by the NHS....

Wonder how much of a priority he'd be without being world famous...

[agricola]

SH has gotten life-saving care from the NHS, showing google-fu-less dude to be incorrect.  But, it is not as if in the absence of Brit NHS that there would be NO medical care to be found in the UK.  As a member of the academic elite and a best-selling author, SH would have been able to get life-saving care in the absence of the NHS.

Which is another point - if you want private healthcare over here then you can get it, either for a one-off operation / treatment or via health insurance.  If you dont then you might (depending on the urgency of what is wrong with you) have to wait.  Ads like the one below do greatly mislead what the reality of the situation is over here in the UK:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2OU0echxHCs&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Ftimesnews.typepad.com%2Fnews%2F2009%2F08%2Fis-us-right-to-abuse-the-nhs.html&feature=player_embedded

[agricola]

Wonder how much of a priority he'd be without being world famous...

Probably the same priority as he does now?