‘Obamacare’ victory may cost Democrats in November

[Obama 2012 1,714]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/03/25/13360791.html

To Canadians, the health care legislation that is now (or soon will be) law in the U.S. is no big deal.

We’ve had universal health coverage for years, and even those who initially adamantly opposed it when it was first introduced in Saskatchewan, have long since accepted it and moved on to other issues.

Still, even to blase Canadians, it seems curious that under President Barack Obama’s somewhat adulterated health plan, a citizen will be punished if he/she doesn’t buy health insurance — and likewise an insurance company that refuses to sell coverage to an individual. That policy seems fraught with future problems.

Of course, Canada’s health plan is government-operated, which is not the case (yet) in the U.S.

When universal coverage was first introduced in Canada, some doctors even went on strike. Emotions were at fever pitch, which seems weird looking back, now that the country is conditioned to what is depicted as “free” health care (which it isn’t, but accounts for Canada’s high tax rate).

Removing abortions from health care reform, probably saved the day for Obama. For the time being.

In Canada, abortions are funded by medicare. While not all Canadian hospitals perform abortions, 65% of abortions in Canada are done in hospitals, with the remainder done in both public and private clinics.

Although legal, controversy still seethes about abortion, but in a discreet, somewhat muted Canadian way, not shouting at lung-top as in the U.S.

A difference between the two countries is that Canadians were probably more sanguine about universal health care when it was introduced than Americans are today.

“Socialism” isn’t the spectre in Canada (unfortunately) as it is in the U.S.

While the health care bill is a huge political victory for Obama, it may not be so for Democrats come the November mid-term elections.

Polls show the majority of Americans don’t want Obamacare, which may result in Republican votes in November.

Then again, resignation may replace today’s anger. Mid-term elections attract some 40% of eligible voters, while presidential elections attract 60%.

The 40% are those who feel strongly — the anti-faction. Democrats hope health reform hostilities calm down or are forgotten by November, but few expect this.

Even huge Democratic losses in Congress won’t undo the legislation, which will be controversial for years.

What’s unusual is that political support for health care legislation is fully partisan — only Democrats support it — while opposition is bi-partisan, with all Republicans and a lot of Democrats opposed, as are a majority of Americans.

That doesn’t sound very democratic. And it isn’t. It is Big Brother knowing better and imposing something on an unwilling country. It’s more like authoritarian regimes than democratic ones.

One reality beyond dispute is the lowball estimate of health care reform costing only $940 billion. No way. Costs will skyrocket — they always do with government estimates. That means higher taxes.

Another oddity is that before the legislation, most Americans were convinced theirs was the best health care system in the world (just as we Canadians are brainwashed into thinking our is, even though patients die while waiting for operations).

Why change something that the people were so content with? That’s a good question the Obamans have difficulty answering — except that they know better.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

From a Canadian Tabloid perspective...

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

http://www.torontosun.com/news/columnists/peter_worthington/2010/03/25/13360791.html

To Canadians, the health care legislation that is now (or soon will be) law in the U.S. is no big deal.

We’ve had universal health coverage for years, and even those who initially adamantly opposed it when it was first introduced in Saskatchewan, have long since accepted it and moved on to other issues.

Still, even to blase Canadians, it seems curious that under President Barack Obama’s somewhat adulterated health plan, a citizen will be punished if he/she doesn’t buy health insurance — and likewise an insurance company that refuses to sell coverage to an individual. That policy seems fraught with future problems.

Of course, Canada’s health plan is government-operated, which is not the case (yet) in the U.S.

When universal coverage was first introduced in Canada, some doctors even went on strike. Emotions were at fever pitch, which seems weird looking back, now that the country is conditioned to what is depicted as “free” health care (which it isn’t, but accounts for Canada’s high tax rate).

Removing abortions from health care reform, probably saved the day for Obama. For the time being.

In Canada, abortions are funded by medicare. While not all Canadian hospitals perform abortions, 65% of abortions in Canada are done in hospitals, with the remainder done in both public and private clinics.

Although legal, controversy still seethes about abortion, but in a discreet, somewhat muted Canadian way, not shouting at lung-top as in the U.S.

A difference between the two countries is that Canadians were probably more sanguine about universal health care when it was introduced than Americans are today.

“Socialism” isn’t the spectre in Canada (unfortunately) as it is in the U.S.

