Sigh
Look, I think the “lesson” of yesterday’s election and voter discontent is pretty clear: Democrats badly underestimated how awful this recession was going to get and when they shifted their focus to health care reform they blithely assumed that the steps they had already taken, from the stimulus to HAMP to Geithner’s brilliant-still-to-be-revealed secret plan for fixing the banks, would start bringing unemployment down and would make for a more favorable political climate this year.
The Washington Post, as usual, gets this simple lesson completely wrong:
Voters, not just in Massachusetts and certainly not just in the Republican Party, are worried about government spending. Budget deficits and the national debt alarm many Americans, and rightly so. Voters also are disappointed that President Obama’s promises of pragmatic, bipartisan cooperation have not been fulfilled.
Sorry, but no. Without going into a Nate Silver-style poll projection, I think I can boil down voters’ concerns right now in the following order of importance:
- I’ve been unemployed for a year.
- My mortgage is underwater.
- My small business can’t get money because the banks aren’t lending at reasonable rates.
- The government is spending too much money.
- My senators don’t hold hands and sing the theme from “The Get-Along Gang” while drafting legislation.
It’s damn simple — the economy sucks and the measures that the administration have taken have provided very little effective, immediate relief to the average person. So when the health care debate went into a Baucus-induced wankfest over the summer, the Democrats lost a lot of time when they could have been working harder on job creation. If somebody is really suffering, the first thing they want is help. They’ll become concerned about how to pay for it only after they’ve been rescued.
More utter dumbness from the WaPo:
The White House answer will be: We tried, and Republicans didn’t want to play ball. That’s true, and the growing strength of the party’s Tea Party wing is making cooperation ever more difficult.
But imagine that Mr. Obama had refused to take the Republicans’ no as his final answer. The president acknowledged, for example, that malpractice litigation is a factor in driving up health-care costs. He signaled he might be open to its reform if Republican senators would support his overall framework. When none did, malpractice reform fell by the wayside, which was the predictable response; why offend a Democratic interest group (trial lawyers) for no apparent political gain? But Mr. Obama could have insisted: This is a good idea, not just a Republican idea, and it belongs in health-care reform. A series of such steps, difficult as they would be, might have a real effect on public opinion and the political climate.
Well let’s see. Obama and the Senate took the WaPo’s Sensible Advice about implementing a tax on “Cadillac” health plans that pissed off a lot of union people. Did needlessly pissing off the people who vote for them change public opinion on the bill or the process? Well no, no it didn’t. Next up: the Post recommends that Obama show he’s serious about paying for health care reform by implementing a poll tax!
We don’t believe that Tuesday’s defeat means Mr. Obama should back away from his goal of expanding access to health care while controlling health-care costs. But if losing his filibuster-proof majority in the Senate prompts him to stretch a bit further beyond party positions in search of practical solutions, both he and the nation might benefit.
We recognize and regret that Tuesday’s election isn’t likely to have any such tempering effect on Republicans. With their scare talk of a “government takeover” of health care, and their demagogic about-face on Medicare savings, they no doubt feel they’ve done well for themselves. But ultimately we don’t believe voters will reward a party that just says no, either; Virginia Gov. Robert F. McDonnell won with a very different promise, of a pragmatic and cooperative conservatism. A little of that would go a long way in Washington.
OK, so the Post’s prescription is that Obama make meaningless gestures in futile attempts to win bipartisanship so at least the American people will understand that “he tried.” Meanwhile unemployment is at 10%, there’s a second foreclosure wave on its way and the banks are just as messed up as ever. Crackers, people don’t need meaningless feel-good bipartisan gestures, they need help!
Also, can I add that Jon Walker is 100% right about this:
Let me put this as simply as possible. Democrats control everything in Washington right now. They control the White House. They have a huge margins in the House and in the Senate. Democrats have larger margins in both chambers than any party has had for decades. They have zero excuses for failing to deliver. Americans will not find some nonsense about having only 59 Senate seats as an acceptable excuse for failing to accomplish anything. If Democrats think they can win in 2010 by running against Republican obstructionism, they will lose badly.
Not only will Democrats lose badly if they adopt this strategy, but they will be laughed at. Republicans never had 59 Senate seats, and that did not stop them from passing the legislation they wanted. Trying to explain to the American people how, despite controlling everything, Democrats cannot do anything, because a mean minority of 41 Republican senators won’t let them, is a message that will go over like a lead balloon. If you try to use that excuse, people will think elected Democrats are liars, wimps, idiots, or an ineffectual combination of all three.
If the Dems use having “only” 59 seats as a reason to not do anything to help with the jobless situation they deserve to lose.
UPDATE: Krugman:
Second, David Axelrod is right: the campaign against HCR has been based on lies, and the only way to refute those lies (and stop them from being rolled out again and again) is to pass the thing, and let people see it in action. It’s too bad startup is delayed under the Senate bill — but even so, that’s what you have to do.
Finally, Democrats have to realize that politics isn’t just about where you stand on issues, it’s about perceptions of a party’s character. The rap on Dems has always been that they’re wimps — and giving in on such a central part of the party’s agenda, emerging from two years in power with nothing major to show for it, will play right into that perception.
I’ve long said that the Dems will get shellacked in 2010. But they could at least go down fighting and enact some policies that will do some good. Or, conversely, they could just turtle themselves and realize after the inevitable reaming in November that they spent two years accomplishing close to nothing.
Christ, I think I’m starting to see why people ever voted for Republicans last decade. Sure, they were crazy, but at least they had some self-respect and confidence!
Yeah, Bowers called this:
But in a data-free vacuum, I’m certainly inclined to side with “it’s the economy, stupid” over “voters are concerned about America’s long term fiscal outlook” – most people don’t even know what the difference between the deficit and the debt is, they only worry about it because fiscal scolds spend so much time carping about it.
And yet the WaPo fails to point out that the reason there’s been no cooperation is because Republican aren’t fucking interesting in cooperating and have blocked every goddamn piece of legislation.
The GOP hasn’t offered a single serious suggestion on how to solve anything. Well, unless it involves giving rich folks more money, bombing brown people, and letting companies fuck us over for all eternity. Those are just dandy.
And I’ll give $100 to the first person who can show me multiple columns during Bush’s reign that lamented the lack of bipartisanship when the GOP ran roughshod over the government, or wailed about the huge deficits Bush and the GOP-controlled Congress ran up when they were in charge.
