Skip to main content

View Diary: ObamaCare. The End. (103 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Better go back and edit the diary (27+ / 0-)

    I think you left out a few GOP talking points.  Not many, but  I don't think I saw "death panels" mentioned.

    Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

    by Miss Blue on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 10:57:50 AM PDT

    •  Joe Firestone is a contributor here at dkos. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      splashoil

      Just saying.
      Try to get out of the Dem/GOP bubble and look at things the way they really are for a change.

      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

      by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:00:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  So what? (10+ / 0-)

        I don't care if Joe Firestone writes for the Pope - he's wrong.  As are you.  

        Your flag decal won't get you into heaven anymore. John Prine -8.00,-5.79

        by Miss Blue on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:41:06 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

      •  So? (13+ / 0-)

        Lots of people who post here are wrong about lots of things.  Having now read his piece on this, he's very, very wrong in his assumptions.  HR 676 (Medicare for all and the elimination fo the insurance industry for all practical purposes) didn't stand a prayer. Ever. Under any circumstances or timing. You think the insurance industry was going to stand by and let that happen? Really?

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:41:37 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Wait. He's wrong because you have a different (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          splashoil

          opinion on the success of alternatives?
          Back up your assumptions that other ideas wouldn't pass muster in a Democratic and filibuster proof Congress. Bollocks.

          His metrics on the body counts are spot on. Don't wonks here like the empirical proofs?

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 11:56:48 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  What do his metrics prove? (6+ / 0-)

            That more people would be covered under a single payer "Medicare for All" system.? Well, sure. Duh. "for ALL" kind of gives that one away. Getting such a thing passed is a whole different kettle of fish. And speculating that such a thing might have been accomplished is just about delusional. I repeat:
            You think the insurance industry was going to stand by and let that happen? Really?
            And you proably  need  some extra help with context as you think that through, or you wouldn't be making the assertions in the first place.
            Remember the state of economy at that point in time, and the kinds of "support" there would be for shutting down an entire huge industry overnight at any time, let alone in those times.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:15:47 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  The medicare solution was promoted by... (0+ / 0-)

              wait for it... the Republicans.
              Go back. Do your research.
              On top of that there was plenty of moments that were killed off, aborted by the administration that could've been tabled but never saw the light of day.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:30:28 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

            •  Shutting down what industry? (0+ / 0-)

              No one was proposing shutting down the Insurance Industrial Complex. Only offering a gov't based pool of Americans that would be managed like any other Insurance. Simple really.
              An option not to be beholden to an industry.

              Of course the solution we got was to demand through the tax code, that we be even MORE beholden to the industry. And to use our own tax base to subsidize it. Just like the bailouts! How convenient the new socialism for the uber rich is while we at the same time cut off the possibilities for Health CARE reform and price controls.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:10:17 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  There was no filibuster proof Congress (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annominous, FiredUpInCA

            Republicans plus Lieberman could block anything.

            •  So you make a deal w/ the devil. (0+ / 0-)

              Look. Look where that strategy got Obama and the Democratic Party. Tomorrow is going to school you.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:00:04 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I called the devil at his senate office (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FiredUpInCA, annominous

                And I wrote him.  He still insisted on filibustering both the public option and the medicare for 55.

                I didn't make a deal w the devil. The devil refused to make a deal with me.

                I was hoping you would at least pause to acknowledge that you were wrong about the filibuster proof Congress.

                •  You freaking force him to filibuster. (0+ / 0-)

                  Thats the process. You threaten to throw him out of committee chairs. You threaten to throw him to his dog friends the GOP.
                  You don't CAUCUS with him.

                  You don't play nicey nice. In the end you get serious. Which is what neither Reid nor Pelosi nor Obama ( his bud) ever got with one of their own DLCers.

