Skip to main content

View Diary: An oft-ignored lesson of 2012: The case for appeasing the base (145 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Limp, are you seriously suggesting that Roberts' (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    ChurchofBruce, Joe Bacon

    ... vote and his opinion retaining ACA on tax, not commerce grounds, was directed "by the 1%"?

    What that suggests is collective action by your "they" to keep President Obama in office and being a leader. If that's a correct reading of your views - Why would they do that?

    If "they" are that powerful, that united and able to be that manipulative, why not just see to the nomination and election of a compliant Republican president? Who, again, constitutes the 1% They?

    And Tat, if you're right that "only a Democrat" could "destroy" SS and M&M because the GOP can't ... again, Why? Do you seriously believe that if Mitt Romney had been elected, he wouldn't or couldn't cut those programs back at least as much as you think Obama will? Are you sure adjusting the chained CPI will actually "destroy" SS? (I agree SS is not contributing to the deficit and its funding need not be changed in this term, but ... "destroy"?)

    As for those voters in 2014 you predict "are waiting," do you mean us liberals?

    Seriously, these views sound apocalyptic to me. I'm looking to understand why the 1% Right counts on Obama and how, why and which voters you think will react ... and in what way.

    2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

    by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 11:44:24 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  I realize that you've addressed this to someone (8+ / 0-)

      else, but I feel compelled to answer as to why would they do this?

      From all that I read and hear, the 1% have always wanted "the individual" to have the responsibility, NOT BUSINESS, for providing healthcare.

      Remember, the ACA put the main legal responsibility for having healthcare on the individual.  

      This is a MAJOR WIN for the 1% and the business community.  Again, the ACA came staight out of the Heritage Foundation (see my previous comment).  Not to mention the insurance industry, and other health care related industries.

      And the reason that only a Dem could eviscerate Social Security is being demonstrated right here.

      When George Bush tried to implement means testing (progressive price indexing), the progressive community went ballistic!

      But, tragically, many in the progressive community are now totally compliant in regard to cuts to Social Security and Medicare.

      I find it hard to believe, however, that progressives would not have found their voices to oppose Romney, had he been the one to propose the implementation of the Chained CPI.  (And rightfully so.)

      The implementation of the Chained CPI is the "lesser of the three evils" of the three likely cuts to Social Security which were recommended by the President's own Fiscal Commission (Bowles-Simpson).

      Once you "touch the third rail," coming back to it again, will be a piece of cake.  It's called "the slippery slope."

      Granted, for some folks (especially the top quintile) the loss of 9-10% of their monthly benefit check over years, wouldn't be critical.  Remember, though, this loss compounds.  Alone, it would be very damaging for low to moderate income folks.
      But, it's a drop in the bucket compared to the other two proposed cuts [proposed by the Fiscal Commission.]

      Raising the FRA two years will result in a almost 14% loss of benefit (6-1/2-7% for each year that the FRA is raised).

      And as Rep Schakowsky pointed out in her Reuters Op-Ed, all the cuts to Social Security will come to approximately 35% of their check, for many beneficiaries.

      Try telling all of this to a senior who has no other source of income.
      Lastly, according to the NASI (National Academy of Social Insurance), the BOTTOM FOUR quintiles depend "heavily" on Social Security.  That means that it is either their primary or only source of regular or steady retirement income.
      I have a video clip of Ms. Janice Gregory, then President of the NASI, saying this in 2010.  If I get a chance, I'll post the video clip here.

      Mollie

      “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

      by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 01:05:33 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

    •  Nixon to China. Clinton passing nafta. Obama (3+ / 0-)

      passes Doles 20 yr old healthcare plan. That's how it seems to work.

    •  of course it was (5+ / 0-)

      the brilliance of Roberts' opinion was that it used the taxing power, which conservatives hate, rather than the commerce clause, to implement the mandate.

      They want commerce to be as unregulated as possible; therefore the ruling appealed to the taxing power to achieve the same goal.

      If the ACA had been passed under a Republican president, it would have been one of the "liberal" judges who had a sudden epiphany and cast their vote for it. They know what kind of ruling they want, and they simply invent some convoluted legal justification to get it. The rationale is (almost) nothing; the result, everything.

      Why did the 1% support Obama? As another poster explained, Bush's attempt to privatize SS failed miserably. It was an all-out frontal assault by a conservative Republican, and so it drew massive resistance. Even though he had just won reelection and had what he called "political capital," he was soundly thrashed. Perhaps not coincidentally, the Republicans lost the next Congressional election.