Amazing how this shit only fucking counts when Democrats are in charge …
The Washington Post is VERY CONCERNED about budget deficits.
Unless they’re the result of tax cuts for rich people and bombing foreigners, of course.
~
Yeah. Despite how much I wanted single-payer health care, a better legislative agenda for the dems would have been finance reform. I know, that’s going against their big donors, but it would have done good and put them in touch with their constituents. It would also have the advantage that if such legislation were subject to filibuster, voters would have been rightfully upset. I think things could still be turned around by moving to addressing financial matters. Even though legislation could be blocked — no, because legislation could be blocked, the dems need to up the ante with good populist bills.
Wasn’t it about a year ago that many on this very website (and others) said things along the lines of “OK, Democrats have control of everything now. If they don’t get shit done, they own it”.
Regardless of how obstructionist the Party of No is being, nobody is buying the “we’re helpless in the face of Blanche Lincoln” act.
And finally, can they get it through their thick fucking heads that JOE LIEBERMAN IS NOT WITH YOU ON EVERYTHING BUT THE WAR?
I swear, there’s a reason that DC doesn’t have many zombies. Not many brains, and the ones that are there have gone over.
I think voters *are* concerned over the long-term fiscal outlook, but that doesn’t take precedence over the immediate problems of high unemployment. So yeah I’m engaging in baseless speculation, but I think it’s pretty sensible baseless speculation to be honest with you.
Democrats control everything in Washington right now
Wrong. Democrats may have the majority, but they don’t control shit.
You’re right. WaPo couldn’t be farther off: “…Voters also are disappointed that President Obama’s promises of pragmatic, bipartisan cooperation have not been fulfilled….” If anything, voters are bewildered as to why stuff can’t get done, and why all the opposition party has to do is to make a scary face, and everybody runs for cover and apologizes.
I’m breaking my own rule here (which is to never ask SadlyNaughts a question to which I don’t already know the answer, because duh) and ask what this nuclear option is, why it once hovered over the political landscape, where it went, did it go away forever, and if so, why, and if not, why can’t Democrats use it even if they pinky-swore not to?
Republican aren’t fucking interesting in cooperating and have blocked every goddamn piece of legislation.
which is exactly what Brown promised. It riled up the TeaBaggers good, though.
Also, Coakley appears to be a moran.
Wrong. Democrats may have the majority, but they don’t control shit.
and yet, when Republicans had far smaller majorities, they got everything they wanted?
I tell you, that’s not how people are seeing it. Hell, that’s not how I see it. Just because Harry Reid can’t effectively run his caucus doesn’t mean it’s not possible. A bad driver still has control of the car.
Coakley does indeed appear to be a moran. Except for the continued existence of Joe Lieberdork, I’d once have suggested that Coakley should be elected and then schooled by her own party, but, well: Joe Liebercreep.
As I said last night, I myself will not be buying the “mean Republican minority won’t let us do anything” bullshit line.
If they fail to pass something on health care, even if it’s the shitty Senate version of the bill, they’ve seen the last dime – and vote – they’ll be getting from me. I’ve had enough of their kabuki. If they can’t figure out how to deliver on the things people elected them to deliver, even with a huge majority, who needs them? It’s as I said – the pattern over the past 30 years is: Republicans put us in the shit, voters get mad and let the party of cowardice and incompetence run things, and while they keep us momentarily from going any deeper into the shit, they do nothing to pull us out of it. Then voters get mad and hand things back over to the crazies, who put us deeper into the shit. If the end result is being in the shit over our heads regardless of who gets elected, why put off the inevitable? Let the Republicans have it and run the fucker into the ground. We’ll get there soon enough anyway.
I’m going to go with “the triumph of spectacle,” personally. Scott Brown’s a celebrity type, and Coakley isn’t. Issues, schmissues, “that guy’s more personally appealing to me so I shall vote for him” has been at work for a century.
.The president acknowledged, for example, that malpractice litigation is a factor in driving up health-care costs. He signaled he might be open to its reform if Republican senators would support his overall framework.
If it’s the right thing to do, then he should not wait for support from Republicans to do it. Put it in the bill and then let the GOP look like shit when they say no to malpractice reform.
But malpractice reform absent big time health insurance reform is like throwing a pretty swimsuit at a drowning person.
I agree with your analysis.
The mantra of 60 seats was bullshit anyway. With LIEbermann and the Blue Dogs we really never had 60 seats.
So maybe now, Obama will start to fight harder and get his hands dirty. Stop with the bi-partisanship already! It’s not going to work.
From what I understand about HCR (very little) they should pass what ever parts of it they can through reconciliation. Get it to the people as fast as they can. Then when the people start feeling the benefits of it, they won’t be so impatient with the Dems. And the rethugs won’t let it expire because it will be too popular with the people.
I know that the bill as it is sucks, but if they don’t pass anything at all, they won’t have anything to build on. And they can add to it, like I said, through reconciliation.
It doesn’t take a fucking rocket scientist to add it all up.
And as far as Brown winning the seat in MASS? Dumb luck and too many uneducated people who need a quick fix. And Martha my dear, you did a shitty job campaigning.
@PopeRatzo — even if he does put it in the bill Fox News will magically memory-hole their support for it and will call it the latest communist plot to restrain the growth and creativity of our legal profession.
If you don’t think they won’t go there, you haven’t been paying attention.
Sorry, but no. Without going into a Nate Silver-style poll projection, I think I can boil down voters’ concerns right now in the following order of importance
You forgot one very important thing — “I’m unemployed, don’t know how I’m gonna pay my bills — and the Democrats now are gonna make me purchase health insurance I can’t afford? They say they’ll be subsidies … but with my luck, because I own a house or whatever I won’t qualify”
Of course, this doesn’t quite apply in MA because they have a Senate-style health “reform” plan already in action. And maybe it’s more fear than reality.
But the fact of the matter is that Obama and Reid have been so busy trying to get Senators on board, they forgot to get voters on board. At the very least, instead of telling us what health care reform is supposed to accomplish, maybe Obama could have explained how the bill taking shape would actually accomplish what it’s claimed to accomplish? Maybe he could have demanded from Congress a “clean bill that actually will accomplish what we set out to accomplish”?
Voters are smart enough to know that every time the Democrats promise reform they end up caving to the corporate interests. The problem is that they then conclude “well both sides are equally bad” then vote for the very wankers that cave to the corporate interests (on either side). It’s a vicious cycle.
