RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread


0 Subject: Kamikazees Ratchets and Rollbacks

Posted by: Boldwin
- [421172615] Tue, Mar 02, 2010, 17:46

All the political incentives in place are counterintuitive.
I hear Republicans getting giddy over the fact that "reconciliation," if it comes to that, is a huge political loser. That's the wrong way to look at it. The Democratic leadership has already internalized the inevitablility of taking its political lumps. That makes reconciliation truly scary. Since the Dems know they will have to ram this monstrosity through, they figure it might as well be as monstrous as they can get wavering Democrats to go along with. Clipping the leadership's statist ambitions in order to peel off a few Republicans is not going to work. I'm glad Republicans have held firm, but let's not be under any illusions about what that means. In the Democrat leadership, we are not dealing with conventional politicians for whom the goal of being reelected is paramount and will rein in their radicalism. They want socialized medicine andgovernment control even more than they want to win elections. After all, if the party of government transforms the relationship between the citizen and the state, its power over our lives will be vast even in those cycles when it is not in the majority. This is about power, and there is more to power than winning elections, especially if you've calculated that your opposition does not have the gumption to dismantle your ballooning welfare state.

Consequently, the next six weeks, like the next ten months, are going to be worse than we think. We're wired to think that everyone plays by the usual rules of politics — i.e., if the tide starts to change, the side against whom it has turned modifies its positions in order to stay viable in the next election. But what will happen here will be the opposite. You have a party with the numbers to do anything it puts its mind to, led by movement Leftists who see their window of opportunity is closing. We seem to expect them to moderate because that's what everybody in their position does. But they won't. They will put their heads down and go for as much transformation as they can get, figuring that once they get it, it will never be rolled back. The only question is whether there are enough Democrats who are conventional politicians and who care about being reelected, such that they will deny the leadership the numbers it needs. But I don't think we should take much heart in this possibility. Those Democrats may well come to think they are going to lose anyway — that's why so many of them are abandoning ship now. If that's the case, their incentive will be to vote with the leadership.

At the end of the summit debacle, President Obama put the best face on a bad day by indicating that he intended to push ahead with socialized medicine and face the electoral consequences ("that's what elections are for," he concluded). He's right about that. For Republicans, it won't be enough to fight this thing, then deride it if Democrats pull it off, and finally coast to a very likely electoral victory in November. The question is: What are you going to do to roll this back? What is your plan to undo this?
Bad news for the country because socialism never gets rolled back so far as I can remember.
1biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Tue, Mar 02, 2010, 17:57
Gawd. What a pile of quaking, quivering, reeking horsecrap.

If we actually get socialized medicine (i.e. single-payer), you might have a point. As it is, we will be hard-pressed to even get the public option. This is working with their corporate masters to make them richer without risk, not socializing and wishing them good riddance for bad rubbish.

Because the left isn't even at the table anymore.
2Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Tue, Mar 02, 2010, 18:07
All the structures necessary for central control of medicine are in there. They'll empower them to the max sooner or later. If this wasn't about central planning Havana style they wouldn't have those tools in there.
3Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Tue, Mar 02, 2010, 18:08
Anyone who thinks the Republicans can win by complaining that the Democrats are using a "majority rules" technique in the Senate is far too into the crack cocaine of partisan politics to come out without admitted they need help.

Ditto on calling health insurance reform "socialism."
4DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Tue, Mar 02, 2010, 18:41
OMFG THE LIBERULZS ARE ABOUT TO DO SOMETHING WE HAVE DONE A BUNCH OF TIMES BEFORE!!! MUST BRAND THEM AS EVIL!!!!!!111!!!!1!1!!1!

Seriously.
5Wilmer McLean
      ID: 2521634
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 05:16
Gorvernmental mandatory call for the purchase of health insurance means:

From each (under 40) according to his ability (to be a good risk), to each (above 40) according to his need (of extra medical care).

Marxism is a hard sell in America.

6sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 08:23
Gorvernmental mandatory call for the purchase of health insurance means:

Bringing the USA into the 21st Century, along with the rest of the civilized world.