      Obama, however, stands a much better chance of beginning the assault on the New Deal programs. He's a Democrat--and African-American, too--ergo people don't think he would be capable of doing it.

      The first black president, a Democrat, to be the one who cuts SS? Absurd, impossible! everyone exclaims. Which is precisely the reason he's perfectly suited to do it. And he's spent his entire first term setting up how to do it, and during his second term he will do it.

      It also helps that Obama's style is to engage in a complicated, convoluted process of "negotiations" to cut SS, rather than a straightforward, head-on bull-rush like Bush tried. The "debt ceiling" crisis, the "fiscal cliff", all an elaborate charade intended to put the Democrats in a position where they are forced to cut the New Deal programs.

      Obama zigs and zags and twists and turns until everyone is too confused and disoriented to follow what's going on, let alone muster any resistance. He disarms, where Bush arouses opposition.

      That's one of the big reasons the 1% have allowed him to be president. Where a conservative Republican failed, maybe a centrist Democrat can get the job done. And they had a good idea of this since before he was running for president.

      It's Obama who is Reagan's true successor, not Bush. And we will know beyond any doubt once the Grand Bargain is finally consummated.

      They will lionize him just as they did Reagan. George Will will stop talking about Reagan the Great Communicator and start talking about Obama the Great Compromiser. The entire media will sing paeans to Obama's wisdom, courage and bipartisan statesmanship in slashing the safety net.

      It's just a matter of time now. Perhaps less than a year.

      "In America, the law is king." --Thomas Paine

      by limpidglass on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:11:37 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Well, I see how strongly you feel Obama is a tool, (0+ / 0-)

        ... and this all-powerful 1% is responsible.

        As for ACA, Yes, I think Limp is right. Conservatives would have demolished ACA (they did, after all, excoriate Roberts for upholding it ... for a while). But if it is to be sustained, justifying that on the taxing powers is far preferable to them than the obviously correct rationale - the Commerce Clause. Ruth BG's opinion does a beautiful job of showing Roberts' "crabbed" reasoning and skewers the conservatives' Commerce Clause rationale.

        I don't agree the 1% loves the mandate, though. Heritage disavowed its proposals and Romney, of course, retreated completely. You might try to argue they're being disingenuous rather than hypocritical, or that the 1% believes things differently than the next, say, 4%, but I doubt it. I've talked to Republicans in the 4%; they hate Obamacare to the core. As for insurers, they do get a clientele, but they'd rather juggle the conditions of policies, have pricing to themselves and enjoy profiteering freedom. (Unlike Medicare, which they now pretty much love for taking the highest cost cohort out of the basic universe.)

        I think you're selling Progressives short when you say, "But, tragically, many in the progressive community are now totally compliant in regard to cuts to Social Security and Medicare." No one is "compliant" in any Progressive blog I read. And very few are willing even to think about Chained CPI. (The only way Progressives address the obvious M&M funding problems is to raise the roof on revenues to support Medicare. I agree that revenue is far preferable to cost cutting.)

        My biggest disagreement, however, is with the notions that "the 1% have allowed [Obama] to be president" and that they are capable of that much fine tuning and manipulation at that level. Regulatory intrusions and lobbying legislative matters, Yes. But I don't think it was or is in the power of the 1% to "allow" someone to be President.

        Conspiracists obviously disagree. And let's face it, the bigger the boogeymen, the more interesting the myths. But we don't need boogeymen to point to; the GOP base and its leaners are scary enough.

        2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

        by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 02:45:08 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, thanks for your reply. Disagree on a couple (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          US Blues, TRPChicago, limpidglass

          issues.

          Briefly, I'm from an insurance and securities brokerage "family."  My family members are quite happy with the status quo of the ACA.  And the soon to be mandated private retirement accounts that Senator Harkin's trying to get passed.  (Commented on them in a couple of blogs yesterday.  Won't repeat.)

          The rank and file Republicans HATE the ACA.  I know that.

          But, the 1% are one of the biggest beneficiaires of the ACA.  The much heralded "pre-existing condition" clause pertains to private individual health insurance policies, which makes up approximately 8% of the industry, and are obviously carried by mostly affluent and/or wealthy individuals.

          [Group health insurance policyholders are usually affected only by a 30-, 60- or 90-day 'exclusionary period' for pre-existing conditions.]

          Heritage did later disavowed Romneycare (as did Romney, at times--he took both positions, as I recall, LOL!), but that's mostly for partisan reasons, IMO.