Anyway, back to the point — Obama and Reid, et al., should have spent more effort crafting a bill that would actually benefit the people who need health care reform the most instead of working on a compromise that looks as if it would screw over those who need health care reform the most. If they would have crafted a good, clean bill and then actually sold it properly to the American people, the bill would have been — even with GOP misinformation campaigns — so popular that, should the GOP have filibustered it, it would have been the GOP that would have looked bad.
But now the Dems have spent so much time trying to build a filibuster proof majority that they have cemented the meme that such a majority is necessary to get legislation through! So now what are the Dems to do? It seems that while playing 11-dimensional chess they painted themselves into a corner!
OK, so I just got around to reading reading Paul Krugman’s _The Conscience of a Liberal_, and the thing is, somebody in the Obama admininstration clearly read that before the inauguration, because going hard after health care reform is exactly what Krugman advocates in the book, in a very convincing way. The problem may be that the economy tanked after the book was published, and the administration forgot to check with Krugman for some updated advice. Or something. But I think waiting on health care reform wouldn’t have gotten us anywhere either. Obama’s popularity had to decline somewhat once he got into office, so it was a now-or-never kind of thing. Unfortunately, now it looks like never.
What chocolatepie said, also.
Coakley simply didn’t learn the same lesson that Ned Lamont and Doug Hoffman did: nomination =/= election, no matter how “safe” the seat is for your party. And, yes, the Dems need to grow a collective pair and use the nuclear option; the GOP threatened to do the same when they had the Senate last, they’ve got exactly jack shit to whine about.
The Democrats never had this, because one of those ’60 votes’ was Joe Fucking Lieberman. I don’t know why this isn’t more widely acknowledged.
I really hope the Democrats, if nothing else, use this opportunity to kick Droopy Dog in the balls. They don’t even theoretically need his ass anymore.
The whole “deficit” argument is horseshit. The same folks weren’t worried about deficits while W was pissing any money like it was going out of style (“Ronald Regan proved deficits don’t matter”, and should a Republican (white/male, of course) win in 2010, I will guaran-damn-tee you they won’t matter again.
The Obama administration flubbed the economy and did not punish bad actors causing the recession. That’s one thing. Cloakley was a horrible candidate, that’s another.
Same old Democratic fumble. Take it for granted, and don’t have a Plan B.
edit: (“Ronald Regan proved deficits don’t matter”), and should a Republican (white/male, of course) win in 2012
The Dems are weak and the Republicans are crazy.
We’re well and truly screwed.
The Democrats never had this, because one of those ‘60 votes’ was Joe Fucking Lieberman. I don’t know why this isn’t more widely acknowledged.
That was the other thing besides “deficits” and “need to lower taxes” that really pissed me off. You can’t lose what you never had. Droopy was never going to vote with the Democrats on anything that mattered.
The Democrats need to learn the lesson from this election and the other one with the 2 governors is that if they don’t abandon any attempt to make shitty policies better, and if they don’t shitty up their existing approaches, then the voters will punish them. Because what Americans want are shitty, ineffective policies which are said to be bipartisan and not too liberal and not too big, and as the nation gets shittier and shittier then American voters will turn out and vastly reward Democrats by electing Republicans so that the work of pushing shittier policies will get turned up to 11.
It is heartening to hear the teabaggers go on about “now for Reid, Lincoln and someotherDINO I can’t remember”. 30 years ago, Blanche would have easily qualified as a moderate Republican. Same for Reid. Anybody the ‘baggers put up will be crazy as a bessie bug.
You say a lot of things, Brad. Which is not to say you aren’t right this time.
One of the more depressing and yet widely unacknowledged facts about yesterday’s Massachusetts Senate election may be, as a Boston-based analyst pointed out on KPFA’s Morning Show, not too many ordinary voters understood the whole ’60 votes’ thing and even Democrats when asked seemed to think that a strong Senate majority of Democrats meant that Democrats could still pass their agenda and they thought that maybe voting for Brown might ‘send a message’.
Really.
The average voter out there just doesn’t understand, nor apparently give a shit about, the non-Constitutional requirement that Democrats have 60 Senators in their caucus in order to pass legislation.
We can keep pretending like the average voter knows and appreciates this artificial and fairly recent standard, but you’ll lose more elections if you do.
You know, Rove is an asshole, but he was right about one thing. They do create reality. Their bought-and-paid-for flacks are going to hammer away at this notion that “The Mass. election proves the people have turned away from Obama’s radical leftist agenda”, nobody’s going to challenge them on it, except all of us spluttering on various blogs, and in then end that’s the version that will go in the history books.
The mystery is how have the Democrats not figured this game out by now? The right did this shit to Clinton more than fifteen years ago. How is it possible that Obama’s people didn’t have their media plan in place to fight the death panel, rationing, communism, government-between-you-and-your doctor bullshit? How is it possible they didn’t see it coming? How is it possible that people like Megan McArdle (see previous thread) can mutter darkly about Stalinism when describing the Canadian single-payer health plan and nobody calls her on her bullshit?
After Carter has been demonized as the Worst President Ever because he was an ineffectual lefty, how did they let it happen again?
I know the media is in the tank for Satan, but Obama managed to get elected and came into office with an 80% approval rating. Why did they drop the ball after the inauguration? Why isn’t the spin that the Republicans are anti-democratic, anti-American traitors who are pissing all over the will of the electorate? That’s not a hard case to make using the Republicans’ own arguments from five years ago!
It’s hard to avoid the conclusion that they weren’t trying.
As usual Jon Stewart gets it
Daily Show: Mass Backwards
The Dems (Mass particularly, the party in general) thought they could just pass out some “Win one for Ted” buttons and mail it in. They were wrong, but it ain’t the End of Days. It’s not even the Days of Future Past.
I’m not bailing on these guys (I’m a Wizards/’Skins fan, so I’m used to disappointment-via-managerial-fuckupatude). The alternative is to disturbing to think about. Drudge is already taunting Brown as a presidential candidate (how time flies!). The solution is the same as always: put more progressives and liberals into office..every office: city council, mayor, sheriff, dog catcher; it doesn’t matter.
“But it’s too time consuming!” Some will say. Well, it’s not called a public service job for nothin’. People are not supposed to be in Congress for their whole damn life; and we have to be constant reminders of this. When these yahoos aren’t afraid to lose their seat, we lose our influence over them. And as I’ve said elsewhere: when your party is more scared of the opposition’s base then their own, that’s a problem.
And GD Bats: you got your revenge (you saw “Batman Forever,” right? Right? You didn’t? Me neither; nevermind.)