Granting some degree of "protection" to the US citizenry, shielding them to some degree against absolute financial ruin from medical expenses OR facing an early death from an illness they could not afford to get diagnosed and/or treated in it's early stages.


Yeah, THAT should be a REAL tough sell in America.

The political right needs to get off it's high-horse already, and admit that sometimes the 'free market' is an unnecessary burden and NOT in the best interests of the population as a whole.
7DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 09:39
While we're at it, any reason that this was too important to put in the health care thread? Afraid we were going to give it the same treatment there that it usually deserves?

(Yes, I'm being the Forum Police.)
8biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 09:55
We've mandated the care-givers have to give care (you know, it's called being a human being).

Why don't you think it's okay that those who can, pay for that care.

In other words, if you have a mandate on the demand side you gotta have a mandate on the supply side.

If you have a mandate on either side of course, your free market has absolutely no chance of working, as anybody who's given this a few minutes of thought can attest.
9Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 11:38
Perfectly stated, bili. We're trying to solve for a free rider problem here, that is all.
10Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 13:14
We're trying to solve for a free rider problem here - Razor

And as soon as you come up with a plan to get those ambulence chasers out of the system I'll be all ears.

Describing the young and healthy as free riders does not compute.
11Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 13:23
If you are referring to tort reform (which is the euphemism given to the limitation of some awards against those found guilty in a court of law), the numbers are negligible. In some cases, tort reform might actually increase costs (pdf).

Tort reform has been built up in the minds of the Right as a savior of the system. But their math doesn't add up.
12biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 13:31
Despite an exhaustive search, I have yet to find anyone who stays either young or healthy.
13Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 13:47
Describing the young and healthy as free riders does not compute.

Did you check with Newt?
14Tree
      ID: 23143812
      Wed, Mar 03, 2010, 13:54
Describing the young and healthy as free riders does not compute.

the former, obviously, changes as we age.

the latter can change in a heartbeat. Healthy one minute, a previously undetected ailment or accident later, and suddenly, not so healthy.
16Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 10:39
Right, with individual doctors having to cough up nearly $200,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance, you are going to tell me it is insignificant.
17Pancho Villa
      ID: 29118157
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 10:43
with individual doctors having to cough up nearly $200,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance

With all due respect, I can't take your word on that figure.
18biliruben
      ID: 16105237
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 10:58
He's off by an order of magnitude.
19Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:11
Depends on what field, bili.
Dr. Scott Berlin has delivered close to 2,000 babies since 1994, but an increase in malpractice insurance rates announced this week prompted a decision to close up shop.

The Long Island obstetrician will owe $190,000 in liability costs after the state's Department of Insurance announced a 14% insurance rate hike, effective July 1.

"You can't do enough deliveries to pay for this. It's undoable at this point," Dr. Berlin, 45, who will join a gynecology practice at Lincoln Hospital in the Bronx, said. "It's a rotten taste in every obstetrician's mouth right now in New York."
20Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:21
"Whole states are demonstration projects," said Rep. Lamar Smith, R-Texas. "Texas passed tort reform in 2003 and ... insurance premiums went down 30 percent. California passed tort reform and premiums went down 40 percent. Let's enact tort reform. Let's not just try that with demonstration projects. We already know it works. Let's put it into law."

During his address to a joint session of Congress, the president argued that some lawmakers will resist any health care reforms. But then in a bid at bipartisanship, he said he agreed with doctors -- and Republicans -- looking for changes to the way medical malpractice lawsuits are litigated.

"I don't believe malpractice reform is a silver bullet, but I have talked to enough doctors to know that defensive medicine may be contributing to unnecessary costs," the president said.

Smith said Texas has already proven the effect of tort reform on medical care.

When Texas passed tort reforms in 2003, medical malpractice insurance premiums went down and doctors started rushing back into the state. At least 10 counties that had zero obstetricians, for instance, now have one, and more than two dozen other counties have seen additional obstetricians seek licenses there.

"We now have women that are getting their care in local communities whereas before, for their obstetric care, they had to drive hundreds of miles to be able to get it," said James Rohack, president of the American Medical Association. "Before the reforms, there was such a shortage of obstetricians, many expectant mothers had to drive long distances for care. The liability reforms changed that."