          True, the 1% doesn't care about mandates in the sense that they "care if everyone has access to medical coverage."  But they DO care that their taxes will not be subsidizing a large number of Americans.  

          So, the way that the ACA is set up, putting the "responsibility" on the individual as opposed to the government for insuring most folks, is right down their alley, so to speak.

          It was not my intention to "sell anybody short."  I did qualify the statement, using the work "many."  If I recall correctly, you were questioning what was so bad about the implementation of the Chained CPI.

          That is discouraging to me.  But clearly you have every right to be in support of it, if you are.

          Regarding "My biggest disagreement, however, is with the notions that "the 1% have allowed [Obama] to be president" and that they are capable of that much fine tuning and manipulation at that level."

          I have no comment, since I never addressed the issue.

          Admittedly, my views are possibly influenced by several generations of brokers in my family, in regard to the ACA being a windfall to the insurance industry.  [That will also be true of the mandatory private accounts that Senator Harkin is working on getting passed.  The life insurance and annuity industries are both "foaming at the mouth" over the prospect of Harkin's legislation passing.]

          Look, "to each, their own."  Guess we'll just have to agree to disagree on a couple of issues.  :-)  

          Enjoyed the discussion.

          Namaste.

          [Hope this is not too much of a mess.  Short of time.]

           

          Mollie

          “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

          by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:11:27 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Progressive health care (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            musiccitymollie, Odysseus

            Would look like the national plans the rest of the civilized world enjoys. The very fact that private companies are still in the insurance game is the first clue that the ACA is not a progressive policy.

            "Political ends as sad remains will die." - YES 'And You and I' ; -8.88, -9.54

            by US Blues on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:15:54 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Agreed. We couldn't get single payer. You gotta... (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              musiccitymollie

              ... live with that as a practical matter. The votes to do that were not in the House, thanks to the Blue Dog Democrats.

              The best, most defensible program would have been Medicare without an age limit. It was not to be.

              Obamacare will, over time, be a fine idea ... But it's a long time evolving already and it's only just begun!

              2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

              by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 04:33:11 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  TRPC, I'd rather have seen Medicare-For-All, (0+ / 0-)

                in lieu of the ACA, but I truly hope that you're right that the ACA will evolve into a "fine" health care system.  :-)

                Mollie

                “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

                by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:14:35 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I have hope. (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  musiccitymollie

                  Mostly because ObamaCare suggests more coherence will come to a system with so many moving parts, so many individual players each maximizing its own slice of the pie, that it has not been possible to grab ahold of the pressure points for change.

                  In a population of some 306 million or so people, we have 50 million uninsured, meaning more than 15% of us will to a certainty enter the health care system at some point. Ways to provide care targeted to their needs also offers hope for us all. Amazing - in my experience - how quickly lessons can be learned by example.

                  Specifically, I like the changes already in place, the Patient's Bill of rights and particularly coverage for pre-existing conditions and ending lifetime dollar limits on hospital care.

                  Going forward: (1) Emphasis on preventive care and "public health" programs for a broader range of the public. That alone is a significant societal value. Saying the poor and the uninsured have access to health care because they can get into to an ER is ignorant, callous and mean-spirited. (And refusing to fund parts of Medicare is vicious public policy.)

                  (2) Encouraging primary care physicians and health professionals like nurses and physicians assistants for the same reasons. Yes, now some physicians have been turning to "concierge practices" and opting out of treating Medicare patients. I put this largely to pique, to being wedded to a very lucrative system, to resistance to the kind of change that other businesses have been incented to undergo. This is mostly a generational problem; time will wound these heels.

                  (3) Funding community health centers. More clinics are desperately needed throughout urban and rural areas. They allow many forms of care at far lower cost than big central hospitals with large atriums and overcrowded ERs.

                  (4) Attention to reducing huge and growing administrative costs and "overheads." Simplification of systems will help everyone from patient to providers.

                  Bottom line: Making health care more available and more affordable. None of this was going to happen by itself under the current system.

                  Yes, I have hope.

                  2014 IS COMING. Build up the Senate. Win back the House : 17 seats. Plus!

                  by TRPChicago on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 07:36:23 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

            •  Ditto. N/T (0+ / 0-)

              Mollie

              “If a dog won’t come to you after having looked you in the face, you should go home and examine your conscience.” -- Woodrow Wilson

              by musiccitymollie on Sun Jan 27, 2013 at 06:08:49 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site