El Cid,
I respectfully disagree. Speaking as a former NJite (who now works in NJ), what did Corzine really do to de-shit-ify NJ policies and corrupt politics?
Sorry to repeat myself (well, not really sorry) but Americans don’t want shitty policies or politics, which is why they occasionally vote Democratic. Of course Americans don’t want to actually pay for non-shitty policies. Moreover, since Democrats know Americans feel that “both sides are equally bad and the truth lies somewhere in the middle” (because their “friends” in the “liberal” media tell them this), Democrats then compromise to make sure that they remain “electable” and water down their agenda. Which results in shitty policies so Americans can say “well, see both Dems and GOoPers push for shitty policies — both sides are equally bad and the truth lies somewhere in the middle” and then they elect exactly the sort of wankers that cause the problems in the first place.
Perhaps, though, it would help if Dems actually pushed for a liberal agenda AND sold it — explained to the American people HOW it would actually work?
Americans are indeed a pragmatic bunch … but that doesn’t mean they are “moderates” so much as they want stuff to be DONE. So maybe, c.f. Krugman, the Dems should just start getting stuff done?
The fact is, ha. Ha. WE WIN. OBAMA IS FINISHED, YOUR BOY GOES DOWN now forever and health care is dead and the free market will triumph!
Because there is nothing Gary likes better than a good ass-fucking from his insurance company.
health care is dead and the free market will triumph!
Yes, yes it will. Over your dead body.
You’ll be dead, but you “won”, and that’s all that matters, innit?
“The mystery is how have the Democrats not figured this game out by now?”
Denial. If the Right is characterized by the paranoid style, liberalism (NOT the Left, there is no Left in America) is characterized by denial. In the clip above Jon Stewart asks how it is that Bush, with a far smaller majority than the Dems have even now after the loss in Mass, was able to do whatever the fuck he wanted? Easy, we helped him. We facilitated torture and the Obama admin is continuing to torture in secret. We facilitated going in to Iraq with a full throated “hells yeah” and gave Bush blank check after blank check to spend as he pleased with ZERO oversight. We allowed the banks to loot and pillage the US treasury and then thanked them for the favor.
We did this, and now we complain.
If we want real reform in America then we need a real Left and not a right of center corporate Republican masquerading as a liberal democrat.
As far as solutions go, I say cancel Medicare for a month.
DAS: I was being snarky with that. Sorry, I guess the sarcasm wasn’t evident.
The point was that right now this is another inspiration for right wing / lobbyist / corporate Democrats to once again say this proves that Americans support shittier, nation-screwing, powerful-favoring policies.
But this is not the case. Policies have both appearances and effects, and that was entirely wrapped up with how the banking system was dealt with.
And if the party is stupid enough to listen to the ‘make policy shittier!’ crowd, they will be crushed electorally, and yet voters will by doing so put in office Republicans who will make policies far, far shittier than the Democratic politicians favoring shittier policies dreamed of doing.
Likewise, if the national party just always leaves local (including House & Senate) elections to the state parties, or if they ham-handedly intervene to stupidly support shittier candidates and shittier policies, you’re going to have even more losses.
Nobody knows what not shitty policies would look like. It is a mystery.
Jennifer and ZRM, ^Like. This. Newsletter.
Gary, if that is indeed you and not a beautiful camotroll,
You managed to sort of win against a barely run campaign by the worst Dem since Droopy was still stinking up our party with his Eggfart Benedict Arnold act. Congrats.
The Dems in the WH and Senate may pretty much be spineless pathetic losers, but at least they didn’t support Sarah Palin. How is she these days? She learn why there are two Koreas yet?
Also, are we to the point yet the Dems can split into Progressive Dems Party and Reid’s Corporate Cocksuckers Party?
Just gotta’ say I agree with the post & 95% of the comments. Oh, and welcome to Clusterfuck Nation.
You’ll be dead, but you “won”, and that’s all that matters, innit?
well, as long as it ‘pisses off libruls’, I think most Teabaggers are fine with that.
free market will triumph!
Time for a remake…”Triumph of the Market”
Also, are we to the point yet the Dems can split into Progressive Dems Party and Reid’s Corporate Cocksuckers Party?
The U.S.’s naturally occurring parties haven’t changed in some time, althougth the names have:
Progressives
Socially-Liberal Corporatists
Socially-Conservative Corporatists
Teabagging Lunatics.
The Dem heyday 1933-1968 was based on a coalition of the Ps, SLCs and a sizable chunk of the SCCs. Lyndon Johnson correctly predicted the loss of all SCCs to the Rs due to the Civil Rights movement; Nixon managed to get a few SLCs to cross over with OSHA and the EPA, and Reagan kissed corporate ass so hard that SLCs became “Independents.” Obama, IMO, is on the SLC/SCC border, which makes him better than the previous TL administration, but not exactly my cup of tea.
My main point: a Dem like Coakley can’t even get the Ps solidly behind her. Of course she lost.
I embrace the megafuck that is to come.
This should be the message the Democratic leadership should learn:
Don’t run on a “Change” platform and then bust your nuts maintaining the status quo.
Fuckers!
Don’t get me wrong, folks. I’m not saying Democrats have tried their best, worked their hardest, and availed themselves of every conceivable option, only to have Republicans somehow magically block it all. They’ve caved time and again, despite the American people overwhelmingly supporting huge swaths of their agenda, and have shown absolutely no guts or actual will to get things done.
It’s frustrating as all hell. But it’s even more so when the media has two narratives:
This results in two things:
1. What El Cid noted above: a majority of American people just don’t understand how things work in DC and, thus, they keep electing the same dickfaces who destroyed the nation last time they were in charge.
2. Democrats are relentlessly punished in the media for doing things that were acceptable just a year earlier and, thus, are eventually punished at the ballot box. This is regardless of what they do, or don’t, accomplish.
If the media did its job and explained how things work—how a dedicated Senate minority can block pretty much anything it wants; how robust government spending during a recession has been proven effective; how a bill actually becomes law—the GOP couldn’t get away with the shit it does, and Democrats wouldn’t consistently be blasted for doing what they were elected to do.
It’s simple: The lack of a functioning media
leadshas led to a dysfunctional democracy.Ted Rall was right. The whole “change! Now!” thing we were sold was a bill of goods.
Welp, fuck you, DLC.
How the FUCK is “I’m going to block any progress the Democrats try to make” a fucking, like, actual fucking position? That gets you elected? Can someone PLEASE explain this shit to me?