                  If they didn't intend on using the 60 votes, the CAUCUS, then they shouldn't have put the public, the party through this charade to begin with that they intended to LEAD. They intended in the end to act as agents and arbitrators for the powerful over the people.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:25:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

        •  Not to mention the fact that there were deep (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          FiredUpInCA, annominous

          arterial interconnection to the financial industry and Wall Street. A sudden shock to the system of "nationalizing" all health care would have plunged us into a full global depression that would have dwarfed the Bush Recession.
          If it had passed.
          Which it wouldn't .
          As it is, now there's a framework for improvement, public option plans can come in via the exchanges, and the medical loss ratio limits the amount of capital extraction the ins. cos. can do ala Wall Street as usual.
          This is going to wean Wall Street off of health ins. over time. (At least some experts have said so.)
          No one said the ACA was the end of health care reform. It's the beginning.

          You can't make this stuff up.

          by David54 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:36:33 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  I never heard much talk about Nationalized (0+ / 0-)

            Health Care.
            The public option was just that, an option (unlike this silly mandate upheld by Justice Roberts of all folk).

            This sudden shock business is frankly the same bullshit about the closing zombie, too big to fail banks. Ideology disguised as pragmatism. Must save the banks. Must save the Insurance industry. The word "Nationalization" thrown around like a red scare. I remember well. There were plenty of laws in place, Sheila Bair will tell you to close the top five and end the contagion.

            Good luck in that scenario. Because you're gonna see the sequel real soon. And the pithy epithets to any thought of intervention by regulators won't do you much good this time around.

            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

            by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 04:06:25 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Single payer is "nationalizing". (2+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              FiredUpInCA, annominous

              I think it's the way to go, but it has to be done incrementally.
              Even if you don't agree that it's "nationalizing", you know that Wall Street and the gop would have been all over it as a "socialist" power grab.
              I think single payer is inevitable. There's no reason for the insurance companies, except their own profit. They just stand in between the patient and the care provider and take most of the profit.
              There's a difference between dividing big banks or big companies up and just eliminating an industry.
              I think the push back against single payer would have been a hundred times worse than it has been against Obamacare.

              At any rate, you're looking backward and playing Mon. morning quarterback. We have what we have. Now we have to go forward and make it better. Frankly that means that we have to get the gop out of the way. Period. Nothing can go forward until we do that.

              You can't make this stuff up.

              by David54 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 05:25:19 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  May be academic but (0+ / 0-)

                Social Security did not nationalize retirement. It underpins a base line. Same with Single Payer. The US Treasury being that payer via employee premiums. Want Silver, Gold, pay supplemental in private insurance.
                It all seems academic but makes all the difference when you talk about efficiencies, when you consider delivery and a regimen to keep costs down.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:11:58 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

      •  Not everyone agrees with Joe Firestone. (7+ / 0-)

        As you point out, Firestone wants "opportunity cost" figured in. Meaning, he wants consideration of everyone who sickened or died awaiting affordable health care over the 3.5 year prep period to be figured in to the costs of the ACA.

        That's not reasonable on its face, because it presupposes that the alternative that would have taken place instead have been pure progressive reform (single payer, medicare for all?) emplaced immediately upon passage. From skimming his essay, that seems to be the jist of it.

        But that's not what would have really happened. Without democratic concessions, health care/insurance reform in 2009 would have been squished like a little bug, just like it was in 1993. Firestone supposes the democrats could have passed any bill in 2009. I think he is wrong, there were too many blue dogs in congress in 2009.

        If you, or Firestone, are really concerned with calculating the true opportunity costs for missed chances to reform the health care system, shouldn't the missed opportunities and lost lives during the entire last 20 years be included? Where are those costs calculated? Then you could blame Hillary Clinton instead of Obama for all the death and illness and bankruptcies for a much longer time frame. And there the conversation could end, all set up with a 2016 talking point.

        It's not really practical or even rhetorically fair to compare an idealized and imaginary outcome with an achievable outcome.

        •  Again as w/ Catte Nappe (0+ / 0-)

          Your arguments revolve around other assumptions that are merely wonkish speculation: the will for Health Care Reform wasn't there in the only Congress it might ever have had a chance in.

