News 111th Congress the most productive in decades

[Ivan Seeking]

In spite of accusations from both ends of the political spectrum, the fact is that the 111th Congress was one of the most productive in my lifetime. Congratulations to President Obama, Sen. Harry Reid, and SOH Nancy Pelosi, for a job very, very well done. They were elected to roll up their sleeves and do a hard job, and they came through with flying colors. Given what they had to work with, I couldn't be happier. They have shown that we can still get big things done!

A Congress that was dominated by Democrats passed more landmark legislation than any since the era of Lyndon B. Johnson's "Great Society."

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/12/22/AR2010122205620.html

"I think this Congress really will go down in the record books as one of the more remarkably productive of the past half-century," said Sarah Binder, senior fellow at the Brookings Institute.

Starting with the $787 billion stimulus bill.
There was the first-time homebuyer tax credit.
Cash for Clunkers.
A crackdown on credit card companies.
Wall Street reform.
Student loan reform.
Loans for small businesses.
The Lilly Ledbetter Fair Pay Act for Women.
And the confirmation of two Supreme Court justices.
...health care reform, which extended insurance to $32 million Americans
And in the final weeks, struck a compromise on tax cuts
...repealed Don't Ask, Don't Tell
...ratified the START Arms Treaty with Russia
...passed $4 billion in aid for ailing first responders to 9/11.

"This has been the most extraordinary two years I've ever seen!" said Sen. Dick Durbin, D-Illinois...

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2010/12/23/eveningnews/main7179537.shtml

 

[russ_watters]

Well, when you have a filibuster-proof majority and can pass any legislation you want, you can pass any legislation you want. So it shouldn't be surprising that they got a lot of what they wanted done in the early part of the Obama admin. In fact, it is more surprising to me that they didn't get as much as they wanted with healthcare due to infighting that lasted until they were about to lose their filibuster-proof majority. They showed that gridlock doesn't just have to happen across party lines.

The legislation that went through this past month, during a lame-duck session, is much more surprising, but I think it is a reflection of a couple of things:
1. Democrats wanting credit for some easy wins like START while Republicans were perhaps trying to stall until they were in power to claim the passage as their own. At the same time, they had to stall on some things until after the election because of potential damage.
2. Democrats realizing it was their last chance to push strongly liberal-based agenda items and getting whatever they thought they could off the list.
3. Not having a choice on tax extending the Bush tax cuts, which brought them to the bargaining table. It would have been political suicide for the dems to let-through the largest tax increase in US history with an already weak economy. In the new year, Obama will have two choices: compromise or get nothing done. We'll see if he's actually capable of compromise - making a compromise when your back is against a wall is not an indicator of a general willingness to compromise.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The 110th and 111th Congress (2007-2010) marked 4 years of Democratic control of Congress. During that time, cloture was filed 275 times (139 times during the 110th and 136 times during the 111th). This is an average of 68.75 filibusters a year, or an increase of 33.5 filibusters a year. The number of filibusters nearly doubled in these four years, increasing a whopping 195% compared to the previous 12 years. Because of their large majority, Democrats were able to break 124 of these filibusters, or 45% of them (and broke records in filibuster breaking in both terms).

However, 55% were not broken. This is a loss of 55% of legislation, which is enormously significant. To see which bills were or were not saved from filibuster, click here (110th Congress) or here (111th congress).

http://www.opinionatedlib.com/2010/12/why-filibuster-needs-reforming-now.html
http://www.senate.gov/pagelayout/reference/cloture_motions/clotureCounts.htm

 

[russ_watters]

Yes, Republicans used the filibuster a lot. What else could they do when they were locked out of the legislative process? At the same time, like I said above, the Democrats' infighting made them unable to break filibusters they had the power to break. Your links agree with what I pointed out above.

[edit] Also, a point of clarification: can cloture be filed more than once for the same filibuster? If so, the math of the last sentence of that blog post doesn't hold up. On the other side of the coin, every filibuster need not have a cloture filing associated with it. Obviously, there is no point in requesting cloture if one doesn't believe it can be successful.

In the 2007-08 session of Congress, there were 112 cloture votes[21] and some have used this number to argue an increase in the number of filibusters occurring in recent times. However, the Senate leadership has increasingly utilized cloture as a routine tool to manage the flow of business, even in the absence of any apparent filibuster. For these reasons, the presence or absence of cloture attempts cannot be taken as a reliable guide to the presence or absence of a filibuster. Inasmuch as filibustering does not depend on the use of any specific rules, whether a filibuster is present is always a matter of judgment. [emphasis added]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster_in_the_United_States

 

[turbo]

Yes, Republicans used the filibuster a lot. What else could they do when they were locked out of the legislative process? At the same time, like I said above, the Democrats' infighting made them unable to break filibusters they had the power to break. Your links agree with what I pointed out above.

The GOP was not locked out of the legislative process. They refused to participate in the legislative process, except to delay and deny passage, and that's a sad situation. Both of my senators are Republican, and they represent a state that generally votes for Democratic candidates and went solidly for Obama. It was pretty shameful to watch them hold the party line and vote against things that our citizens wanted. Susan Collins voted against DADT repeal until it was split from the Defense appropriations bill (Why?). And Olympia Snowe allowed the health-care reform bill out of committee only after she had stripped it of any vestige of the public option, which would have been a huge boon to the small businesses that overwhelmingly comprise Maine's base economy. Most businesses here are very small, and a great many are seasonal and employ part-time workers, so affordable health care is a huge issue.

Dumping health-care costs on hospitals and doctors is unfair and inefficient, and reliance on a state-administered Medicaid safety net is not much better. This country needs universal health-care access so that medical conditions can be identified and treated before they become emergencies or chronic (expensive-to-treat) conditions. Call it Socialism if you want, but universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

 

[Char. Limit]

You need to define "productive". Sure, the 111th Congress did more than any Congress in decades. However, the jury is still out on whether they did better.