Time to re-double the effort to save up enough money for the T&U self-sustaining farm/compound before I lose my goddamn mind.
We’re fucked.
The very best we can hope for is the continuing fracture of the republican party. If the teabggers really do split off (they won’t but it’s worth hoping for) then there’s a chance to split the dems as well. Give us four parties. The we can really do nothing but faster!
No, sorry, I was right at the top. We’re fucked.
Oh brother.
ice weasel said,
Politics is like a snowmobile, racing across the frozen tundra. Then, suddenly, the snowmobile flips over, pinning you underneath. At night, the ice weasels come.
Exactly Jennifer.
Hey, even a stopped clock is right twice a day. Rall said Obama was going to kowtow to the right, and he was correct. Matt Bors did a fuckin’ great comic about Obama’s moderate actions losing him 2012:
http://mattbors.com/archives/591.html
Oh, and this one.
http://mattbors.com/archives/594.html
Dear center-right corpwhore dems: you’re part of the problem.
Oooh, Jennifer gets bonus point for Life in Hell “Love is Hell” reference.
Okay, maybe it goes without saying, but isn’t anyone appalled that the WA Post is basically saying that the Dems should have given in on malpractice suits reform even if the Repugs wouldn’t cooperate, because SHUT UP THAT’S WHY?
Oh yeah, force me to pay out of pocket for health insurance and then fuck me over if my doctor decides my appendectomy should be a vasectomy. That will go over well with the general public!
Part of the problem is that Bush didn’t just get his way with everything. He couldn’t even get his SS killing plan out of any committee. His tax cuts had to pass through reconciliation and had to be sunset. His only major legislative accomplishments was Medicare Part D, and in order to get that past Congress it had to fellate a lot of industry cock, which is why Medicare now pays private companies to provide Mediare services at higher cost and not notably better health outcomes and the government can’t use its own market driven bargaining power to negotiate better drug rates.
The other thing is that Republicans don’t usually have an agenda of doing things, they have an agenda of tearing apart the New Deal and Great Society, undoing them. It’s always easier to destroy than create.
Malpractice suits represent 6% of the cost of medical care.
isn’t anyone appalled that the WA Post is basically saying that the Dems should have given in on malpractice suits reform even if the Repugs wouldn’t cooperate, because SHUT UP THAT’S WHY?
I fucking hate the “tort reform” position in general, as the cost of lawsuits and malpractice insurance constitutes less than 1% of healthcare spending in this country. How did this become a legitimate argument in the first place? It’s like it’s common knowledge that it’s a good thing, along with low taxes and deregulation, but nobody fucking knows *why*.
Malpractice suits represent 6% of the cost of medical care.
I’m curious where you got that number, since mostly everything I’ve read says its under 1% and, at most, 2%.
BTW, if we had a more cohesive, comprehensive, and humane medical system, those costs would probably go down because the risk of making mistakes decreases in a well-managed health care system.
How did this become a legitimate argument in the first place?
Because it fits their frame of some undeserving “them” taking away the hard-earned profits of Dr. John Galt just because he made the could-have-happened-to-anyone mistake of amputating the wrong leg.
Also. And even more also. It costs Dr. John Galt’s malpractice insurance company when they have to come out of pocket to pay for Dr. John Galt’s mistake.
Tort reform is an absurd ruse that does jack shit to help control medical costs.
Yes, some doctors (mainly gynecologists and obstetricians) have premiums in the six figures, but they make seven figures. And those costs are not because people are suing the living shit out of them — it’s because insurance companies simply want more profits.
Just look at this chart. It lists 19 of the 26 states that have enacted medical tort reformdamages and the average increase in malpractice insurance premiums in those states. Out of those 19, 17 of them had double-digit rate increases, while just one had none: Alaska, of all places.
So, um, yeah. Tort reform does nothing to control costs since insurance companies will just raise rates anyway.
“I’m curious where you got that number, since mostly everything I’ve read says its under 1% and, at most, 2%.”
Pulled directly out of my ass. Sorry. I’ll accept the lower numbers.
At this point I’m skeptical of ANY solution working, because the richest and most power-hungry citizens of the country have shown an alarming ability to manufacture public opinion out of thin air, in such a way as to drag along a ton of the country’s independents.
As has been pointed out, no one gave a shit about the deficit for 200 years until Obama was elected, and when a Republican wins again in 2012, 2016 or 2020, no one will give a shit as long as his deficits come from bombing brown countries and not helping people. The tea party protests started way before anyone had any idea what the health care bill looked like, but just knew they’d hate it anyway. And it’s for damn sure no one who believes in death panels or thinks the current health plan is equatable with Stalinism has bothered to look at anything beyond the pages of PJM.
So at this point, it seems to me that whatever the Democrats do, the public (i.e. the independent swing-voter idiots) will damn them for it because Rush Limbaugh tells them to. You can say that the current plan is terrible and should have been far more liberal – I agree – but I’m really doubtful that making it that way would have affected our popularity.
Pulled directly out of my ass. Sorry. I’ll accept the lower numbers.
Oh, no problem. I wasn’t being confrontational–just generally curious, because if I’m going to make an argument, I want to make sure I have the right numbers. And honestly, 6% really isn’t *that* much, either.
but I’m really doubtful that making it that way would have affected our popularity.
Then push that shit through and hope that the voters have long enough to realize that the Dems actually give a fuck about them. At least it’s some progress.
Though, really, I’m not sure that Dems really do give a fuck about us. I mean, I think there are some good people, and, on the whole, Dems are less evil, but I’m not sure they were ready to push through any kind of decent healthcare reform in the first place.
I like how the centerfold repig Brown offered his daughters to the crowd.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T8E1jvLWVj4
Must be a Bible thing with these anti-American terrorist repigs.
We need to start some rescission on some Blue Dogs. Evan Bayh and Ben Nelson come to mind… If we don’t have 60, don’t need 60, let them find their own way.
“Then push that shit through and hope that the voters have long enough to realize that the Dems actually give a fuck about them. At least it’s some progress.”
I agree entirely, I’m just talking about public perception and how long it takes before that catches up to us.
Remember, Bill Clinton, remembered by many as a corporate Democrat, did manage to slip through small-scale populist reforms that really made a difference to a lot of working families (like new laws on maternity leave). I think there are still a lot of Democrats who do care.