While the health care bill is a huge political victory for Obama, it may not be so for Democrats come the November mid-term elections.

Polls show the majority of Americans don’t want Obamacare, which may result in Republican votes in November.

Then again, resignation may replace today’s anger. Mid-term elections attract some 40% of eligible voters, while presidential elections attract 60%.

The 40% are those who feel strongly — the anti-faction. Democrats hope health reform hostilities calm down or are forgotten by November, but few expect this.

Even huge Democratic losses in Congress won’t undo the legislation, which will be controversial for years.

What’s unusual is that political support for health care legislation is fully partisan — only Democrats support it — while opposition is bi-partisan, with all Republicans and a lot of Democrats opposed, as are a majority of Americans.

That doesn’t sound very democratic. And it isn’t. It is Big Brother knowing better and imposing something on an unwilling country. It’s more like authoritarian regimes than democratic ones.

One reality beyond dispute is the lowball estimate of health care reform costing only $940 billion. No way. Costs will skyrocket — they always do with government estimates. That means higher taxes.

Another oddity is that before the legislation, most Americans were convinced theirs was the best health care system in the world (just as we Canadians are brainwashed into thinking our is, even though patients die while waiting for operations).

Why change something that the people were so content with? That’s a good question the Obamans have difficulty answering — except that they know better.

The author, Peter Worthington is a right-wing POS. The Toronto Sun is great, if you want to buy a TV or digital camera or something but aside from it's Sunshine Girls and Boys (no nudity unlike The SUN in England) which are de rigeur decoration for the wall of every garage or mechanic's establishment, it offers nothing but rehashed garbage. It does a great job of lining the bottom of a birdcage, though.

[scandal 951]

The author, Peter Worthington is a right-wing POS. The Toronto Sun is great, if you want to buy a TV or digital camera or something but aside from it's Sunshine Girls and Boys (no nudity unlike The SUN in England) which are de rigeur decoration for the wall of every garage or mechanic's establishment, it offers nothing but rehashed garbage. It does a great job of lining the bottom of a birdcage, though.

For an alternative Canadian perspective, here's the take of the Globe and Mail this week. Touch of class, eh?

From Monday's Globe and Mail Published on Monday, Mar. 22, 2010 12:00AM EDT Last updated on Thursday, Mar. 25, 2010 5:34AM EDT

After months of plot twists and legislative brinksmanship, the United States is once again close to passing health-care reform. The surprising Act V turnaround by Barack Obama and the Democrats provides a lesson in how to manage political conflict and overcome entrenched opposition.

Mr. Obama saw his first reform bill evaporate when the seat held by the late senator Ted Kennedy fell in a special election to Republican Scott Brown, leaving Democrats one vote short of the 60 needed to avert delay tactics by Senate Republicans, who were universally opposed to the bill. His grip on House Democrats weakened, with anti-abortionists and liberals each throwing up objections.

The decision to try health care reform in the first place confused many loyalists. Many thought Mr. Obama should spend his political capital on tackling joblessness or financial reform. And with Mr. Brown's victory, many said the lesson was to be more conciliatory, and to moderate the reform's ambition.

Rather than ceding the agenda, Mr. Obama redoubled his efforts. In private, he worked more closely with Congressional allies, realizing that the previous strategy of leaving most of the details to them had failed.

His public political stagecraft included a summit with Republicans, showing his commitment to a solution that could, on the right terms, include them. In speeches, Mr. Obama relayed the personal tales of suffering by those without health care insurance, and the collective story of pending rate increases that dominant insurance companies were about to foist on their policy-holders.

Mr. Obama seized the public agenda by assuming leadership and telling stories that conveyed a richer, more compelling narrative than the misleading buzzwords - "socialism"; "death panels" - of his opponents. The stories, and the values that underlay them, made the moral obligation to reform health care vivid and urgent, while the opposition could summon no similar positive vision.

It was a great effort by Mr. Obama and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, but in service of the modest objective of securing enough House Democratic votes to assure legislative success. Moreover, the likely result hews in most ways to the original plan: extending benefits to millions of Americans without resorting to a government-backed insurer, and without aggressive moves to rein in health-care cost increases.

The success, though, could be one not just for health care, but for the political system. Should the opposition to reform fail in the coming days - a failure that is in no way guaranteed- and should the public begin to enjoy the benefits of reform, the Democrats will have shown that politics can work. In a system many see as broken, that is a result worth the fight.

