Martha Coakley-Scott Brown Election (MA)

Remove all ads!

No, sorry I wasn't clear. I was just trying to say that it's not a given by any means. Yes, the private sector can compete with, and even out-compete a public option, but it's far from a given and just because they can't doesn't necessarily mean they were doing a bad job, or that the public option is better.

Some of the public options that have been proposed would kill the private sector, no matter how efficient the private sector was. Others would shrivel up and die on the spot, no matter how bad the private sector was. What we need is a middle ground, one that doesn't have any unfair advantages, but can still force competition into the system. That takes fancier juggling than some want to admit.

 

We have the most insane, stupid health care system of any advanced country. It is employer based, not insurance based. Most people are insured by their empolyers, not private insurance companies. The insurance companies only move the money around for the employers and do the adminstration and paperwork. Not only is it horribly expensive, but very inefficient. The insurance companies are only middle-men. Anyone who knows squat about business knows that middle-men can be a cost burden without competition, which of course we don't have.

Those who are self-employed, unemployed and without employer based insurance for some reason, have to buy coverage through these vampires. These are the real horror stories of people being dropped when they have to use it, or have huge expenses that these guys won't pay and that force them to lose their homes and file banckruptcy. It is an entirely for profit system. It is an absolute disgrace to humanity that Americans treat their fellow citizens in such a manner. It's a morally bankrupt system.

 

To get back on topic...

This is a great victory for the United States. Depriving the Democrats of their supermajority in the Senate hopefully will lead to more openness in the way the Dems are running things.

A part of me really feels bad for Coakley as she hasn't been a terrible attorney general, but Washington really screwed her on multiple levels. She was the clear cut favorite and had a 30 point lead in the polls. Then Harry Reid and the U.S. Senate let power go to their head. Bribing Nebraska (aka cash for cloture) to pass the Senate version of the health care bill was the first strike. Then hot on its heels Harry and Nancy decided to have all of the reconciliation meetings held in secret, which was clearly the opposite of what Obama had campaigned for, this was the second strike. Probably the third stike was Obama not calling Harry and Nancy to task and forcing them to put the meetings on C-SPAN like he said he would. It really makes you wonder if Obama is actually in charge or if they are using him like a figurehead.

These strikes created the perfect storm as the anger nationwide they had created, finally had a spot to manifest in the MA special election. Brown was bringing in over a million dollars a day in fundraising from across the entire nation. Last I remember the average donation was like 80 dollars. Coakley on the other hand went to Washington for a big fundraiser with health care lobbyists. How this was determined to be a good idea is beyond me.

The unenrolled/independent voters here in MA savagely turned on Coakley and the Dems. Over and over the "man on the street" interviews were people expressing their disatisfaction with Washington and the way things were going. You didn't hear much hatred of Coakley, it was mainly about wanting to not let Washington continue doing what they were doing.

What will be interesting to see over the next few days/months/years will be if Washington actually understands the message and if they actually care. This is directed at the GOP also as I have heard way too many Republicans thinking that this was a Republican victory. It was in no shape any such thing. This was a Democrat loss instead. If you watched Brown's victory speech not once did he use the word Republican. He over and over again mentioned the independants and the Democrats.

The taxpayers and therefore the voters are very concerned about the economy and spending. People who are going to challenge incumbants using the "Brown model" of small government and lower taxes have a very good chance in November 2010. Currently, neither party has a very good track record of this. When the GOP were in charge they spent like drunken sailors. Now the Dems have decided to one up them and add a meth addiction to the equation. It is shame that the founding fathers didn't ensure that Congress was an upaid position and didn't put in term limits.

 

Actually, I think this is a huge Republican victory. Not so much for the party as it is, but rather for the hope of a new, better party. If you look at Brown's campaigning, his speeches, etc. it's clear he isn't a standard business-as-usual Republican, and this is almost certainly why he won. If this is any indication, we can hope to see similar Republicans running, and winning, in the general election and really shaking the party up a little.

 

This probably isn't exactly what you meant, but what I wonder is how anything is ever going to get done in the Senate, without using reconciliation. 60-seat majorities are exceedingly rare. Even if the Dems had retained this seat, it is highly likely that the Republicans are going to pick up anywhere from 2-4 Senate seats in the fall (along with about 15 House seats).