 

[Al68]

Call it Socialism if you want, but universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

And it might happen here eventually. But can you really blame us "non-socialists" for at least trying to prevent it?

Socialists, as you point out, have other places to go if they don't like economic liberty. We libertarians don't. The U.S. is the last bastion of what's left of large scale economic liberty, and we will fight to save it, as well as restore what has been lost.

And the best chance we have is for Democrats to continue to believe their delusion that they have no legitimate opposition among the people (except for "the rich"). Their failure to understand their opposition is the only advantage we have. And it paid off this year.

 

[WhoWee]

You need to define "productive". Sure, the 111th Congress did more than any Congress in decades. However, the jury is still out on whether they did better.

Are you saying that "Cash for Clunkers" was a rust bucket?

 

[russ_watters]

The GOP was not locked out of the legislative process. They refused to participate in the legislative process, except to delay and deny passage, and that's a sad situation.

I can't believe you aren't aware that what you are saying is factually wrong. It's not like they tried to hide it:

President Obama met Wednesday with House Democratic leaders who face the likelihood of having a final health care bill look much more like the Senate's version than their measure.

The meeting with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the chairmen of the three House committees that approved health care legislation was part of efforts by Obama and top Democrats to merge the separate House and Senate bills into a final version capable of winning approval in both chambers.

Senior Democratic sources say Democrats are prepared to short-circuit the traditional legislative process of a formal conference committee comprising House and Senate members to exclude their Republican counterparts during final congressional health care deliberations. [emphasis added]

http://articles.cnn.com/2010-01-06/politics/obama.dems.health.care_1_formal-house-senate-senate-democrats-democratic-leaders-hope?_s=PM:POLITICS

This one involves a literal lockout in which the Democrats changed the locks on a committee hearing room. It would be funny if the Democrats were in middle school. For adults to behave this way is just pathetic (the story is too long for a few bullet point quotes, but is worth the read - it's still only one page): http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/10/dems-lock-out-republicans-literally.html

And I thought we discussed here the controversy over the unusual step of locking c-span out so we couldn't view the process (this is the same incident as the first example). This from an administration claiming openness was a priority:

Unfortunately, the network can cover only those congressional meetings held in the public. Voters hoping to follow the process of the House and Senate working out the differences of their respective healthcare reform bills are left in the dark. C-SPAN will not be covering the House-Senate conference on the legislation because there will not be any such conference. As reported by the Associated Press, Congressional Quarterly, USA Today, the Washington Post, and, not insignificantly, Peter Roff with U.S. News & World Report, House and Senate Democrats will negotiate the legislation in private, far away from the prying eyes of Capitol Hill Republicans and far away from prying cameras...

"President Obama, Senate and House leaders, many of your rank-and-file members, and the nation's editorial pages have all talked about the value of transparent discussions on reforming the nation's health care system," Lamb wrote. "Now that the process moves to the critical stage of reconciliation between the Chambers, we respectfully request that you allow the public full access, through television, to legislation that will affect the lives of every single American."

That Democrats want to work on the bill in secret is no surprise. Poll after poll has shown the legislation to be wildly unpopular with voters and we all saw what happened when everyday Americans had the opportunity to voice their opinion to their elected officials during the August recess—bedlam.

http://www.usnews.com/opinion/blogs...nds-democrats-open-secret-health-reform-talks

On the stimulus:

ABC News’ Rick Klein reports: A deal appears imminent between congressional and White House negotiators over a massive stimulus plan -- with the bottom line likely to come in at less than $800 billion.

But don’t expect Republicans to celebrate the cost savings. They’re complaining that despite Democrats’ repeated promises to craft a bipartisan deal, the package has been crafted in its late stages by a tight circle of almost exclusively Democrats.

Rep. Jerry Lewis, R-Calif., was appointed to the conference committee charged with ironing out differences between the House and Senate versions. But as Democrats prepared to announce a deal, he said he had been totally shut out of talks.

“In the dead of night, Democrat congressional leaders and White House officials negotiated the almost trillion-dollar stimulus legislation without a scrap of public scrutiny or bipartisan involvement,” Lewis said in a statement today. “I have never before in my 30 years in Congress seen such secrecy and blatant lack of regard for the American public. This begs the question: If the Democrat majority is so proud of this stimulus legislation, what are they hiding from?”

http://blogs.abcnews.com/thenote/2009/02/gop-shut-out-of.html

 

[turbo]

I can't believe you aren't aware that what you are saying is factually wrong.

When one party is diametrically opposed to the goals of the other, and says so repeatedly and publicly, they should expect to be subject to political machinations and back-room deals, just as the Democrats were locked out of the REAL ID legislation. Either participate and craft good legislation, or watch it happen without you, if you are in the minority.

The GOP has been the party of NO since the Presidential election, doing their level best to block every initiative of the Obama administration and the Dems on capitol hill. They have used the filibuster a record number of times, and have blocked a record number of appointments, including badly-needed Federal judges.

Filibusters were rarely used until those darned liberals started passing legislation in the '60s aimed at providing some semblance of equal rights for black people. Last time I checked, the GOP in this congress has used this tactic (or threat thereof) at about 3X the highest previous rate. Combine that with the tactic of putting secret rolling holds on appointments, and we have an unprecedented level of obstructionism.

Remember, the only reason my state's senior senator agreed to vote to get the health-care bill out of committee was to ensure that the public option was stripped out first.

