US POLITICS: AMERICANS, PLEASE WELCOME YOUR NEW PRESIDENT... SCOTT BROWN!

yeah im not um blaming kennedy for dying

Where was that suggested? Dude was very lucky and well-cared for to stretch the end of his life out as long as he did. There seems also to be an agreement amongst commentators that women trying to get elected to the Senate or as governor in MA have a much tougher time than male candidates, due to Masshole bloc vote. Coakley ran a shitty campaign too, such a bonus.

the media narrative that the obama administration is incompetent and bumbling is silly

Sure, just look at this track record! It's like Aragorn has cometh.

HEY MAYNE HE TOOK TIL THE THIRD YEAR TO GIT ER DONE

even elrond doubted him in year 2 iirc

srsly Daniel, Esq., they planned for things to go this swimmingly? You pep squad members always top yourselves.

I would argue that Obama's administration has been impotent rather than incompetent, knowing that arguing about semantics is really just an exercise in avoiding doing work.

i know no one cares but they have accomplished a hell of a lot, and the only reason people are saying otherwise is because scott brown won MA and hcr hasnt been passed yet

the other team gets to play too

and i say that w/out passing judgment on the things that have been accomplished--just saying that pretending that obama hasnt done anything (thanks either to 'impotence' or 'incompetence') is... willfully buying into a not-particularly-true narrative

Let's add "narrative" to the list of banned words like "rescr**ned."

I don't think that saying they've been impotent in accomplishing everything they've wanted to do is the same as saying they've accomplished nothing.

Hooray, more work avoided!

k thats fair

It sucks but even preserving the status quo re. the distribution of wealth in the USA is an "accomplishment", as opposed to the wholesale redistribution of wealth the GOP will continue to enable should "we" give them the reins again.

yeah it's pretty important to compare not only how the dems are doing w/r/t what was promised, but also w/r/t how the GOP would be doing.

To truly do a thorough job of comparing, let's rescreen the narrative.

Let's not. The optics are bad.

I don't think that saying they've been impotent in accomplishing everything they've wanted to do is the same as saying they've accomplished nothing.

^^^^ This.

(in response to Dr. M's question to me, above)

I mean, given everything talked up during the campaign, a letdown was inevitable. However, I wish Obama had been more willing to spend political capital and had focused more on one thing; normally I appreciate people who are willing to tackle multiple problems at once but the amount of headway made hasn't been worth it, IMO. He still could have done the multiprong strategy had he gone after something that apparently would have been pretty simple to propose and push through (DADT: the response from the military heads has pretty much convinced me that Obama could have just said "okay, stop this shit" and they would have been like "FINALLY! COME BACK, GAY LINGUISTS!" with open arms) and that success would have reminded the Democrats that it is possible for them to win, delaying the inevitable slide back into whiny bitchdom by at least another year.

(to be clear I'm talking about the Democrats in Congress there)

read me a bedtime narrative

ATTENTION DADT ADVOCATES: http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2010/02/09/Dan_Choi_Back_in_Active_Duty/

RAD. Rock on, Dan Choi!! Highly impressed ever since he guested on Maddow. Score one for the good side.

Rahm Emanuel, Larry Summers, and Tim Geithner were not part of the campaign but they are part of the problem.

Word. Summers and Geithner are clowns.

DADT really is toast, isn't it? And sooner than anyone ever thought this administration would get there.

Now with healthcare there's apparently this thing where Congress people are to be inundated with calls on 24/25 February, before the televised meeting. I am all for listening to what GOP have to say, but it will have to stop at some solid point, rather than this line-in-the-sand crap. Listen, then lead. It's very simple.

I think this push on campaign-mode pieces is a managed narrative. Obama v. teatards is a rewrite of high-school social bullying tactics on the part of the latter which any mature person would advise another to 'just ignore' in real life but in politics, nobody advises that course. As to staff, I really don't know what Summers is doing but after his dumb sexist comments of a few years back, I was disappointed he was appointed at all; am willing to give Rahm props for now - he's from the House and they did at least offer a public option in their healthcare bill. Geithner's dad worked with, and was a friend of, Obama's mother - for that amongst a host of other reasons, Geithner probably around for awhile. Agreed that he probably shouldn't be.