          That's not what Obama was elected on or the wave and anticipation that swept the Democrats into position for. In a way you might say they betrayed the very electoral forces that could've kept them in clover for years to come. As Joe very well illustrated with the rise of the Tea Party and opportunity handed on a silver platter to resuscitate the GOP.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:37:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  "Wonkish speculation" (7+ / 0-)

            Well, our wonkish speculation seems to be beating your wonkish speculation. Perhaps because our speculation is rooted in the political realities of the situation, and yours is rooted in wishful thinking.

            “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

            by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 12:57:45 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Nothing could be more speculative than an exercise (6+ / 0-)

            in calculating opportunity costs. Because before you can calculate'em, you have to identify the alternative you would have chosen instead. The identification of the forgone alternative and the estimation of costs should be done before the choice is made, not three years later, like you and Firestone are doing today.

            You seem to be certain that Joe Firestone has identified the most likely alternative to the ACA as "medicare for all / public option" alternative that the democrats shoulda wrung out of the 2009 blue dog congress.

            I disagree. I think the likely alternative would have been the "no action", aka the "squished like a little bug", alternative. Because bluedogs.

            My reasoning is solid and you tacitly agree when you call my position "wonkish speculation", rather than refuting my excellent point. My point, of course, is irrefutable, because it's what actually happened. Your point otoh is refutable because you (and Firestone) are trying to rewrite history. Objectively, your position is far more speculative than mine.

            I think at this point YOU should provide some evidence (independent of Firestone's essay) to support your claim that medicare for all / single payer stood a chance in 2009.

            •  Yes (4+ / 0-)
              I think at this point YOU should provide some evidence (independent of Firestone's essay) to support your claim that medicare for all / single payer stood a chance in 2009.
              But I'm still wating for an answer to my question:
              You think the insurance industry was going to stand by and let that happen? Really?

              “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

              by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 01:50:52 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  I kinda suspect that wrangling with kossacks is (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                Catte Nappe

                the diarist's best idea for how to spend a beautiful Sunday afternoon. At least, it's really beautiful here today.

                We've made the same points from different directions, though I wish I could make my points as concisely as you are able to.

                For now, though I'm going outside.

              •  Let me talk you back from engaging (0+ / 0-)

                in alternate timelines. That is the rabbit hole. This argument is not claiming that ANYTHING could've been passed.

                This is about what SHOULD'VE BEEN PROPOSED AND CHAMPIONED as negotiating backstops. Only in that kind of universe can you discuss possibilities. Which is what Obama was all about now wasn't he when he campaigned.

                That being said what came out of this very damaged process, some might say passive on the Administrations account, was a plan they decided to delay launch of for 4 years to satisfy partisans who wouldn't even VOTE 4 the freakish market based solutions.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 02:22:45 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  The 4 years was not that unreasonable (0+ / 0-)

                  From a practical perspective changes take a good bit of time to develop and implement, especially something as major as this one,and with as many impacts on diverse stakeholders as it has.

                  As to the negotiating technique, without being in the middle of the conversations as they happened, we can only surmise; and assess in terms of our own experiences as well as what we know from other negotiating we've observed. I can see "proposed" as something that might have been done - and may have been done. "Championed" would have been a non-starter I think, for the same reasons everybody has already given you.

                  “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

                  by Catte Nappe on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 02:41:14 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Absolutely not. It is a non starter not to (0+ / 0-)

                    Champion proposals. Any negotiator knows this.

                    There in essence was the germ of defeat not just for the public option, or a medicare or medicaid solution but for ObamaCare itself.

                    The idea was for a government based intervention into the Health Care crisis. Done with or without the support of the private sector. To believe the gov't can't manage an insurance program flies in the face of decades of experience with very successful programs Americans would never want to part from.

                    You champion that like your prize fighter. You put it in the ring and you stay a believer in him.

                    There was no reason not to float their solution, if indeed it was workable, immediately after passage with a reasonable time frame. 4 years was merely a political ploy to get through the next election cycle and implement the experiment before the cycle afterwards. Cynical and may prove to be it ACA's ironically "premature" downfall.

                    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                    by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:20:39 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

            •  He makes it very clear about the costs (0+ / 0-)

              IF you read the article. The artificial implementation of a 4 yr span. You seem to think that every aspect of ACA was somehow non-negotiable, somehow pre-ordained outside predictable political power dynamics.