So what's the problem? Are all Democratic initiatives absolutely wrong? Are all Obama appointees unfit to hold office? If not, why not allow high-level administrative posts and judgeships to be filled normally? Why not allow legislation to proceed normally?

As for being "locked out": when ranking Republicans make public statements about how they intend to kill health-care reform (DeMint, McConnell, Steele and Boehner all did so), how can they hope to be allowed to "participate" to craft it?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

...universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

Proof?

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So what's the problem? Are all Democratic initiatives absolutely wrong? Are all Obama appointees unfit to hold office? If not, why not allow high-level administrative posts and judgeships to be filled normally? Why not allow legislation to proceed normally?

And in the end, after the November elections, after the threat of a media-hype driven retribution for daring to work cooperatively, was gone, we saw the rebirth of moderates in the Republican Party, who supported landmark legislation. For example, as cited by Gokul in the Don't ask, don't care thread, we saw Republlican support from the following. [Note that Lisa Murkowski (AK), who recently defeated the Tea Party favorite in Palin's Alaska, as a write-in, is included]


From the Senate:
Scott Brown (MA)
Richard Burr (NC)
Susan Collins (ME)
John Ensign (NV)
Mark Kirk (IL)
Lisa Murkowski (AK)
Olympia Snowe (ME)
George Voinovich (OH)

From the House:
Judy Biggert (IL)
Mary Bono Mack (CA)
John Campbell (CA)
Anh "Joseph" Cao (LA)
Mike Castle (DE)
Charlie Dent (PA)
Lincoln Diaz-Balart (FL)
Charles Djou (HI)
David Dreier (CA)
Vernon Ehlers (MI)
Jeff Flake (AZ)
Ron Paul (TX)
Todd Platts (PA)
Dave Reichert (WA)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Proof?

In the world of health care, the sky was already falling.

 

[OmCheeto]

We must all be listening to different news stations:

Obama Bows To Republicans
http://www.onlineforextrading.com/blog/obama-bows-to-republicans/"
...
There are six key components in the deal negotiated by the President with the Republicans.

* The Bush Tax Cuts will be extended for two years.
* Unemployment benefits will be extended for 13 months.
* The dividend tax and capital gains tax will remain at 15 percent.
* Payroll taxes will be trimmed by 2 percent for one year.
* A cut in Social Security taxes will be approved for one-year.
* The estate tax will be at 35 percent with a $5 million tax exemption.

I don't subscribe to the above web site, but I listen to "Progressive" talk radio, and the rhetoric is the same. The above is just one of many that you can find by googling: Obama bows to Republicans

Aside from the unemployment extension, the other 5 concessions make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, and strike me as piece of bi-partisan train wreck legislation.

I have to agree with Ivan, lots has been done. But I also agree with Char. Whether some of what has been done is good for the nation, remains to be seen.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

We must all be listening to different news stations:




I don't subscribe to the above web site, but I listen to "Progressive" talk radio, and the rhetoric is the same. The above is just one of many that you can find by googling: Obama bows to Republicans

Aside from the unemployment extension, the other 5 concessions make absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, and strike me as piece of bi-partisan train wreck legislation.

I have to agree with Ivan, lots has been done. But I also agree with Char. Whether some of what has been done is good for the nation, remains to be seen.

By definition, if Obama is a moderate as I believe him to be, he will anger his base at times. So I consider these criticisms to be compliments. He didn’t sell out. He cut the best deal he was going to get. Obama is smart, skilled, and practical, not a sellout. While some would like to believe otherwise, we don’t live in a magical world where all things are possible. Did the deal he had to make, stink? You bet. He did the dirty work and got the important things done.

There is no doubt in my mind that Obama et al did what was necessary or needed. I’m not saying he or the legislation produced are perfect, but I don’t expect them to be. Were compromises made that I find painful or objectionable? Absolutely, but that's how politics is supposed to work.

At this time, economic recovery trumps debt concerns. We all know the debt has to be controlled, but you don’t worry about the mortgage when the house is on fire. To simply deny the house is burning is suicidal. The fact is that the country is in far far better shape than it was two years ago. No one can argue otherwise. While it is true that the employment rate is just holding steady, the Republicans left an economy in shambles and spiraling out of control, with job losses up to 600,000 per month. After two years of Democratic control, we see vast improvements and a relatively stable economy. Perhaps the best sign of all is that consumer confidence must be up as Christmas sales are exceeding expectations. That is a very good sign!

Health care reform will be tweaked for decades and it would be no matter what was passed. What matters is that after a century of numerous failed efforts, Obama, Reid, and Pelosi, got us over the hump and got it done. The passage of health care reform was nothing less than historic.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

In the world of health care, the sky was already falling.

Are you claiming that "in a world where the sky is falling," universal healthcare is the answer? How do you account for the examples of the system which are currently failing? I was asking for an example of a universal healthcare system (in a country of significant population size) which rivals the current US healthcare system in quality of care even with all its flaws...

In large universal healthcare systems (Canada and UK for example) wait times are outrageous, and many people have to resort to privatized supplemental coverage in addition to their gov't plan in order to receive care.

 

[Char. Limit]

The passage of health care reform was nothing less than historic.

So was the invasion of England by Guillaume in 1066. Just because it was historic doesn't mean it was a good thing... or a bad thing.

 

[mheslep]

You need to define "productive". Sure, the 111th Congress did more than any Congress in decades. However, the jury is still out on whether they did better.

For the Democrats that apparently would be the number of pages of paper legislation produced, or this case, tons of paper produced? I expect their 'productivity' cost the US citizens, present and future, about $1T per ton.

 

[OmCheeto]

Proof?