The Republican talking points on health insurance these days are we do too have ideas---1.Tort Reform and 2. Buying Insurance across state lines. But no one ever confronts them on these. I heard an NPR story that Tort Reform was passed in Texas and has not lowered health insurance costs, and anyway it is a tiny portion of health care expenditures (plus most people do not sue). But the Republicans continue to push tort reform as the greatest thing ever and insist only trial lawyers object to it. Obama failed to confront it and opened the door to it by proposing a study.

Buying insurance across state lines will require regulators within states to become familiar with more plans and will encourage the growth of plans that do not provide much.

And even if these 2 things were added to the Health Insurance plan I bet Republicans still would not vote for it.

There was an article about tort reform in Texas (I can't remember where it was) and no it has not lowered health care costs, in fact some of the most expensive cities for health care are in Texas. What it has done is increase the number of doctors and the number of MRIs.

yr prob thinking of the atul gawande piece.

I remember hearing elsewhere about the influx of primary care docs into Texas after the reform, too. which is a good thing imo

also fwiw tort reform ~might~ bring down healthcare costs IF it made malpractice premiums lower.

docs want reform because it'll in theory make their annual costs significantly lower. lawyers (and patients maybe) supposedly resist it because it might payouts smaller and docs more complacent. not sure that these are incompatible goals really.

again it's the insurance companies "fault" here. some docs in some states in some specialties carry horrifyingly expensive malpractice insurance, the cost of which is passed onto the patient. figure out a way to bring those costs down and you might get cheaper healthcare. but its misleading to suggest that the cost of mal insurance is the root cause of our inflated healthcare costs

Absolutely - and it's mal ins for ob/gyns in red states that must be amongst the most expensive, surely? Just wonder if some of the highest expenses are pointed straight at doctors who are most liable to work with groups in greatest need or dealing with medical issues incompatible with RW family values.

interesting point! hadn't considered that. but yeah OBs usually carry the most iirc. I guess Hawaii is the worst state for them tho? hemorrhaging OBs afaik

Republicans will keep hammering at this as no one in the mainstream media hits back with facts, and it makes a nice simple soundbyte.

also fwiw tort reform ~might~ bring down healthcare costs IF it made malpractice premiums lower.

has there been any instance in which insurers voluntarily lowered health-care premiums (e.g., in situations when cost-pressures were reduced)?

The expense of this was pointed out in a feature about one of the late-procedure OBs (the one who isn't George Tiller) but would fit right in with the right's tendency to fiscally bully women and the people who support their choices - my summation of the policy is something like 'yeah, abortion is legal - but we'll just make it a pain in the ass and wallet' [insert shit-eating grin]. Insurers are a conservative bunch, so I suspect fingers on scales WRT why some charges are so high; it's textbook GOP to undermine an ideological opponent through creating financial insecurity for them.

Every damn commercially available thing is more expensive in HI - which must be why they're one of the few places with better, more gov't involved resident health care provision than MN.

While you're here, I have a deep problem with the concept of pre-existing condition denial not just because it's mean, but also on an intellectual basis: each case is a teachable moment, each course of treatment adds to the pool of information and statistics available going forward. People with those conditions shouldn't be treated as a burden on the system because they are providing ongoing valuable info, treatment is the least they should get for what they've put in just through presenting with a condition.

this just in: americans still have no clue whats going on in washington

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/behind-the-numbers/2010/02/americans_spread_the_blame_whe.html

actually thats unfair

this just in: americans want bipartisan compromises, so long as the other side compromises

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/photo/2007/04/05/PH2007040501691.gif

the notion of "bipartisanship" and upset over "the same-old-same-old" is all contrived nonsense.

sorry, that was hasty. "bipartisanship" isn't nonsense, but the way it's employed these days, it is.

(yes gbx, good call on the article http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2009/06/01/090601fa_fact_gawande)

LOLLLLLLL

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJla0tZxGQ4&feature=player_embedded

nah that is just childish. thumbs down.

The whole thing w/ abortion costs being inflated -----> deterred abortions should be undermined by anyone who realizes that a 50+ year cost burden is nothing compared to a 1000.00 (hypothetical) solution.

polls are open guys

http://googleads.g.doubleclick.net/pagead/imgad?id=CJHR1Oq2uLv1FBCsAhjvATII_xAOIuc8um4

Bipartisanship has only worked in exceptional cases, Daniel. Most revolutionary legislation has passed in this country with one party steamrolling the opposition.

agreed. btw, totally want palin to be the 2012 gop nominee.