However, that’s just the point; they were small-scale reforms, peanuts compared with gigantic problems like health care reform. And these failed in no small part because swing voters were so susceptible to right-wing inanity, as shown by the 1994 elections.
The problem is the news media – a conservative media that produces 24 hour propaganda worthy of Pravda, and a mainstream media that spends most of its time bending over backwards trying to prove that it’s not “liberal” or “biased” add up to a very hostile environment for liberals.
I’m not even sure Obama’s going to make it to 2012. If the Repubs start impeachment proceedings, the Democrats will vote for it. ‘Cause hey, gotta reach across the aisle, and if we work with them on their priorities, I’m sure they’ll work with us on ours.
Hell, if I were Michelle Bachmann, I’d start impeachment proceedings right now. She won’t face a single penalty for doing it, the teabaggers and the media will love her for it, and she’d get to snicker at how many Democrats vote for it because they’re too stupid to learn from history.
“I’m not even sure Obama’s going to make it to 2012. If the Repubs start impeachment proceedings, the Democrats will vote for it. ‘Cause hey, gotta reach across the aisle, and if we work with them on their priorities, I’m sure they’ll work with us on ours.”
I certainly wouldn’t put it past them to trump up something, but if they did, I think most Dems would rally around the Prez. There are limits to even the Democrats’ suicidal tendencies.
On the other hand, I fully expect that Joe Lieberman will be on that like green on grass.
Or maybe he looked at the numbers and discovered some things, like the fact that malpractice premiums constitute half a percent (.5%) of all health care expenses and actual malpractice awards a mere fifth of a percent (.2%.) Perhaps he also noticed that a large number of states have already enacted various tort reforms and those reforms have had minimal impact on health care costs. He may also have discovered that there’s essentially no difference in malpractice premiums between the states that enact tort reform and the ones that don’t, but there is this mysterious correlation between premium hikes and insurers taking a hit on their investments. Maybe–just maybe–he put all that together and concluded that “tort reform” really means screwing people who’ve had their health fucked up by a quack in order to keep the insurance industry profits rolling in. You know; the same sort of behavior that we’re trying to prevent in the health care bill by cracking down on policy rescissions and lifetime caps.
Nah, that’s crazy hippy talk–it must be because Obama lurves him some trial lawyers.
I’m not even sure Obama’s going to make it to 2012
Oh, he’ll make it to 2012, and he’ll be re-elected too. It’s gonna be Obama and a Republican Congress from 2012-2016. And the thing is, I am really starting to believe that that’s exactly what Obama wants.
Sure, they were crazy, but at least they had some self-respect and confidence!
Their reasoning may have been faulty or, well, nonexistent, and based on unexamined bullshit, FYIGM greed and selfishness, and urine-soaked fever dreams, but hey, at least their beliefs were sincerely held.
Voters also are disappointed that President Obama’s promises of pragmatic, bipartisan cooperation have not been fulfilled.
He also hasn’t tucked Republicans in with a kiss and bedtime story every night, the heartless partisan bastard.
There are limits to even the Democrats’ suicidal ttendencies.
If that were true, Traitor Joe’d already be kicked to the side and pushed below Sen. Franken (D – Spine) on the Big Board.
But he promised he’d work with us, and we knew it was a lie, but they sucked him off for a lie, because the only limit to the elected Dem’s cowardice is that it can’t move faster than light or most of The Flashes. (It can move faster than the Golden Age flash, Jay Garrick, but not faster than Silver Age Flash Barry Allen or Wally West.)
If we had single-payer, “tort reform” wouldn’t be necessary and most personal injury lawyers would be out of business. Personal injury lawyers only exist because insurance companies don’t like to pay out any claims, so they deny claims for any reason or no reason at all and most people need lawyers to fight their insurance company.
How the FUCK is “I’m going to block any progress the Democrats try to make” a fucking, like, actual fucking position?
Because it’s actually doing something. Sure, it’s pure obstructionism, but the very act of doing so is recognizable as, well, the act of doing something. On the other hand, Dems, with massive majorities, simply stand around moaning “Our hands are tied”. What the hell conclusion do you expect voters to draw from that?
I don’t think collegiality died last night.
Achance Wednesday, January 20th at 1:01PM EST (link)
In fact, I’m sure McShame is all over telling Brown how he’s going to show him the ropes and be his patron. And, from what I’ve seen of Brown so far, there’s enough ego there that we might be taking Brown’s name in vain right alongside McShame a few months from now.
In Vino Veritas
“TruculentandUnreliable said,
January 20, 2010 at 18:25
How the FUCK is “I’m going to block any progress the Democrats try to make” a fucking, like, actual fucking position? That gets you elected? Can someone PLEASE explain this shit to me?”
Easy: Create the impression that the opposition is going to destroy your life, and that somebody has got to stop them before we are just like Hitler and junk. Republicans have never had a position. They use religion, mysticism, nationalism and opposition for the sake of being opposed to something to steer the undereducated into their camp. So you get in front of a crowd, say Hussein Obama is spending us into a 3rd Reich Death Panel Socialist Fascist regime, and SOMEBODY has got to stop him! It seems to be effective.
“There are limits to even the Democrats’ suicidal tendencies.”
I am intrigued by this thesis. Exactly what limits do you think there are? Because, while it sounds like hyperbole, I have yet to see a limit. They seem determined to fail and what’s more they seem obsessed with doing everything possible to undermine their own work. They allow the blue dogs to fester within the party and poison nearly every piece of legislation. They allow outright political traitors like Lieberman back into the party and even give him his committee chairs.
So, with all the sincerity I can muster, I ask again, what are these limits?
God bless Glenn Greenwald for his latest post on Salon.