Country_____Total expenditure on health as % of GDP, 2006
Canada______10.0
China________4.6
Cuba_________7.7
France______11.0
Germany_____10.6
Italy________9.0
Japan________8.1
Russia_______5.3
UK___________8.2
US__________15.3
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tsI9mtBAHd84DHdNQhO17Pg#gid=0"

I believe I posted something to this effect awhile ago. We spend nearly as much on keeping ourselves alive as we do running the country. I know that this is what B. Clinton has been running around the nation for the last few years chattering about, so I'm sure all the Republicans think there has to be something not wrong with the current system. (If old Buggerin' Bill wants it, it must be wrong.)

But looking at the rest of the numbers from the above spreadsheet, can I get a bi-partisan "yay" that we are just too fat?

Country__%ofGDPsohc__Obese Males(%)___Obese Females(%)
Japan___________8.1__________2.9__________3.3
China___________4.6__________2.4__________3.4
Italy___________9.0__________7.4__________8.9
Cuba____________7.7__________8.0_________11.8
France_________11.0_________16.1_________17.6
Russia__________5.3_________11.8_________20.1
Germany________10.6_________20.5_________21.1
UK______________8.2_________22.3_________23.0
Canada_________10.0_________22.9_________23.2
US_____________15.3_________31.1_________33.2

Perhaps we should start taxing food?

 

[Char. Limit]

Country_____Total expenditure on health as % of GDP, 2006
Canada______10.0
China________4.6
Cuba_________7.7
France______11.0
Germany_____10.6
Italy________9.0
Japan________8.1
Russia_______5.3
UK___________8.2
US__________15.3
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tsI9mtBAHd84DHdNQhO17Pg#gid=0"

I believe I posted something to this effect awhile ago. We spend nearly as much on keeping ourselves alive as we do running the country. I know that this is what B. Clinton has been running around the nation for the last few years chattering about, so I'm sure all the Republicans think there has to be something not wrong with the current system. (If old Buggerin' Bill wants it, it must be wrong.)

But looking at the rest of the numbers from the above spreadsheet, can I get a bi-partisan "yay" that we are just too fat?

Country__%ofGDPsohc__Obese Males(%)___Obese Females(%)
Japan___________8.1__________2.9__________3.3
China___________4.6__________2.4__________3.4
Italy___________9.0__________7.4__________8.9
Cuba____________7.7__________8.0_________11.8
France_________11.0_________16.1_________17.6
Russia__________5.3_________11.8_________20.1
Germany________10.6_________20.5_________21.1
UK______________8.2_________22.3_________23.0
Canada_________10.0_________22.9_________23.2
US_____________15.3_________31.1_________33.2

Perhaps we should start taxing food?

Or make exercise cheaper. Gym memberships are EXPENSIVE.

 

[russ_watters]

When one party is diametrically opposed to the goals of the other, and says so repeatedly and publicly, they should expect to be subject to political machinations and back-room deals...

Ok, good - so you acknowlege that your claim that republicans weren't kept out of anything was factually wrong. Glad we're on the same page now.

 

[russ_watters]

By definition, if Obama is a moderate as I believe him to be...

You keep saying it, so I'll keep saying it's wrong. I suppose if you define yourself to be at the center or use a scale based on Western Europe's center, Obama would end up at the center of such a spectrum, but on the spectrum of American politics, Obama is solidly, even heavily to the left.

 

[Mech_Engineer]

I suppose if you define yourself to be at the center or use a scale based on Western Europe's center...

Perhaps he's measuing on a log scale.

 

[turbo]

Ok, good - so you acknowlege that your claim that republicans weren't kept out of anything was factually wrong. Glad we're on the same page now.

The end-run was done out in the open, and the GOP knew it was happening and they knew why it was happening. The GOP did the very same thing to the Dems during their push for REAL ID when they were in the majority. Why allow the GOP to help craft a bill that they demonized constantly in public and vowed to kill?

 

[Mech_Engineer]

The end-run was done out in the open...

What happened to Obama's promise to run a more transparent administration?

 

[Char. Limit]

What happened to Obama's promise to run a more transparent administration?

It was filibustered.

 

[OmCheeto]

Were compromises made that I find painful or objectionable? Absolutely, but that's how politics is supposed to work.

I know how politics works!

https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=1573378&postcount=64

How dare you insinuate that I don't!

---------------------------------
And please give Tsu a big OmCheeto Festivus hug for me. ;)

 

[OmCheeto]

Or make exercise cheaper. Gym memberships are EXPENSIVE.

Actually, I would tend to say that we should make it not uncool to sweat at work. My first job out of the navy was quite aerobic, and I could only imagine the $$$ running though my head that I was saving a fortune on Gym memberships, and making money at the same time.

Somewhere, and somehow, the phrase; "Don't let them see you sweat", has been bastardized.

This country was built on sweat.

I say we tax the holy living Jesus(or notaJesus, if you are a member of the notagod persuasion) out of tanning salons, gym memberships, and put this country back to work!

 

[mheslep]

Posting the Dodd hearing clip as some kind of example was specious, not illustrative, when it was posted here by Zefram back in March and still is now. Amendments to major legislation for deciding on pencil type or adding an earmark is not an inclusion in the process, nor is the acceptance of more substantive amendments only to have them "kicked out" later as the minority leader stated in the clip. As I said before:

We know how bipartisan federal legislation is crafted in this country. For centuries the manner has been to have members of both parties sponsor the legislation. McCain-Feingold. Wyden-Bennet. Webb-Alexander. That is bipartisan legislation. Such has not happened here, and that is the responsibility solely of the Democratic party.

The attempt to cast US history aside and to view the complete shutout of bipartisan legislation in this Congress as the Republican's fault because they were tossed amendments is Orwellian.

 

[Proton Soup]

Or make exercise cheaper. Gym memberships are EXPENSIVE.

when i was a kid, we had this thing called "outside".