[Pooky 3,782]

Mr. Obama seized the public agenda by assuming leadership and telling stories that conveyed a richer, more compelling narrative than the misleading buzzwords - "socialism"; "death panels" - of his opponents. The stories, and the values that underlay them, made the moral obligation to reform health care vivid and urgent, while the opposition could summon no similar positive vision.

What ruins the rosy picture painted by this piece of journalistic fluff is that when the Toronto Sun mentioned the following ...

What’s unusual is that political support for health care legislation is fully partisan — only Democrats support it — while opposition is bi-partisan, with all Republicans and a lot of Democrats opposed, as are a majority of Americans.

... it painted a truer picture than the Globe and Mail.

So which one do you place more faith in content-wise? One's a hack job (albeit with a factual basis), written by a pundit on the Right. The other's a fluff piece, written by a pundit on the Left. Pick your poison.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

What ruins the rosy picture painted by this piece of journalistic fluff is that when the Toronto Sun mentioned the following ...

... it painted a truer picture than the Globe and Mail.

So which one do you place more faith in content-wise? One's a hack job (albeit with a factual basis), written by a pundit on the Right. The other's a fluff piece, written by a pundit on the Left. Pick your poison.

Logic would tell most people (i/e - not the far left) that facts are important.

When was the last time the far left was logical however?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Mr. Obama seized the public agenda by assuming leadership and telling stories that conveyed a richer, more compelling narrative than the misleading buzzwords - "socialism"; "death panels" - of his opponents. The stories, and the values that underlay them, made the moral obligation to reform health care vivid and urgent, while the opposition could summon no similar positive vision.

What ruins the rosy picture painted by this piece of journalistic fluff is that when the Toronto Sun mentioned the following ...

... it painted a truer picture than the Globe and Mail.

What’s unusual is that political support for health care legislation is fully partisan — only Democrats support it — while opposition is bi-partisan, with all Republicans and a lot of Democrats opposed, as are a majority of Americans.

So which one do you place more faith in content-wise? One's a hack job (albeit with a factual basis), written by a pundit on the Right. The other's a fluff piece, written by a pundit on the Left. Pick your poison.

So, we're saying that there is no-one supporting the passage of the health care reform legislation other than Democrats while opposition is spread across the spectrum? The numbers do show a different picture. A full 79% of Democrats, 46% of Independents and even 14% of Republicans feel that passage of the health care reform legislation is a good thing. The fact that the GOP fails to represent the Republican spectrum in the Congress on this should not be mistaken for a total lack of support among Republicans for this legislation.

So, I'd say that the clear hack piece here is that which you offered as the "Canadian perspective". It isn't. It's the perspective of a right wing opinion published in a tabloid.

Edited March 26, 2010 by Mr. Big Dog

[Dan T 8]

So, we're saying that there is no-one supporting the passage of the health care reform legislation other than Democrats while opposition is spread across the spectrum? The numbers do show a different picture. A full 79% of Democrats, 46% of Independents and even 14% of Republicans feel that passage of the health care reform legislation is a good thing. The fact that the GOP fails to represent the Republican spectrum in the Congress on this should not be mistaken for a total lack of support among Republicans for this legislation.

the key flaw, feel, not think

[one...two...tree 2,762]

What ruins the rosy picture painted by this piece of journalistic fluff is that when the Toronto Sun mentioned the following ...

What's unusual is that political support for health care legislation is fully partisan — only Democrats support it — while opposition is bi-partisan, with all Republicans and a lot of Democrats opposed, as are a majority of Americans.

... it painted a truer picture than the Globe and Mail.

So which one do you place more faith in content-wise? One's a hack job (albeit with a factual basis), written by a pundit on the Right. The other's a fluff piece, written by a pundit on the Left. Pick your poison.

You do realize that many of the provisions in the HCR bill were championed by Republicans (see Sen. Grassely's recent comments)? You must also be aware that Republicans chose to take a political gamble of trying to defeat HCR, not because they are opposed to many of the reforms, but because it would have delivered a crushing defeat to Obama's presidency (see David Frum's recent comments)?