Many doctors pay $100,000 to $250,000 a year in malpractice insurance even if they've never had a judgment against them. Neurology leads the list of high-cost malpractice insurance. Obstetrics isn't far behind.

Supporters of tort reform argue that expense doesn't just drive up the price of medical care, it also leads to defensive medicine, meaning doctors order all sorts of tests they wouldn't otherwise order just to make sure they won't get sued.

In one study of doctors in Massachusetts, 83 percent of respondents said they ordered tests they thought were unnecessary just to protect themselves from liability. And that, doctors argue, adds huge amounts to the nation's health care bill.

"Defensive medicine is a very important component of the health care equation," said Dr. Albert Strunk of the American College of Obstetricians and Gynecologists. "It's also a component that is notoriously difficult to evaluate in terms of actual dollars. We've seen estimates anywhere from $60 billion a year to $200 billion a year as far as defensive medicine is concerned."
21Mith
      ID: 58136177
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:31
You see, the right hates government regulation.

Except for when it suits their agenda.
22Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:46
If lying about tort reform gets Republicans to sign off on health insurance reform I'm all for it.

Frankly, I'd rather see a drop in actual malpractice rather than a drop in the amount of money paid out as a result of malpractice. But I'm a dreamer...
23Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:46
You see, the left wants everyone to be suing everyone.

The same guys who bloviate about 'sustainable' all the time.
24Tree
      ID: 23143812
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:49
Right, with individual doctors having to cough up nearly $200,000.00 a year in malpractice insurance, you are going to tell me it is insignificant.

Depends on what field, bili.

Here's a more recent article than yours...

Family physicians, internists, and pediatricians all paid a median of $12,500 annually for med-mal coverage, based on the survey. Ob/gyns forked over more than four times as much, because of their propensity to be sued. GPs, many of whom are older and phasing out of practice, paid just $7,500.


that comes to a median of $50,000, or, about one-fourth the number you're trying to claim.

your doctor is most likely an outlier, and not the norm.
25Mith
      ID: 58136177
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 11:52
For the side that supposedly relishes states' rights, I would think incentivising the states to establish reform that suits them best would be preferable to "one-size-fits-all" federal regulation.

Unless that principle somehow gets in the way of their committment to blind obstruction.
26DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 12:30
Quite sure the states rights thing only applies when the states are doing exactly what they want them to.
27Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 14:37
So you guys probabably think I am supposed to take george soros' disinformation platform, factcheck at their word, when they tell me 50k-250K in yearly operating expenses that don't add a scintilla of medical care are negligible?

If my business was dragging around that albatross my bookkeeper would not be telling me it was negligible.
28DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 15:09
Link?
29Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 15:37
Ah, yes, the "factcheck.org" is biased canard. If anyone didn't feel that political cynicism leads to one being factually-challenged, the de-evolution of Baldwin's mind should be example A against that.

And I don't mean that to sound as personal as it might. It is just that when an unbiased source such as factcheck.org gets attacked not for what they say but for being, well, factcheck.org, then it is clear that objective factual analysis has been abandoned.
30DWetzel at work
      ID: 49962710
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 15:47
That's been clear to me for a long time. I usually get in trouble for pointing it out though.
31Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 16:31
How can anything bought and owned by the most manipulative activist person on the planet be considered unbiased?
32Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 16:37
I am sure when he puts together the 'capitalism sux' thinktank, which he is putting together...
The Soros-funded "Institute for New Economic Thinking" is designed to make research grants and fund symposiums on the need for central government control of the economy
...those pronouncements will be unbiased and so authoritative we should just accept everything from them without question as well.
33DWetzel
      ID: 278201415
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 17:00
"How can anything bought and owned by the most manipulative activist person on the planet be considered unbiased?"

Rush Limbaugh owns it?
34boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 17:06
The Soros-funded "Institute for New Economic Thinking" is designed to make research grants and fund symposiums on the need for central government control of the economy

Are you sure he is not doing this just to make more money? considering he made billions by realizing that central government of England was not letting the capitalist system devalue it's currency. Sounds to me like he loves capitalism and loves to use central goverments to make more money.
35Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 17:09
I have pointed out before that the new 'post-history' paradigm for the power elite is 'capitalism for the elite' and 'socialism for the masses'.
36boikin
      ID: 532592112
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 17:18
Is that a bad thing? I mean some aspects of socialism is kind of nice, like not having to work or at least not having to work hard. then again that is pretty much the same as model used in the middle ages feudal system.
37Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 17:47
Soros broke the Bank of England in 1992!!! So Obama is a socialist!!