We don’t need no bipartisanshit. I don’t want to be bipartisan with fascists. I see no need in cooperating with corporations willing to lobby against legislation that would end the federal government giving contracts to businesses that go through third parties that use child and slave labor to compete in a corrupt market. I don’t want bipartisanshit with sadists and sociopaths who find it easy to justify torture. The principles in the DoJ who wrote circular legal arguments, (since the executive branch ordered torture and the DoJ approved the order, torture is legal,) need to be removed from their positions and prosecuted. We don’t need callous politicians who refuse to believe or ignore the concept of human dignity and mutual respect – common assholes ignore both daily and I do not want assholes deciding public policy. Memories must be awfully short to forget that only one year ago the republicans worked for eight years with great enthusiasm to turn America into a fascist state. The after shock of that trauma can be seen in the number of fools who continue to believe the conservative mantra and dose themselves with FOX Infotainment. The corporate propaganda is relentless and merciless as seen in the lack of coverage of the alleged murder of three Arabs at Guantanamo, two of whom were scheduled to be released in a couple of weeks. This was after five years in captivity based on such compelling evidence as living where terrorists lived in the past. Don’t buy a home that was once owned by criminals or the good guys will be coming to get you for living there. I’m sorry, but I don’t want bipartisanshit with mendacious and ill-informed teabaggers. I don’t even want to pretend in public that I want to shake their hand or that I don’t think of their wives as dupes. I don’t want the teabagger who implied that the president is a bastard to be congratulated for winning a senate seat. I refuse to feel grateful for bankers deliberately body slamming the economy into a ditch in order to cripple/eliminate desperately needed social programs and keep democrats hands tied with the mountain of debt republicans created. I just don’t feel bipartisan with assholes. The Washington Post can go take a flying leap off a tall building with its deliberate manipulative betrayal of the American people. The post isn’t good enough to line my bird cage with. It would contaminate the bird.
“So, with all the sincerity I can muster, I ask again, what are these limits?”
In context, I was thinking of standing up for Clinton at his impeachment (not one Democrat voted aye, which is a little remarkable given the aggressiveness of the conservative movement at the time as today). That, and fighting back on Social Security privatization, at a time when Bush was thought to have completely crushed all opposition in two of the nastiest elections on record.
There are limits to the Democrats’ suicidal tendencies. It’s just that those limits are so far back that you literally have to threaten them with complete and total destruction (like the above two moments) before they’ll finally fight back. Not unlike French and British foreign policy during the 1930s.
Chris – what you said. Which is why we need to impress upon them that failure to get something done on healthcare, even if it’s the shitty Senate bill, represents one of those “complete and total destruction” moments for them. Because I know MY mind is already made up on this: if they throw in the towel on getting something done on healthcare, I won’t be voting for them, or probably anyone else. Life is short and Democrats who are more worried about warming their precious seats in Congress rather than delivering badly needed help to the folks who sent them there aren’t worth the few minutes of my life I would have to sacrifice in order to go cast a vote for them.
Hey sheep, we’re just giving you what you’ve all been requesting since 1980. We thought you wanted to deregulate markets and banks like they were before the Great Depression. We thought that you wanted reform to be corporate welfare. We thought that dodging responsibility by blaming the other side was what you wanted to hear. We thought that you didn’t want us to listen to you because you’re all crazy and we know things that you don’t. Aren’t we supposed to be just like the other side? I don’t know what you’re all bitching about. This has been the status quo for 30 years, why the sudden uproar over business-as-usual?
I’d just like to note, for the record, that if Chris ever heads to Kansas City, I officially owe him a beer. Or three.
Good ones, too, like Boulevard; not that swill they make on the other side of the state.
Great comments, dude. You wrap up a lot of my thoughts better than I could.
::applause::
“Here’s one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” Obama said. “People in Massachusetts spoke. He’s got to be part of that process.”
Fuck you, Obama. Seriously, Fuck. You. You suck and you are a failure.
Have you read the Dems’ latest talking points? LULZERS.
“It is mathematically impossible for Democrats to pass legislation on our own.”
The Democratic Party is pointless. Their actual fucking talking points are, “It ain’t our fault we suck”. Are you fucking kidding me?
This is sad because I think, for a moment, we had a chance to do better than this.
I’m done.
I think, for a moment, we had a chance to do better than this.
It was a nice feeling while it lasted.
Dear Democrats:
You still have the largest congressional majority in a generation.
Try acting like you do.
“We can’t get anything done with the biggest majority in living memory because the Republicans are meanies and we’re afraid of teabaggers who aren’t going to vote for us anyway” isn’t going to convince anyone to support you.
I’ve been in sales for a number of years. “We can’t get the job done, even under the most optimal conditions” is generally not regarded as a powerful sales pitch. If you weren’t the bunch of feckless fucks that you are, you would have recognized this before opening your gobs and making yourselves look even more feckless and pathetic.
Agree with Jennifer and JK47, except I’ll probably keep voting Democrat anyway.
And I’d just like to note for the record that if I’m ever in Kansas City I’ll take Mark D up on the beers. Me and a good Pittsburgh Italian union voter friend are thinking along the same lines – that is, that we need to find a bar sometime this week and wash down this Scott Brown thing with something alcoholic. Lots and lots and lots of it.
I’ve seen people skirt what I’m thinking but nobody has said it outright yet: Isn’t Obama supposed to be the leader of his party? Isn’t he (and whatever organization he has built for the purpose) responsible for taking care of fundraising, GOTV, messaging, picking candidates etc.? Why the fuck is Mr. Community Organizer missing in fucking action? What the hell happened? How in the world is Howard Fucking Dean more effective?
Gah!
And his statement that Congress should sit on their fucking thumbs, i.e. give in until Brown is seated just makes me want to fucking scream.
The last 24 hours have sucked about as hard as anything I can think of.
“I’ve been in sales for a number of years. “We can’t get the job done, even under the most optimal conditions” is generally not regarded as a powerful sales pitch.”
Exactly. It also doesn’t look good on a resume for any job other than representative or senator. How in the fuck does that work? I keep imagining a conversation with my boss: “you said to get this done but John won’t let me…sniff, sniff…” It’s totally John’s fault, right?
We should have known this administration was gonna suck the first time we heard the words “Rahm Emmanuel” connected to it. The GOP was like a cornered animal fighting for its life and instead of putting it out of its misery these idiots nursed it back to health.
Progressives have every right to abandon this administration.
You said before the election that if Brown won you would go insane.
This post is certainly proof of that, although you were certifiable (as ALL S,N! bloggers) long before the election.
BTW, your tears are delicious. Mmmmmmmmmm.
THIS IS WHY YOU CAN’T HAVE NICE THINGS.
59-41?
Hmmmmmm. Not having 60 Dems in the Monkeyhouse didn’t mean jack when it came to passing TARP.
Funny how the GOP can be quite bipartisan indeed when it wants to – & that it can be America’s answer to the Shining Path when the topic is keeping thousands of people per annum from needlessly dying (as opposed to the potential Cute Kitteh/Lovable Puppy/Adorable Infant Holocaust of legions of defenceless CEOs & CFOs having to put their unused Lamborghinis up on eBay to pay for their Swiss chalets).