 

[turbo]

when i was a kid, we had this thing called "outside".

The nearest good trout-stream was a couple of miles away, and if you fished it all along its length, you'd traverse more miles, and when you got to a road, you had a couple of more miles to get home. No gym needed.

 

[Al68]

We spend nearly as much on keeping ourselves alive as we do running the country.

LOL. I like how left-wingers refer to the goal of their agenda (the country run by government) as if it were fait accompli, even now that their progress in that regard has been (hopefully) halted, and (more hopefully) soon to be jammed in reverse.

I just hope Republicans have the wisdom to know that Democrats will spew their hateful propaganda against them regardless of what they do or don't do, so there is no political reason whatsoever to fund any of the Democratic Party's agenda. They should take advantage of the fact that after one is called "every name in the book" politically, there are no more names in the book, and therefore nothing left to fear.

What are Democrats going to do, come up with something worse than "they want to throw old/poor/working people out on the street and make them starve to death?" Good luck with that.

 

[OmCheeto]

LOL. I like how left-wingers refer to the goal of their agenda (the country run by government) as if it were fait accompli, even now that their progress in that regard has been (hopefully) halted, and (more hopefully) soon to be jammed in reverse.

I just hope Republicans have the wisdom to know that Democrats will spew their hateful propaganda against them regardless of what they do or don't do, so there is no political reason whatsoever to fund any of the Democratic Party's agenda. They should take advantage of the fact that after one is called "every name in the book" politically, there are no more names in the book, and therefore nothing left to fear.

What are Democrats going to do, come up with something worse than "they want to throw old/poor/working people out on the street and make them starve to death?" Good luck with that.

Oh! And a happy xmas to you too, Mr. Scrooge.

 

[bobc2]

The conflicting posts here reflect a situation that is quite easy to understand. There are those in this country who would like to convert our system from that of free enterprize (unimpeded by government intervention) to one of Socialism/Marxist Communism, and there are those in this country who do not want to go down that road. The Socialists and Marxists have found they can best implement their playbook via the Democratic Party. The Republicans are a mix of staunch conservatives and liberals--the conservatives more predominent of late.

These two visions of our country are in such stark contrast that one should expect a fierce political battle. It is absurd to think that, in the name of "bipartisinship" either side should compromise with the other. It is absurd to offer analysis about how the Republicans are the party of "NO." Of course they should be saying NO to such a program of change in the American system (from their point of view). Just as the Socialists/Marxists should be the party of NO when Republicans begin to prevail. All of that kind of spinning is just political stuff for consumption by the masses of our population who pay no attention to government and have no clue about the great conflict underway.

After sitting in many of the SDS rap sessions on campus during the late '60s and early '70s, visiting in apartments of SDS members, attending the protests, reading the literature, etc., it is quite clear that the SDS kids (and other allied groups) have to a large extent hijacked the Democratic Party (this is not difficult to document, but I'm not burning up the energy here to compile the exhaustive list of references -- so obviously I'm not trying to provide proof of anything I say here). The SDS kids (and similar groups) have grown up and now occupy a significantly large number of key positions in the Obama administration. They are the implementers of the playbook. And Obama is playing his role from the old student playbook perfectly (he even has some on this thread believing that he is a moderate -- believe me, I've heard that part of the playbook argued back and forth during many late night sessions). There are many traditional Democrats who understand all of this but are helpless to do anything about it.

But, we have a democratic method of settling these battles. If the people now wish to go Socialist/Marxist, so be it. If the people now wish to reassert there desire for a Capitalistic Free Enerprize system, so be it. Let there be a vote.

The one problem I have with my old SDS friends is that in those late night meetings they were forever working out schemes (for getting their "best of all worlds") that could sneak their agenda in without letting the larger population in on what their goals really were. Why don't they make their case up front for a Socialist or Marxist system without playing footsie? Why don't they launch a campaign that puts it all out on the table? Why not tell the American people, "We think Socialism (or Marxism--whichever) is superior to the Capitialistic Free Market system and here's why? The question is rhetorical -- we all know the answer.

 

[CAC1001]

Dumping health-care costs on hospitals and doctors is unfair and inefficient, and reliance on a state-administered Medicaid safety net is not much better. This country needs universal health-care access so that medical conditions can be identified and treated before they become emergencies or chronic (expensive-to-treat) conditions. Call it Socialism if you want, but universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

The GOP stood against the healthcare bill because they did (and still do not) believe it would create any affordable healthcare.

As for universal care in the rest of the world, the British, French, and German systems are all in debt:

The British National Health Service is deeply in debt (has been for awhile):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/364354.stm (this from eleven years ago)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...patients-die-cuts-debt-ridden-NHS-trusts.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/nhsp-a19.shtml

The French national healthcare system also is in debt:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-france/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm

The German healthcare system as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461573950211460.html

Also, healthcare systems have three basic aspects people desire, only two of which are really attainable:

1) Cost controls
2) Freedom of choice
3) Universal coverage

You can have cost controls and freedom of choice, but you'll have to give up universal coverage. Or you can have cost controls and universal coverage, but you'll have to give up freedom of choice (the HMOs tried this and people screamed). Or you can have universal coverage and freedom of choice, but you end up with exploding costs.

Obamacare promises the Moon: Cost controls, universal coverage, and freedom of choice.

 

[CAC1001]

Country_____Total expenditure on health as % of GDP, 2006
Canada______10.0
China________4.6
Cuba_________7.7
France______11.0
Germany_____10.6
Italy________9.0
Japan________8.1
Russia_______5.3
UK___________8.2
US__________15.3
https://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=tsI9mtBAHd84DHdNQhO17Pg#gid=0"

I believe I posted something to this effect awhile ago. We spend nearly as much on keeping ourselves alive as we do running the country. I know that this is what B. Clinton has been running around the nation for the last few years chattering about, so I'm sure all the Republicans think there has to be something not wrong with the current system. (If old Buggerin' Bill wants it, it must be wrong.)