Anyone interested in the facts of Black Wednesday should probably check a site which doesn't call Soros an "Economic Terrorist" (whatever that is).
38biliruben
      ID: 461142511
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 18:06
You can tell Baldwin raised kids.

"Is that ice-cream in the bowl, daddy?"

"Look! Over there! Bats!"
39sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 19:12
How can anything bought and owned by the most manipulative activist person on the planet be considered unbiased?

When did you buy factcheck.org?
40Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 19:28
I think Baldwin is (again) confused. Soros doesn't own factcheck.org. Never did. However, during the vice presidential debates in 2004, Dick Cheney tried to refer people to that site and said "factcheck.com" by mistake (which, up until that moment, was a placeholder site).

A few minutes later the owners of that site (from the Caribbean, I believe) started automatically forwarding people to one of George Soros' organizations. So you'd plug in www.factcheck.com and you'd get Soros' page.
41sarge33rd
      ID: 280311620
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 20:00
But when Boldwin said it was owned by "the most manipulative activist person on the planet", my first thought was that Rupert Murdoch bought it. Then I dismissed that, since it would have been plastered all over the headlines. With Murdoch eliminated, that left Boldwin as the only other person who could POSSIBLY fit the definition he provided.
42Razor
      ID: 571022618
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 20:54
Ha, what a hilarious blunder. Can't get the facts straight on how to discredit factcheck.org.
43J-Bar
      ID: 33229421
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 22:47
Unsure if I can get this thread on a conversation regarding reconciliation but let me try.

After some reading about the reconciliation process it does not seem to be as easy as it is being made to sound. First it seems that certain criteria has to be met and then the individual pieces are then subject to the Byrd rule which from what I have read can still be bothersome to a bill encompassing as much as this one. Anyone have a better understanding that would explain the advertisement of this being a simple, easy, and bullet-proof way of passing this bill.
44DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 22:50
It isn't. Honestly, you probably have a better handle on it than I do.

However, it makes a great bogeyman for people who want to raise hysteria about something getting passed with only 59 votes being an evil bastardization of the system, and in turn that provokes the people with 59 votes into reacting.
45Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 23:01
I've seen a video of a Dem congressman explaining that very little of this can be done by reconciliation. He was very specific. I'll see if I can dig it up. I wish I were as confident of that as he was.
46Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 23:48
Not the whole bill, just the fixes.
47Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Thu, Mar 04, 2010, 23:54
They'd have to do it in pieces, with no amendments or other changes, and they would have to be (at least nominally) budgetary-related.

The Byrd Rule would not come into affect for the health insurance reform bill (in part or whole) because the CBO has already scored it as not increasing the deficit.

Truthfully, I don't know if the Dems can do it. They've always placed personal political philosophy far above party cohesion, and this issue is one in which that is revealing the cracks in their ability to pass laws that reflect their platform.
48Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 10:54
More Chris Matthews on reconciliation specifics and strategy. [in the last part of interview]
49Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 11:33
Finally! It took me 6-8 hours to google up the video I knew I had seen.

Second half is a very nitty-gritty discussion on how the reconciliation process can and can't be applied.

50Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 12:47
Rush is convinced there never will be reconciliation. Reconciliation is being held out as a false hope to the Stupaks of the House to get them to vote for the Senate bill. He says once the House votes for the Senate bill it's all over.

If they vote for the exact Senate bill there is nothing to reconcile.
51walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 13:02
Is there something wrong with reconciliation, in the spirit of things? Isn't a majority the way it was intended to be, and the filibuster (threat) the real issue. Isn't reconciliation the solution to the real parliamentary prob of the filibuster? (rhetorical Qs). I wish the vote was more bi-partisan, but I feel that the repubs are too beholden to the insurance companies, and the greater good is the passing of some kind of wide-sweeping healthcare reform to reduce healthcare costs, insure more folks, and prevent insurance companies from revoking insurance when folks are ill, or prevent folks with pre-conditions from getting insurance. Isn't healthcare reform really a morality question?