Edited March 26, 2010 by Galt's gallstones

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Grassley: Look How Great This Health Care Bill Is

To: Reporters and Editors Re: tax-exempt hospitals provisions in new health care law

Da: Wednesday, March 24, 2010

Sen. Chuck Grassley, ranking member of the Committee on Finance, with

jurisdiction over taxes, has worked to hold tax-exempt hospitals accountable for the federal tax benefits they receive. The health care legislation signed into law yesterday includes provisions Grassley co-authored to impose standards for the tax exemption of

charitable hospitals for the first time. The bill requires that a hospital complete a community needs assessment once every three years and adopt and publicize a financial assistance policy; prohibits billing those who qualify for financial assistance the top rates; and prohibits a hospital from taking extraordinary collection actions if the hospital has not made reasonable efforts to notify patients of its financial assistance policy.

The bill also requires the IRS to review the tax-exempt status of each hospital every three years; requires Treasury and Health and Human Services to submit an annual report to Congress on the level of charity care, bad debt expenses and the unreimbursed costs of means-tested and non-means-tested government programs; and requires Treasury and HHS to provide a report in five years on the trends on the items reported on an annual basis.

Grassley made the following comment on the advancement of these provisions.

"Tax-exempt hospitals don't have many measures of accountability for their special status. The law hasn't given them much direction, and so they've defined standards for themselves. Sometimes that's resulted in providing very little charitable patient care or other community benefits, failing to publicize charitable care to patients, charging

indigent, uninsured patients more than insured patients, and using very aggressive collection practices. The Government Accountability Office and others, including the former IRS commissioner, have said for a long time that there is often no discernible difference between the operations of taxable and tax-exempt hospitals. These new provisions are modeled after principles and polices that the Catholic Health Association has had in place for years. I appreciate the association's willingness to have honest, forthright conversations about charitable hospitals' activities. The provisions take steps to differentiate tax-exempt hospitals from for-profit hospitals and provide further transparency about tax-exempt hospitals' fulfilling their charitable mission. Congress, the IRS, and the public will now have additional tools and information to ensure that charitable hospitals act charitably."

The provisions enacted in the new health care law are the result of

Grassley's leadership on tax-exempt organizations' accountability and

transparency, including hospitals. In 2005, he sent letters of inquiry to some of the nation's largest tax-exempt hospitals. In 2006, he convened a hearing and released a summary of the hospitals' responses. In 2007, he released a staff discussion draft of potential legislative reforms and convened a roundtable of experts to discuss the potential reforms. In 2008, he followed up with letters of inquiry to more hospitals and received a report he'd requested from the Government Accountability Office. In 2009, he drafted legislative reforms and succeeded in persuading the Democratic majority to include several of the reforms in the new health care law.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

the key flaw, feel, not think

Actually, kiddo, if you take a look at the poll question that was answered, the question was whether people think that passage of the health care reform legislation was a good thing. But keep harping on the irrelevant - that's all you've got left.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

Logic would tell most people (i/e - not the far left) that facts are important.

And yet the facts tell a different story than the right wing tabloid piece. While support among Republicans is rather marginal, it's not like there isn't any support at all among that population.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

What ruins the rosy picture painted by this piece of journalistic fluff is that when the Toronto Sun mentioned the following ...

... it painted a truer picture than the Globe and Mail.

So which one do you place more faith in content-wise? One's a hack job (albeit with a factual basis), written by a pundit on the Right. The other's a fluff piece, written by a pundit on the Left. Pick your poison.

Neither, is the correct answer. The hack with "a factual basis," that's an interesting premise. The truth and The Toronto Sun are words that are rarely used in the same sentence. The Globe is not left-wing, not even close. These are opinion pieces, not factual anything. I prefer a fluff job, but only if an attractive member of the opposite sex is doing it to me. :devil:

BTW, got any Chocolate Macadamia cookies left in that jar, I'm hungry.

[IR5FORMUMSIE 850]

Logic would tell most people (i/e - not the far left) that facts are important.

When was the last time the far left was logical however?

Logic dictates that most normal people do not gravitate to organizations that spit on people and spew racial and sexual epithets while engaging in rampant fear-mongering instead of calmly discussing the issues on a factual basis. Not surprisingly these tactics are the stock and trade of the political right.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Logic dictates that most normal people do not gravitate to organizations that spit on people and spew racial and sexual epithets while engaging in rampant fear-mongering instead of calmly discussing the issues on a factual basis. Not surprisingly these tactics are the stock and trade of the political right.

Where were you during the 8 years GW Bush was President? Both 'radical' sides act the exact same way.