However, for the past year now, the Republicans have become the "Party of No". Here's the thing though: While it's unlikely to happen in 2010, the Republicans are going to get a majority in the Senate again eventually. But it's probably not going to be a 60-seat majority. I suspect then that the Democrats will become the "Party of No", and frankly, after what we've seen from the Republicans, I really couldn't blame them. The Dems may as well start liberally (pun intended) using reconciliation to get stuff done. I suspect it will become standing operating procedure in the Senate in the not-distant future. (Not that it was all that uncommon in the past - the Republicans used it somewhat frequently for the first six years Bush was in office.)

 

If I were you , I wouldn't place any money on a bet that the Dem's maintain both houses, I would not be at all surprised if they lose both. That to me is the perfect situation. When the White House and Congress are under the control of different parties, it limits the amount of damage they can do.

 

It also limits the amount of good they can do.

 

A politician's ability to do harm far exceeds their ability to do good.

 

Harry Reid had almost nothing to do with the bill, and as for Nancy, her bill had been almost completely tossed aside by the WH. I understand that know-nothing conservative pundits (who have been spouting this nonsense all over the media) never pass up a chance to attack either of these two, but this was really the Max Baucus bill. He and the conservacrats, along with the insurance companies, wrote this bill and were stuffing it down the throats of both Reid and Pelosi, which is why liberals and progressives despised almost everything about it. This bill was pure gravy for the insurance companies, and it ain't dead yet, but will probably get even worse, now that the Republicans are in on it. Yes, most everyone is pissed off about this bill, because Obama promised that:

1. People would NOT be forced to buy insurance
2. They would NOT be taxed on their benefits
3. Their costs would go down

It's quite clear that none of this was fulfilled. But to blame Harry and Nancy for the way in which this bill turned out is just plain wrong.

 

It is clearly Harry and Nancy's fault. They run the Senate and House respectively. Nothing gets to a vote if they don't schedule/approve of it. For all the machinations of the evil insurance companies at the end of the day, they are the ones who finally gave their respective versions the green light, and they are the ones who have been working in secret to try to reconcile the two bills.

By the same token, if this abomination of a bill makes it out of Congress and Obama signs it, then he is the one responsible for it will be his signature that made it law. Come to think about it, that is about the only way Harry and Nancy can get the stink of the bill off of them.

 

I disagee TGS. They may be the majority leaders but I really think Obama should have shown more leadership. He is the democratic party leader, he needs to corral his party and get them in step. Right now I don't think anyone can really lay claim to party leadership so the party is in shambles.

 

Corral Nancy Pelosi? Good luck. Harry Reid, sure, but Pelosi's something else.

 

What are you talking about here, the Senate bill or the House bill? Nancy had nothing to do with the bill that came out of the Senate, just as Reid had nothing to do with the bill that came out of the House. The bill that is being considered is not the house bill but the Senate bill. The House bill has the public option in it and that is not being considered. The two bills are very different.

That part of your post is the only part that made sense, and it contradicts everything else in your post. They are meeting with the WH to try and reconcile the TWO bills. If the Senate bill was what Nancy wanted, it would be done deal and the election you've been crowing about would be meaningless for health care.

 

And at this point I don't think either will survive.

 

Correct, Harry is responsible for the Senate bill, Nancy is responsible for the House bill. They are both responsible for trying to reconcile the two. Obviously, they failed to do so in time as Scott Brown can now block them. That is the reason they were considering just passing the Senate bill, but Nancy announced she does not have the votes to pass the Senate bill.

That is why the fat lady is getting ready to sing and the soap opera is coming to an end.

 

The House and Senate Conference Committees are.

Nancy said that there was not 100 votes for the Senate bill in the House. I guess I don't know why you brought it up, since you are only making my point for me.

 

Stick it where the sun don't shine.

The only way that private insurance can "compete" against government is if the government lets them. The moment that the government decides it wants more power, it will simply take it... Private insurers can't wipe out their competition on a whim. The government could.... and would. They've been trying to destroy the private insurance industry little by little for decades so that they could eventually completely wipe it out and force government run health care down our throats. What makes you think that they'd stop at simply offering a "public option"? It's just one more scam in a long line of thieving liberal scams aimed at destroying private insurance and private healthcare so that they could grab 1/6th of the US economy and the power that comes with it on their way to forcing this country further down the vile and despicable road to government control of the entire economy and marxism!!!

 

The corporations you are carping about own a large part of the government, which does their bidding for them. And why not? Those corporations have paid well for their government "aid."

 

Pure comedy.

Oh no, you are serious. Never mind.