But looking at the rest of the numbers from the above spreadsheet, can I get a bi-partisan "yay" that we are just too fat?

Country__%ofGDPsohc__Obese Males(%)___Obese Females(%)
Japan___________8.1__________2.9__________3.3
China___________4.6__________2.4__________3.4
Italy___________9.0__________7.4__________8.9
Cuba____________7.7__________8.0_________11.8
France_________11.0_________16.1_________17.6
Russia__________5.3_________11.8_________20.1
Germany________10.6_________20.5_________21.1
UK______________8.2_________22.3_________23.0
Canada_________10.0_________22.9_________23.2
US_____________15.3_________31.1_________33.2

Perhaps we should start taxing food?

How is this "proof" though? Look at what we spend on our current single-payer programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Or what happened with the Massachusettes program.

 

[OmCheeto]

The GOP stood against the healthcare bill because they did (and still do not) believe it would create any affordable healthcare.

As for universal care in the rest of the world, the British, French, and German systems are all in debt:

The British National Health Service is deeply in debt (has been for awhile):

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/364354.stm (this from eleven years ago)
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...patients-die-cuts-debt-ridden-NHS-trusts.html
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2010/aug2010/nhsp-a19.shtml

The French national healthcare system also is in debt:

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=92419273
http://www.biggovhealth.org/resource/case-study-france/
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/europe/3423159.stm

The German healthcare system as well:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461573950211460.html

Also, healthcare systems have three basic aspects people desire, only two of which are really attainable:

1) Cost controls
2) Freedom of choice
3) Universal coverage

You can have cost controls and freedom of choice, but you'll have to give up universal coverage. Or you can have cost controls and universal coverage, but you'll have to give up freedom of choice (the HMOs tried this and people screamed). Or you can have universal coverage and freedom of choice, but you end up with exploding costs.

Obamacare promises the Moon: Cost controls, universal coverage, and freedom of choice.

Pardon me if I don't read all 7 of your articles. The headline of the first one was enough:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461573950211460.html
in the Opinion section
The Stressed German Model
It took the Germans 125 years to figure out that their health-care system doesn't work.

Stupid Germans... NOT!

Imagine driving around in a car for 125 years, and then someone tells you it was a lemon. What a load of crap.

 

[OmCheeto]

The Socialists and Marxists have found they can best implement their playbook via the Democratic Party.

And I see we've returned to the theory that Democrats are really just pawns of the Marxists again...

 

[OmCheeto]

How is this "proof" though? Look at what we spend on our current single-payer programs, Medicare and Medicaid. Or what happened with the Massachusettes program.

Proof? Maybe I've lost my train of thought. Or perhaps the request was a bit vague. hmm...

universal access to health care works well in the rest of the developed world, and the sky won't fall if we implement it here.

Proof?

Turbo's statement that it "works well" elsewhere, and fact that we spend so much more than anyone else for the same thing, strikes me as proof enough, that something needed to be done.

I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.

I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.

hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!

And as far as the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Massachusetts_health_care_reform" act of 2006, I'd say that anything implemented in the last 4 years is probably in financial trouble.

 

[Al68]

LOL. I like how left-wingers refer to the goal of their agenda (the country run by government) as if it were fait accompli, even now that their progress in that regard has been (hopefully) halted, and (more hopefully) soon to be jammed in reverse.

I just hope Republicans have the wisdom to know that Democrats will spew their hateful propaganda against them regardless of what they do or don't do, so there is no political reason whatsoever to fund any of the Democratic Party's agenda. They should take advantage of the fact that after one is called "every name in the book" politically, there are no more names in the book, and therefore nothing left to fear.

What are Democrats going to do, come up with something worse than "they want to throw old/poor/working people out on the street and make them starve to death?" Good luck with that.

Oh! And a happy xmas to you too, Mr. Scrooge.

LOL, yes, I forgot that one. But "Mr. Scrooge" isn't any worse than the examples I gave, it's pretty much the same idea.

 

[OmCheeto]

I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.

I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.

hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!

Oops. Forgot to include the % of my state tax that goes to H&HS, and of course Medicaid.

25.3% is going to health care.

And I've only been to the doctor 4 times in the last 25 years. (1 bottle of antibiotics for strep throat, 1 misdiagnosis for pertussis, 1 physical, and one; "if it hurts when you do that, then don't do that")

Does anyone know if the legislation passed addresses such things?

Let's see what the Feds have to say about it:

http://www.healthcare.gov/law/introduction/index.html"

New reforms under the Affordable Care Act begin to bring to an end some of the worst abuses of the insurance industry. These reforms will give Americans new rights and benefits, including helping more children get health coverage, ending lifetime and most annual limits on care, and giving patients access to recommended preventive services without cost-sharing.

These reforms will apply to all new health plans, and to many existing health plans as they are renewed. Many other new benefits of the law have already taken effect, including rebate checks for seniors in the Medicare donut hole and tax credits for small businesses. And more rights, protections and benefits for Americans are on the way now through 2014.

without cost-sharing? Does that mean if we'd done this when http://health.change.org/blog/view/..._the_closest_to_universal_health_care_part_2" wanted to do it, I'd have gotten a quarter million dollar rebate?

 

[bobc2]

And I see we've returned to the theory that Democrats are really just pawns of the Marxists again...