I had this same discussion with my doc yesterday. He said that the insurance companies are cutting back their payments to him while also increasing rates to his employees. How can that be? Where is that money going (profits). Why is it legitimate that medicine and healthcare be a for-profit industry?
52Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 13:05
Rush is convinced of a lot of things. He's far off base on this one.

Reconciliation was used by the GOP to pass three huge Bush tax cuts (all of which were set to expire after 10 years to pass the Byrd Rule, since their use after 10 years would have been to increase the deficit), and the CHIP & COBRA legislation.

Up or down vote. Majority wins. Its the American way.
53walk
      Dude
      ID: 32928238
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 13:09
Reconciliation (when used to pass non-republican laws) is tyranny, I say, TYRANNY! It's a socialist, totalitarian, dictatoroship! Shoplifters of the world, unite and secede! Protect yourselves and your medicare and medicaid and your social security from the gov't!
54Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 13:37
Article I, Section 7.

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives

The Senate health care bill, by definition, did not. There is a clear trail of evidence that it did not. If the House votes for the Senate version, it looks like it will be unconstitutional IMO.
55Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 14:12
The health care bill is not a tax bill, so that objection doesn't hold.
56Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 14:27
One of about 18 cases of hidden taxes...
the Senate is counting on hefty excise taxes assessed on the different players in the medical industry for a big chunk of funding. Altogether, insurers, drug companies, and device makers could be on tap for roughly $120 billion in fees over the next decade. Problem is, a big portion of those taxes are likely to be recouped in the form of higher prices or increased premiums. "It's a fiction," says Roberton Williams, a former Congressional Budget Office official now with the nonpartisan Urban Institute's Tax Policy Center. "The excise taxes won't be paid by the companies; they'll be passed right back to their customers."
57Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 14:39
The fact that the bill includes new taxes doesn't make it a raising revenue bill. That isn't the intent of the bill. And that's what makes it a revenue bill or not.

A few quickies:

-Actually it is 17 cases, not 18;
-you've conflated two of them, so you should say "two of 17";
-the numbers are actually $22.2 billion (drugs) and $19.3 billion (devices) over ten years;
-neither of those taxes are in the Senate version of the bill.

That's what you get for trolling for 4-month old articles to support your view.
58Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 15:00
Are you really going to stick with the position this isn't the government reaching into people's pockets?
59Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 15:01
No, we're going to stick to the position that words and numbers matter. Correcting you on both those points doesn't mean anything more than it means.
60Building 7
      ID: 471052128
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 15:24
The health care bill is not a tax bill, so that objection doesn't hold.

If one could show that the senate bill raises revenue, then you would agree that the senate bill is unconstitutional ?

61Perm Dude
      ID: 5510572522
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 15:49
No, it wouldn't, actually. It isn't intended to raise revenues, so it wouldn't become a tax bill merely as a result of a net tax revenue.

This is a clause that is routinely circumvented by the Senate, btw, by utilizing a live but dormant House bill as the shell.

Also, the House version of the health care bill passed before the Senate bill did. Reconciling the differences between the two wouldn't change that timing, even if the House were substitute the Senate language for their own.

I don't think any of that will really happen. The reconciliation process will work for the Dems if they pass amendments to correct the differences. I'm not convinced they have the balls to do it, but the process is available to them.
62Boldwin
      ID: 421172615
      Fri, Mar 05, 2010, 16:15
Yeah, I think #54 will not be a problem for them.
63Boldwin
      ID: 53228720
      Mon, Mar 15, 2010, 04:06
To put it in a nuthouse, Republicans must get 4 of those toss-up Dems to vote Nay, while the Democrats must get 69 of the toss-up Dems to vote Yea.

It should be obvious now why Squeaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-Haight-Ashbury, 100%) has not yet called the vote: The risk is too great that the Nay-sayers will get their 4 before the Yes-men get their 69. And she won’t call the vote until the whip-count shows better odds for ObamaCare than against it.