              You think that alternatives like Medicare For All or the public option or God forbid, Single Payer Insurance, was some kind of exotic parallel universe of fantasy to even engage in AS PROPOSALS.

              A lot of the compromises were done with a great deal of cynicism about how our system cannot possible work for people but MUST work for corporation like private insurance companies.

              The last compromise being the 4 yr. delay. If this indeed was the only solution, why didn't they launch it then? Answer that? They had NO confidence in what they came up with, that is why we hear all of this talk of tweaking, drawing boards, adjustments etc. They had no fucking clue how to sell this, implement it, or EVEN if it was constitutional.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 02:16:58 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  Oh please . (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            annominous, FiredUpInCA

            Stop trying to rewrite history.  Obama was elected on a health plan that was based on a market type solution to the health care crisis. With the exception of the PO and the individual mandate, the ACA is exactly what Obama ran on.

            Right man, right job and right time

            by Ianb007 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 02:51:38 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Nope. Public Option was his trump card (0+ / 0-)

              to Hillary in nomination debates. Who's redefining history now?

              That's what defined him as a better option to Clinton.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:24:34 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Apart from his PT109 story on (0+ / 0-)

                attending anti-war rally in Chicago on Iraq invasion.

                NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:27:17 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

              •  His plan was a market based plan, PO or not (2+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FiredUpInCA, annominous

                The exchanges was the meat of his plan.  

                I was a huge Obama supporter during the primaries and I preferred Hilary's plan even though they were almost identical.  Hilary had an individual mandate in hers which is something needed to drive down the premiums.

                Right man, right job and right time

                by Ianb007 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 03:49:14 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Here's where I think there's some confusion: (0+ / 0-)

                  Good that you point that out about his PO ideas.

                  What I'm trying to point out is the difference b/n an option apart from the existing financial market of private Health Insurance that is state regulated and the idea of a federally managed "market" option. The pool. The premiums.
                  Many so called "non-profits" exist in the private marketplace. Why can't the gov't exist along side these different species?

                  Because, of course, they'd have a built in market that would leverage enormous advantage over the other species. And of course, that is not permitted in our subsidized financial markets.

                  Obama clearly threw that under the bus BEFORE even picking out a desk for the Oval Office.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 04:19:20 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  And if you're gonna make the point that (0+ / 0-)

                    the PO meant a different thing than it did in the vernacular of the public discussion save it. The Public Option meant a very specific idea of an option away from the current debacle of private insurance --- Hence the term "Public"

                    NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                    by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 04:22:42 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  That's not even close to the point I was making. (0+ / 0-)

                      Right man, right job and right time

                      by Ianb007 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:36:33 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  You said his plan was "market based PO or not". (0+ / 0-)

                        My point was that it was the Public Option that won him nomination points with the voters in the primaries.

                        Irrelevant whether "his plan" in the end was market based. It was NOT what was meant in essence by "Public Option" for the public.

                        NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                        by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:36:07 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  I said his plan was was a marketed base one, (0+ / 0-)

                          PO or not.  Whether or not it contained a PO did not change the fact that it was market based.

                          Maybe to some the PO was nomination points. To some it was closing Guantanamo Bay.  Guess what. We got neither of those.  Why?  because they both died in congress.  That is what is known as a political reality. No one is going to get to implement their platform 100%.  He still got 85% or more of his healthcare platform implemented.

                          Right man, right job and right time

                          by Ianb007 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 08:24:21 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

                          •  The political reality here was political history (0+ / 0-)

                            of Barack Obama killing off any ideas of entertaining the PO ONCE IN OFFICE. That much was clear enough in the initial stages of the backroom conferences with Liz Fowler et al Insurance Industry and the refusal of his staff to EVER table the PO. And you know what? That too is an even more frequent political reality. Obama was no different than any other huckster-elect on that score. Only wished he hadn't done a reverse "Mission Accomplished" to get elected on such rarified rhetoric. On that score HRC was spot on.

