Skip to main content

View Diary: Warren: It's Democrats' duty to change the filibuster rules (65 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Doubtful. (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    a2nite, TheMomCat, ferg, Pluto

    I don't think most Americans pay attention to the arcana of Senate procedure.  I doubt seriously that they'd care one way or another if the filibuster were abolished.  Republicans would be furious, but they'll be furious no matter what we do.

    As for the ACA rollout, yeah, it's been rocky, but let's at least have some perspective.  If people are able to procure health insurance because of the statute, they'll be eternally grateful.  That'll be the measure of its success, not the number of unique users the web site could handle simultaneously in the site's first two months.  

    "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

    by FogCityJohn on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 04:24:42 PM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  If they can enroll everyone who tries to enroll (0+ / 0-)

      then all this will be moot. If they can't, then the ACA self-destructs. Either way, it's too soon to tell and I doubt that Dems want to rock the boat right now.

      My god, Obama is such an incompetent leader, it staggers.

      "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

      by kovie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 04:34:50 PM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  He doesn't design web sites. (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        amsterdam, Pluto

        I've been critical of the president, but I'd hesitate to ascribe the failure of a web site to him being incompetent.  

        Personally, I think a lot of Democrats are just buying into Republican hype over this.  Yes, there are problems with the web site, but the statute wasn't passed so people could use a web site; it was passed so they could be guaranteed access to affordable health insurance.  That's the criterion by which it should be judged.

        And for some reason, everyone seems to forget the Republicans' role in all of this.  One reason the web site has problems is that it's got to handle far more people than initially projected.  That's a direct result of the refusal of Republican-ruled states to create their own exchanges.  Amid all of the media hysteria over the web site, no one seems to care about the much more fundamental questions -- why do the Republicans oppose people getting health insurance, and why are they willing to go to such lengths to make sure people remain without access to it?

        If Democrats were smart (and they're not), they'd be repeating some version of those questions with the same regularity that Republicans chant "Benghazi!"

        "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

        by FogCityJohn on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 04:44:51 PM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh Jesus Christ on a popsicle (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          RenMin

          Effective leaders hire good people and make sure that they do their jobs. He didn't do that. What a lame, lame, lame excuse. He screwed up the ACA's implementation and rollout just like he screwed up the design.

          He. Is. Incompetent.

          "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

          by kovie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 05:03:32 PM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  I think the design and architecture of the site (1+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            FogCityJohn

            ...is pretty sound. There are other approaches, but this one is good.

            There are problems with the execution (the interfaces with myriad outside databases) as the user passes through the site and interacts with some of these different databases. They are all finicky in different ways. But these problems can be solved. They are solved every day.

          •  I'd agree on the design of the statute. (0+ / 0-)

            It's needlessly complex, mostly because of the insistence on using the private insurance model.  The Democrats should have just expanded Medicare to all Americans, but the corporate elites would never have permitted that, even if the Democrats had had the courage to propose it (and they didn't).

            Can't follow you on the rest of it though.  In my view, you're rising to the bait the GOP is leaving out.  They want everyone to obsess about a web site, even if most Americans aren't going to get their health insurance there.  It helps deflect from their own lack of an alternative, and from the ultimate moral question at the bottom of all of this.  We should be making them tell us why they want people to be left uninsured.  Instead, we're screaming about portals and back end problems.

            Mind you, I have a potentially larger stake in this than most.  I have HIV, and I would die if I didn't have insurance.  My ARV meds alone cost over $20,000 a year, and the cost of my actual care is something only the richest could afford.  I need this law to work more than most people, for whom health insurance is something they have "just in case."  

            The ACA is clunky and cumbersome -- a "kludge" in Krugman's words.  But if it keeps me from becoming uninsured and dying from a fatal but treatable disease, I'll be happy.  And if I ever need to use that web site and it doesn't work, I'll just pick up the goddamn phone or enroll by snail mail.  Avoiding otherwise certain death is worth the minor inconvenience of not being able to get coverage at the click of a mouse.

            "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

            by FogCityJohn on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 06:26:14 PM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  I sincerely hope that the ACA helps you stay (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              RenMin

              healthy and get healthier. And perhaps the underlying realities of the ACA are better than I fear. But the optics of this rollout are so bad that it might ruin any chance of Dems taking back the house and perhaps even holding onto the senate. Which means that Obama's presidency is effectively over.

              Whatever the substantive failures of the ACA, in design and implementation, its optical failures during BOTH have been profound, unarguably causing Dems to lose the house in 2010 and quite likely preventing them from retaking it in 2014. And without political leverage, no substance is possible.

              "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

              by kovie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 06:39:27 PM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Thanks. (0+ / 0-)

                You're undoubtedly right about the optics of this thing.  How regrettable it is that our political discourse is unable to focus on anything else.

                "Ça c'est une chanson que j'aurais vraiment aimé ne pas avoir écrite." -- Barbara

                by FogCityJohn on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 07:06:39 PM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  I'm just being what I like to believe is a realist (0+ / 0-)

                  Sadly, our politics is largely optical, and where it's not optical, it's tribal. Very few people, I believe, vote on what they believe to be the national interest. Which as a citizen, and not just individual, is the only interest.

                  And Dems kind of suck at both. Obama kind of got around it, but based on his charm, not substance, so it was short-lived. The politics of personality doesn't go far if you don't have the substance to back it up with.

                  He does not.

                  "Reagan's dead, and he was a lousy president" -- Keith Olbermann 4/22/09

                  by kovie on Thu Nov 14, 2013 at 07:10:32 PM PST

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site