Hey, I'm just relating my experience with the SDS and other Socialists/Marxists/... et.al. groups on campus in the early '70s. We came to the parting of the waves the day they took over the 1st floor of the administration building, ransacked records, emptied file cabinets on the floor and into waste baskets, set them on fire, stood on desks and urinated all over the place, etc. I had nothing to do with them after that, and it makes my blood curdle to watch them operate within the Obama administration.

 

[turbo]

Hey, I'm just relating my experience with the SDS and other Socialists/Marxists/... et.al. groups on campus in the early '70s. We came to the parting of the waves the day they took over the 1st floor of the administration building, ransacked records, emptied file cabinets on the floor and into waste baskets, set them on fire, stood on desks and urinated all over the place, etc. I had nothing to do with them after that, and it makes my blood curdle to watch them operate within the Obama administration.

OK, do you have any proof that SDS operatives from the 60's and 70's are working for Obama, or are you just trying to stir up trouble? It's time to back up your claims or go away.

 

[CAC1001]

Imagine driving around in a car for 125 years, and then someone tells you it was a lemon. What a load of crap.

UM...I never said any of those systems (British, French, or German) "don't work," I said that they are all in debt. Also I would not compare the current German system with the one implemented 125 years-ago. Bismarck simply was the first to create a state healthcare system for everyone.

The current German system is a complex combination of public and private. As for the British and French systems, they are having to undergo reforms with regards to spending, rationing, etc...as costs increase. I am sure one could find more info online, but in the book The Undercover Economist, the author explains some of the problems the British NHS is experiencing. Some of the French system's problems are explained in one of the articles.

Proof? Maybe I've lost my train of thought. Or perhaps the request was a bit vague. hmm...

MechEngineer asked for proof regarding turbo-1's statement that "universal healthcare works well in the rest of the developed world and the sky won't fall if we implement it here."

You responded with a post showing the percentages of GDP each country devotes to healthcare spending and the percentages of the populations that are obese.

My response is how exactly is any of that "proof" that universal healthcare "works well" in the rest of the world and that it would not be a disaster if implemented here?

I then pointed out that of the two single-payer systems we have, Medicare and Medicaid, both have exploding out-of-control costs right now, and are going to have to go through some severe reform or else face very painful cuts soon.

I also pointed out the Massachusettes experiment with universal healthcare, which IS a legitimate issue, because the program's costs blew completely out-of-control and Massachussettes now has the highest health premiums in the nation: http://www.boston.com/news/health/a...health_insurance_premiums_highest_in_country/

Now there are some working examples lately it seems, such as the VA system I believe, which is single-payer but has made some modifications, such as decentralizing the bureaucracy and also I don't think doctors can be sued for frivolous lawsuits (Ivan Seeking posted an article on this awhile back) and also the Bush Medicare Prescription Drug Program which thus far is managing to pay for itself (http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/aug/16/bush-drug-plan-beats-cost-mark/).

So to just say, "If we implement universal healthcare here, everything will be fine..." is not necessarilly accurate. It doesn't mean it is incorrect either, but I mean if done incorrectly, it could very much be disastrous financially.

Turbo's statement that it "works well" elsewhere, and fact that we spend so much more than anyone else for the same thing, strikes me as proof enough, that something needed to be done.

Sure "something" needed to be done, doesn't mean we need to copy other systems from around the world though.

I see from your "Broken 125 year old German health system" link that Germans spend "14.9% of gross pay" for their healthcare coverage.

...with higher taxes. They have a VAT tax and they are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of a tax.

I also see on my final earnings statement from work this year that 21.7% of my gross pay went to a private HMO.

hmmm... 14.9% or 21.7%? which would I rather pay? Oh no! I think I'm turning Libertarian! I support a system that may one day reduce the money sucked out of my wallet!

Yes, that may, but it also could explode in costs. In the European nations they may pay less in terms of percentage of income, but they also have higher taxes on the middle income and poor, something that the Democrats don't want to do in America.

EDIT: To be fair, I should say it is something neither party wants to do really, at least not with the current tax system; some mandate reforming the tax code with lower rates, but much fewer exemptions so as to include more people.

In America right now, about 40% pay nothing in Federal income taxes (because of the Earned Income Tax Credit, a Republican innovation, the Child Tax Credit (which was doubled under Bush from $500 to $1000 per child), and an across-the-board reduction of marginal income tax rates (prior to Bush the bottom rates were 15% and 20%, now they are 10% and 15%).

In Europe, they have VAT taxes, which hit everybody, and in countries like Germany, people are mandated to purchase health insurance, which is a form of tax as well. They also can have higher income tax rates.

I don't know if we can have a healthcare system that provides universal coverage, freedom of choice, cost controls, and does all of these with 40% exempted from federal taxes.

And as far as the Massachusetts health care reform act of 2006, I'd say that anything implemented in the last 4 years is probably in financial trouble.

The Massachussettes program was meant to provide universal coverage though without exploding in costs. Some say, "Well, it's on the state level..." yeah, but the states are like policy laboratories. They are micro-versions of America.

Also Medicare and Medicaid are both single-payer systems. One of President Obama's original claims I remember was he wanted to create a form of "Medicare for all..." well okay, but the current Medicare is unsustainable at the moment. Expanding it to everyone would be rather difficult.

 

[CAC1001]

without cost-sharing? Does that mean if we'd done this when http://health.change.org/blog/view/..._the_closest_to_universal_health_care_part_2" wanted to do it, I'd have gotten a quarter million dollar rebate?

Nixon was not any conservative except with regards to foreign policy. Otherwise, he was very much a flaming Leftist (gun control, universal healthcare, price controls, the EPA, etc...).

 

[Ivan Seeking]

So to just say, "If we implement universal healthcare here, everything will be fine..." is not necessarilly accurate. It doesn't mean it is incorrect either, but I mean if done incorrectly, it could very much be disastrous financially.