The real question at this point is: does the HCI industry have enough juice to turn a couple of Goopers in favor of what is in no small part a bill to subsidize them via mandatory policies, a godsend that’s scheduled to “coincidentally” take effect right when their sky-high profits are over-ripe for a major crash-dive … or do said Goopers put more value on l’arsehole pour l’arsehole & upholding their “Kill The Bill” pledge than on delaying the implosion of the HCI bubble (premiums are already at an unsustainable level & rising, while income is static or in decline everywhere except boardrooms)?
They’d much prefer a bill that was mandates-only, but I think they’ll take the vinegar of losing pre-existing conditions & recission if it comes with the honey of millions of new mandatory policyholders. They hate this thing, but they also NEED it, & they need it right now, before the bomb goes off. I’m sure a lot of folks would laugh at me if I said Aetna & Co. are in serious danger in 2010 … much like they’d’ve chortled at the loony-tune idea that a powerhouse like Enron would be dead meat in a few years in 1997.
Let’s see now.
*shake shake shake*
“ANSWER UNCLEAR – TRY AGAIN LATER”?!?
FUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU
Okay – screw the Magic Eight-Ball, it’s guessing time: Goopers kill the bill, Obama comes back with smaller bills that do most of the same things (i.e., he does exactly what the GOP has been advocating from day one of this circus), then the Goopers kill those too … & at that point America may as well change its name to Salmon, because it’s royally boned.
If you thought you had it tough with the HCI giants making dope profits, just wait & see how exciting it gets if/when they flatline – taking more than 10% of the US economy down with them – with no money left in the Fed’s piggybank for yet another bailout, & global credit tighter than a nun’s pussy in a Yukon blizzard.
Hobo beans – get yours today & avoid the rush.
BTW, 41 is still less than 50, so you still have a minority in both houses. Enjoy!
Yep, it’s me. I’ve been gone for a very long time, and I’d pretty much given up this site as a bad habit, but I just had to come back and drink your sweet, sweet tears.
Ah, how delicious they are!
Liberals, did you not watch Fox News last night? They had a panel of Mass voters, and when asked why they voted for Brown, all of those who did so – ALL OF THEM – said it had to do with the health care bill being jammed down our throats.
Greta Van Sustren had a wonderful piece where she tracked support for Brown against all the revelations of shady dealings in the Senate. The Louisiana bribe was revealed, and Brown went up. The Nebraska bribe was revealed, and again Brown went up. The union bribe came out, and Brown went over the top.
Ah, well, you liberals won’t learn from this. It’s been a delightful day, reading and listening to your suffering. Keep it up!
Look, I know this is going to reset your paranoia about all the posters you think are me. As usual, you are outsmarting yourselves, and I really feel bad about stirring the pot again – it will take months to settle down. But I can’t help it today!
Oh, and where is Teh Funny?
“Liberals, did you not watch Fox News last night? They had a panel of Mass voters, and when asked why they voted for Brown, all of those who did so – ALL OF THEM – said it had to do with the health care bill being jammed down our throats.”
A panel of Fox News viewers will swear to a man that they’re aliens from outer space if that’s what Teh Movement requires at the moment. What’s your point? The Cuban state-run media can produce a panel of Americans swearing (ALL OF THEM) that all true Americans want to experience the bliss that is True Communism and are only saying otherwise because of an oppressive police state. But that won’t necessarily be a representative sample.
Progressives have every right to abandon this administration.
abandon it for what though?
the authentic can suck my pustulent undead crank.
I live in a Blue state. I ain’t crying. I am, however, kind of pissed. Mainly at the wailing and crying. Suck it up, democrats. It’s not as if we lost a progressive. Coakley was a mediocre right centrist at best.
Scott Brown is a doofus Lawyer who thinks driving a pickup truck makes him a man of the people. He asked Obama if he wanted to see the pickup, as if these are unknown magical rare items in Illinois or Hawaii.
Mass voters already have pretty much the health care system that they supposedly voted against.
We’re better off with Holy Joe losing his Magic Elixir 60th vote. Kick him over to the Republicans already. And fuck him with a diseased dead horse’s cock on the way.
The Baggers of Tea can party all they want. fuck them. They are assholes.
Also, I would, as a ennui-filled observer, like to note the kind of balls it takes for people who’ve been obsessing for at least a year on health care reform being the main platform the Democrats need to work on; to then go “oh dang! We should’ve focused on finance reform after our country shat itself dry” as soon as some shitbag teabagger wins a Senate seat against what I’m gathering was a shitty Massachusetts state official.
Well, glad you arrived at that conclusion, let’s just go back in our time machine and get to work, huh?
Or we can just push through on health care reform, realize we’re going to take a hit somewhere, and just keep fucking moving. If our sacrifice has to be Scott Brown in Congress to get this shit done, then fuck it, let that idiot drive his pickup right over John McCain’s face.
I fucking hate the “tort reform” position in general, as the cost of lawsuits and malpractice insurance constitutes less than 1% of healthcare spending in this country.
Well, “tort reform” encompasses removing punitive damages from all sorts of lawsuits. “Medical Malpractice Reform” is the Trojan Horse for “You Can’t Sue for Punitive Damages Even Though I Dumped Radioactive Sludge in Your Kids’ Sandbox”.
“There are limits to even the Democrats’ suicidal tendencies.”
All I wanted was a shitty healthcare bill- AND JOE LIEBERMAN WOULDN’T GIVE IT TO ME!!!!
““Here’s one thing I know and I just want to make sure that this is off the table. The Senate certainly shouldn’t try to jam anything through until Scott Brown is seated,” Obama said. “People in Massachusetts spoke. He’s got to be part of that process.”
Christ AllfuckingMighty, Obama lost no time in running out to suck Senator Centerfold’s cock, did he?
Well, just over 50% of the registered voters who cared enough to vote on a workday with really shitty weather when one of the candidates was kind of crappy while the other was a little crappy, anyway.
Mark D:Yes, some doctors (mainly gynecologists and obstetricians) have premiums in the six figures, but they make seven figures. And those costs are not because people are suing the living shit out of them — it’s because insurance companies simply want more profits.
That’s it, exactly. The insurance industry is built on gambling, and ‘malpractice insurance’ was created to scare doctors into gambling in a new poker game with a high house vig. My very Republican friend is against health care reform and all the ‘cost’ involved, although her mother just received a settlement from a wrongful death suit, pushing up the cost of insurance according to the insurance company. So…it’s okay if it’s your mom and you’ll pocket whatever she doesn’t spend as inheritance when she dies. Or something.
Free market, also, too, and.