--------------------------

As a more practical matter, the closer we edge to the November 2nd elections, the greater the pressure on the toss-up Dems to vote Nay, since that is the way most of their constituents want them to vote.

I would guess that the window will firmly shut in late May or early June; after that — with one dangerous exception — ObamaCare cannot be enacted, for reasons of politics.

The one dangerous exception is the putative “lame-duck” period of the second session of the 111th Congress… the short interval after the elections but before the 112th Congress is seated on January 3rd (per the Twentieth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution).

During those two months, every representative in the House already knows whether he has been reelected, and the Senate bill is still in effect.

A defeated Democrat has nothing to lose by voting for ObamaCare. If enough of those currently leaning towards Nay are defeated, they may, in a fit of vindictive revenge against the constituents who fired them, vote in as perverse a manner as possible. (Though of course, it’s unlikely the reconciliation side of the package could also be enacted during that period.)

This is the most likely time for ObamaCare to be enacted, since it would then have virtually no consequences on its supporters: Many of the Democrats voting for it will have already been defeated; and for those from moderate districts who were nevertheless reelected, a December vote gives them the maximal “memory-lapse” time before facing voters again in 2012. - Hot Air
64Boldwin
      ID: 535651
      Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 19:39
April 5, Rassmussen:
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid attracts just 39% to 42% of the Nevada vote when matched against three Republican opponents. Two of his potential opponents now top the 50% level of support.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey in the state also shows that 62% of Nevada’s voters support repealing the recently passed health care law. That’s a bit higher than support for repeal nationally.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) in Nevada say the new law will be bad for the country.

At this point in a campaign, Rasmussen Reports considers the number of people with a strong opinion more significant than the total favorable/unfavorable numbers.
Edited out, details of challengers polling data.
65Razor
      ID: 57854118
      Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 19:43
From your last article:

This [between November 2nd and January 3rd] is the most likely time for ObamaCare to be enacted.

Hilarious.
66Boldwin
      ID: 535651
      Tue, Apr 06, 2010, 19:50
I would guess that the window will firmly shut in late May or early June...The one dangerous exception is the putative “lame-duck” period.

So Pelosi made it inside the window of opportunity as predicted.
67DWetzel
      ID: 33337117
      Wed, Apr 07, 2010, 09:41
You know what, I predict that it will get warmer sometime between tomorrow and next April, though there's a likely window of opportunity shutting between about October and January. After that it gets really dicey.
68Boldwin
      ID: 634489
      Thu, Apr 08, 2010, 18:05
One reason rollback is so hard...



BTW this is how Reagan failed wrt S&L's.

And here is another reason rolling back commie-care is going to be well nigh impossible, in parable form:
Once upon a time near Sherwood forest, a group of peasants were discussing the problem of bandits in the forest.

"Oh, sure Robbinhood talks a good game, but really, the poor aren't being helped and we are all getting robbed."

"Yeah, you are far more likely to be clobbered and stabbed than get anything worthwhile from that scoundrel."

"I agree, I don't even dare go thru the forest to sell my stuff at market. He steals so much it's not even worth it." "And all Robbinhood ever handed back to this poor person is this pearl hatpin."

"So we are agreed, this isn't working out?" "Hey, you know I actually know who he stole that stickpin from, just give it to me and I'll hand it back to her, you'd look pretty silly with a pearl hatpin sticking out of your hat anyway."

"Yeah, but it's my pearl hatpin now."

69Boldwin
      ID: 634489
      Fri, Apr 09, 2010, 10:11
Another kamikaze bites the dust.
 If you believe a recent post violates the policy on Civility and Respect,
you may report the abuse via email to moderators@rotoguru1.com 
RotoGuru Politics Forum

View the Forum Registry

XML Get RSS Feed for this thread


Self-edit this thread




Post a reply to this message:

Name:
Email:
Message:
Click here to create and insert a link
Click here to insert a block of hidden (spoiler) text
Ignore line feeds? no (typical)   yes (for HTML table input)


Viewing statistics for this thread
Period# Views# Users
Last hour11
Last 24 hours22
Last 7 days55
Last 30 days77
Since Mar 1, 20071732696