                            And I could care less if his plan was Communist for that matter. He proposed to adopt the Public Option during debates in direct contrast to his rival. Scoring Huge points with those who were done with the warmed over Reaganomics of the Clinton years.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 09:02:38 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  So your argument boils down to Obama (0+ / 0-)

                            sux and Liz Fowler sux because she worked for an insurance company for two years etc.  A woman that you have no idea what she believes.  Nice.  Why am i not surprised that's where this ended up.  It was quite obvious from the beginning you didn't give a rats ass about the progress made with the ACA you only have criticisms because your pet ideological beliefs were not implemented.  Why did I even waste my time.

                            Right man, right job and right time

                            by Ianb007 on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 12:15:50 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                          •  Liz Fowler, VP for Wellpoint, Max Baucus staffer. (1+ / 0-)
                            Recommended by:
                            splashoil

                            Up to her ears in the right wing conservative rhetoric of the primacy of private capital markets, corporate health care.
                            20 years ago, hell even 10 years she would've been considered a right wing hack.

                            You are deluded if you think the ACA is progress. The main point of Firestones work and many others off this site in the main stream of progressive thoughtful criticism is that ObamaCare is a very damaging placeholder to block real Health Care Reform in this country. Nothing of any substance can be built off of it as a platform since the architecture itself prevents a government sponsored alternative to for profit models.

                            NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                            by Aeolos on Mon Sep 30, 2013 at 09:20:46 AM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

                  •  There is no reason that a Federal or State run (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    FiredUpInCA, annominous

                    public option cannot be added  to the exchanges in the near future.  None.

                    You are making up stuff that Obama did in 2008 after he won.  Just stop it.  

                    Right man, right job and right time

                    by Ianb007 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:39:51 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  There is EVERY reason the Public Option (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      splashoil

                      will not be a part of the ACA.
                      You are now making things up. YOU stop it:

                      The public option is built on the premise of a government managed pool that would lower costs based on scales of efficiencies, and advantages by a wide range of participants and one SINGLE administration of those contracts.

                      By its premise it will NEVER be allowed inside the market place of subsidized private insurance. You've cut to the chase of the mutually exclusive design of the ACA. Done specifically to gain the alliance of the Insurance Industry that they will NEVER be competed against by the Federal Government.

                      This is the root of why they came up with this ruse. And yet you actually believe in that scenario.

                      And I live in fantasy land. Huh.

                      NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                      by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:43:23 PM PDT

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Other than some made up problem in your head (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        annominous

                        there is no reason that a PO cannot be added. None.  Stop making up scenarios and treating them as facts.  Vermont has used the ACA as a starting point for a single payer system and California was 4 votes away from doing the same.  

                        The ACA can and will be approved upon.  You can whine away and come up with a hundred reasons it won't, but it will.  Just give it up already. it's been 3.5 years since the ACA passed yet we still have people like you whining and complaining. At what point do you just move on and progress to the new challenges.

                        Right man, right job and right time

                        by Ianb007 on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 08:17:53 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Those are state sponsored programs. (0+ / 0-)

                          We were talking universal coverage for all Americans. A federal program. With or without ACA we could have a Public Option. Your point is mute. So what? Pigs could fly out of ACA too. It could transmogrify into a universal aluminum siding insurance just as well in some other alternate universe. Only it won't be allowed through Congress to compete with the Insurance Industry as a single payer system. You are dreaming because you fail to understand it's Raison d'être.
                          And that is to block real Health Care Reform in this country.

                          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 09:13:56 PM PDT

                          [ Parent ]

        •  We didn't control both houses of congress (0+ / 0-)

          in 1993. And certainly didn't have anywhere near the palpable crisis of the markets, job losses, foreclosures etc.

          Health Care reform was approached poorly by putting a highly polarizing figure in charge as a first lady. C'mon. A no win situation if ever there was one. An unelected spouse attempting to not only reform health care but Washington to her will.

          NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

          by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 04:29:02 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Are you sure about that? (0+ / 0-)

            1992 Senate election results
            1992 House election results

            Now I see you've been talking (posting) out of your ass since you put this pos diary up. I've refuted every single claim you've made (that you took any effort at all to support) and this is your best response? Posting up lies? Making stuff up?