Just fyi, while I generally support the reforms made so far, I completely agree.

To me this looks like a multi-tier issue that requires progress on both the political and economic fronts. Obama took the first step and got what he could. He got the ball rolling. There is much to be done regarding additional reforms and cost containment.

Your example of Mass. Health care seems a little unfair given that, IIRC, they effectively have universal coverage. To compare this to States where many people either have no insurance, or they are underinsured, or they are rejected when they need the insurance, or coverage is denied to children for prexisting conditions, and so on, is comparing apples to oranges. It is no secret that it will cost more to fully insure everyone. That's why reform was such a challenge. That is also why everyone must be in the system - either insured or charged $2500 per year - in order to make ANY option work.

To me, the most important lesson is that the free market has failed. It does not meet the minimum standard that everyone have access to health care [without eventually overwhelming the economy, as will happen based on the pre-reform trajectory].

 

[CAC1001]

Just fyi, while I generally support the reforms made so far, I completely agree.

To me this looks like a multi-tier issue that requires progress on both the political and economic fronts. Obama took the first step and got what he could. He got the ball rolling. There is much to be done regarding additional reforms and cost containment.

Your example of Mass. Health care seems a little unfair given that, IIRC, they effectively have universal coverage. To compare this to States where many people either have no insurance, or they are underinsured, or they are rejected when they need the insurance, or coverage is denied to children for prexisting conditions, and so on, is comparing apples to oranges. It is no secret that it will cost more to fully insure everyone. That's why reform was such a challenge. That is also why everyone must be in the system - either insured or charged $2500 per year - in order to make ANY option work.

Everyone having coverage is good, but potential exploding costs are a major concern because of the deficit and debt. We can have a high level of debt if we run very low deficits or a balanced budget, and we can have larger chronic deficits with a low level of national debt, but right now we have the problem of a massive deficit and a high level of debt, which is completely unsustainable.

A large deficit means the debt increases by large amounts every year, and the larger the debt grows, the greater a chunk of the federal budget must go to servicing it. It also means any upward tick in the interest rate could mean a massive amount more going to service the debt.

Also Mass. has considered implementing rationing with their healthcare system: http://www.thenewamerican.com/index.php/usnews/health-care/1445 which would mean even if everyone is covered, not everyone necessarilly will get care.

To me, the most important lesson is that the free market has failed. It does not meet the minimum standard that everyone have access to health care [without eventually overwhelming the economy, as will happen based on the pre-reform trajectory].

I wouldn't claim the free-market has failed, but the current system needs changing. One part of the industry is not free-market, for example people cannot purchase health insurance across state lines. The opponents point out that health insurance is regulated on the state level, so they claim if this was done, health insurance companies would all cluster into the state that mandates they cover the least amount of things. I don't know how true that is, but regardless of what the solution would be, the health insurance sector right now in that sense is not at all a free-market.

 

[turbo]

I wouldn't claim the free-market has failed, but the current system needs changing. One part of the industry is not free-market, for example people cannot purchase health insurance across state lines. The opponents point out that health insurance is regulated on the state level, so they claim if this was done, health insurance companies would all cluster into the state that mandates they cover the least amount of things. I don't know how true that is, but regardless of what the solution would be, the health insurance sector right now in that sense is not at all a free-market.

The free market has been out-flanked by the insurance companies, in this case. In an ideal world, insurance would be a way to spread risk, so everybody pays a little, and gets protection from catastrophic losses. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now. Get an expensive illness? Get dropped by your insurance company on a technicality (you didn't remember that you had mono once in college, for instance) with no recourse. When you're fighting an aggressive cancer, you probably don't have the energy or financial resources to stand up for your rights, so you have to default on payments or go through bankruptcy and lose everything in an attempt to survive. Our current health-insurance system sucks. The insurance-company apologists who claim that we have the "best" health-care in the world have no idea what this country could accomplish with rational reforms and universal coverage.

 

[Proton Soup]

The free market has been out-flanked by the insurance companies, in this case. In an ideal world, insurance would be a way to spread risk, so everybody pays a little, and gets protection from catastrophic losses. Unfortunately, that's not what we have now. Get an expensive illness? Get dropped by your insurance company on a technicality (you didn't remember that you had mono once in college, for instance) with no recourse. When you're fighting an aggressive cancer, you probably don't have the energy or financial resources to stand up for your rights, so you have to default on payments or go through bankruptcy and lose everything in an attempt to survive. Our current health-insurance system sucks. The insurance-company apologists who claim that we have the "best" health-care in the world have no idea what this country could accomplish with rational reforms and universal coverage.

yeah, i came across an interesting lecture from this guy named Chris Hedges who thinks Obama is a sellout to them as well. in addition to failing at pretty much everything else liberals supposedly stand for. actually, it starts off with the birth pangs of the death of the liberal establishment and birth of the war economy at WWI, but if you're impatient, maybe you'd want to skip to about halfway. never heard of him, and not sure i'd ever be quite this liberal, but it's a very interesting perspective to me. in any case, staying relatively on-topic with the 111th's productivity, this guy says it's a complete failure from a liberal POV. 45m:23s

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bYCvSntOI5s

 

[Al68]

The Socialists and Marxists have found they can best implement their playbook via the Democratic Party.

And I see we've returned to the theory that Democrats are really just pawns of the Marxists again...

Nope, no such theory was advanced by bobc2. He never said "pawns of." He was referring to the obvious ideology of the members of the Democratic Party themselves.

And there's no "theory" involved, only the semantic issue of the meaning of the word "Marxist." Bobc2 was clearly using the word generically to describe people with left-wing economic ideology. The word's capitalization reflects the word's origin, not an implied specific official political group.