            I see I was EXACTLY right about your reasons for posting this POS diary, a jabfest at Hillary Clinton 2016.

            •  Give it a break. They lost the House in 1994 (0+ / 0-)

              A year later. They were in that much disarray as a party. Lost it for 12 years. If you believe they could've passed a Hillary Clinton sponsored plan out of the Red Room in those dynamics you're even more delusional than me.

              Sorry I was TOTALLY OFF by a year. And talking out my ass. So typical for wonk fappers here.

              NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

              by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 06:37:23 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  You lied, made stuff up and now want to backpedal (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                FiredUpInCA

                "Oh give it a break whine whine you caught me in a lie let's downplay that, only wonks mind being lied to and having the truth distorted, it's all everyone elses' fault".

                No. Instead why don't you frickin look stuff up and educate yourself before you make and pontificate your frickin golden opinions? Everyone's been trying to educate you here all afternoon, and you will not listen. You have lost all your credibility with me, windbag. Aeolos, greek for windbag.

                The action was in '93 - 94, the democrats lost the house because HEALTH CARE REFORM was so UNPOPULAR. A lot of us remember it, we lived through it. The house stayed lost until 2006 because of that attempt to reform health care, and because we had to wait for the gop to make enough mistakes to give us an opportunity for entry back in. To get back in, the gop had to draw us into unnecessary wars and open our wallets to the banksters before the public  put the democrats back into the house in 2006. That is the context you and Firestone ignore.

                Don't you get it? That's why Obama and Co. were so ginger about handling health care reform, why they were so careful in the negotiations. That is why the ACA is such a victory! Snort all you like, that's what windbags do.

                And what happened after Obama/Pelosi/Reid got ACA through? We frickin lost the house in 2010. Are you ordinarily this dense?

                Take a little guess. How long do you think it's going to take for the democrats to get the house back this time?

                ACA is going to be great, all your doom and gloom to the contrary.

                Oh, and one final thing. Trying to get the last word in every conversation in your own diary is rude (although why I should be surprised that an identified liar might also be rude, I can't say). I won't be replying to you any more here, and if I can possibly remember you (Aeolos, windbag) I will hide you on sight. POS diary, windbag diarist.

                •  A lie? 1993 vs 1994. You are full of it. (0+ / 0-)

                  Ridiculous really. Why don't you stick around and see if I "lie" about some more things. Or maybe be a proof reader since I tend to speel bad.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 07:50:07 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                •  Who's backpedalling? I was off by a year. (0+ / 0-)

                  YOU WERE RIGHT. 1994 was the year the PUGS took over not 1993. Said so.
                  That is hardly "lying". It's called being mistaken BY A YEAR.
                  The point is still there. The Democrats couldn't pass a Hygiene Reform Bill if they wanted to then. Especially not by Hillary in the Red Room Holding Court as Unelected Spouse over Congress. American's don't like that sort of thing. Certainly not Washington politicians circa 1993.

                  RE 2010. Firestone's point exactly. They lost the House again by allowing the Republicans the fuel they needed to run a populist front group called the Tea Party by not addressing real Health Care Reform and fomenting enough doubts about the seriousness of Democrats to power their way through an agenda they were elected on. They SMELLED BLOOD. They allowed disarray and even seeded the confusion. Americans hate that the most. And the Tea Party had a field day by 2009. You think it was because ACA was Health Care Reform. Wrong. It was because the public knew instinctively that the ACA WAS NOT Health Care Reform but a new way to subsidize private insurance companies. It was disenchantment that lost the house for the Democrats and the public always uses a mid term to full advantage to any insurgent factions. The Tea Party was conveniently in place in reaction to the bailouts of 2008. You need some political schooling.

                  Oh a hide on sight. Is that a new policy here on dkos? As they say on twitter, just unfollow babe.

                  NO CE/CW. NO UNION BUSTING

                  by Aeolos on Sun Sep 29, 2013 at 08:10:53 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site