So we'll take your approach.

California is wonderful, there are no economic problems, except some minor ones which can't be fixed by taxing the hell out of corporations and individuals and most voters will love us for our bounteous gifts of life everlasting.

Dems have nothing to fear as all voters desire expensive health care reforms no matter the cost, and the Dems will never lose because Pallin sucks.

I fixed your sentence.

The irony is when the very results that you seek is what drives you from power. Politics isn't a game? Neither is democracy. Representatives of the people who refuse to listen to their constituents will find themselves no longer being representatives of the people.

Yes, election day is the poll that matters most. But it isn't the only one. Dems right now are engaged in a racing game: "how much unpopular legislation can we ram through Congress before the people take our power away"? That's no way to govern.

What's the problem, then? That you find the potential result "ironic?"

Again, are you advocating for an approach whereby members of Congress only do what polls tell them to do? If not, what are you advocating?

I might ask you the same question.

This little discussion started when you suggested that the percentage of the population represented by Democrats in the Senate somehow implied the majority of Americans approves of their health care agenda.

I demonstrated what a meaningless and illogical position that is by pointing out the population-minority-friendly nature of the Senate, underscored by Ted Kennedy making this same claim while Dems were in the governing minority. He actually said (I'm paraphrasing), "We're in the minority, but we represent a majority of Americans." Um, ok, Ted.

So which is it? Is the only justification required for any policy change (to say nothing of the magnitude of this health care bill) to simply point a finger at the last election and shout, "Scoreboard"? If so, someone should tell all these congressmen to stop commissioning polls, stop holding town meetings, and stop accepting mail and phone calls from their constituents.

Um, no, I am not advocating a "follow the poll" approach. My point about the seats in the Senate has nothing to do with the polls (I thought I had made that abundantly clear by now), it has everything to do with the fact that an overwhelming number of Democrats were elected to do a job, and health care reform comprises part of that job. They have now gone through a lengthy process and emerged with a very good bill and they should now pass it. It's what they were elected to do. If the public thinks the bill they ultimately pass isn't what it wanted, they will vote the Dems out of office, and that's perfectly fine by me.

The question stands: are you advocating a "follow the polls" approach? If not, what are you advocating?

Have you noted, once again, you are not responding to direct questions?

Some more examples of why Matthews has no idea what he is talking about.

http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa...59&emailView=1.

And the news for Dems gets even better- the person who rules on what is appropriate for reconciliation in the Senate... Joe Biden.

I believe public office is a continuum of both making good on the agenda on which you ran, and listening to your constituency. We are a representative government. Just because elections are periodic doesn't mean an elected official should wait until the next election to find out what his constituents want.

"I hold office, therefore I am right," is a self-defeating proposition, pun intended. Moreover, it's totally unrealistic.

I've noted that you, once again, are still whining.

Then why are you suggesting Democrats shouldn't "make good on the agenda on which they ran?" They quite clearly should. If a poll approval rating for an agenda item of between 40-50% is enough to get you to conclude Democrats shouldn't promote health care, your continuum isn't valuing "agenda items on which candidates run" with any serious weight.


Let me simply point out I made a factual statement, you replied with a snarky statement. So be it.

It all boils down to this: as an elected official, you make adjustments as you go, or the electorate will make the adjustments for you. Successful politicians do not behave as you suggest. Obama is, and that's a big reason why he's failing.

I'm going to answer this once, and this will be the last time, so pay attention.

You are a "Tex won't take a position; Tex won't answer questions" broken record. It's so broken, the record needle has been worn down to the nub.

I don't feel an obligation to answer every one of your questions, or to take a position on every issue that you demand I do. This is not a cross-examination. It's a discussion on an Internet message board, one among many of which you've hardly been troubled to be polite through over the years. Sometimes your questions are unnecessarily inflammatory, sometimes they are an attempt to entrap, and sometimes they're just plain stupid. Rather than distract from the discussion by openly calling them what they are, my preferred method of handling them is to just ignore them.

You feel a need to constantly point out how I debate, rather than focus on the substance. You're welcome to continue to do so, if that provides you some satisfaction, but I'm not going to feel any guilt because Cali Coug didn't get the exact answer he was looking for. Deal with it.

This thread is about the disastrous monstrosity that is the health care bill, and I would prefer it to stay that way, so this is my last word on this topic. You want to discuss it more ... go start a "Tex dodges my questions" thread and talk with yourself about it.

Whether or not that is true is irrelevant to your argument, which is that he SHOULDN'T pass healthcare reform at this point, not that passing it will be a political liability. If you take the position he SHOULDN'T pass healthcare reform, as you appear to do, then my question remains unanswered: why? Do you think he must follow the polls, particularly given they show 40-50% support the healthcare reform efforts? You vaguely answered with a "continuum" argument, but how is the actual 2008 election weighted in your continuum?



A "discussion," Tex, requires a two way conversation. In that conversation, yes- you can expect to get questions. You almost never actually respond to those questions, especially (in my opinion) when you sense that the answer will expose a flaw in your logic. If you want a "discussion," then respond to questions. Otherwise, you are just having a soliloquy interrupted from time to time by loud comments from the audience.

did you all notice the semantic difference now? I heard it this morning in an audio clip. It's not "Healthcare reform." Now it is "Health Insurance Reform."

It's not just "follow the polls." There is a palpable public distaste for this bill. Why else, with a 10-seat advantage in the Senate, and a 70-ish seat advantage in the House, has this thing still not passed yet? Why do you think each member of Congress is exacting his pound of flesh in exchange for his vote? Why does losing a single Senate vote and less than a fingerful of House votes jeopardize the whole process?

I don't expect Obama, or any other politician, to boot up PPP.com and Rasmussen.com and make all their decisions on that basis (ala Bill Clinton). Obama was elected with a wide margin, and it was to be expected that he'd spend that political capital.

I think the lesson of 2008 ... how its "weighted", as you put it ... is that people are getting a different Obama than the one they thought they voted for, both on the left and in the "center." The only people not surprised are those of us on the right.



That is just so absurd.

As measured by...

It has- just two different versions of it. Merging the two is the challenge, primarily due to the 60 vote "requirement" the Republicans are forcing. Remove the filibuster and it passes almost immediately (which is why reconciliation is now on the table).

Because they can and because they view it politically favorable to do so (and when it ceases to be politically favorable, they won't do it- ask Nelson).

You already know the answer to this. It has nothing to do with the House and everything to do with the filibuster.

Good. Then that is what he is doing and it sounds like you agree there is nothing wrong with it- which seems contrary to your original point, but so be it.

No, they are getting precisely the Obama they voted for- the pragmatic leader, which is precisely why health care has advanced this far (further than ever before), and which is why I believe it will ultimately pass.


No point in arguing it, but if you ask around my guess is you will hear the same sentiment echoed.

Cali:

You apparently believe some "health insurance" reform is necessary. Why?

In the past, you believe the percentage of GNP expended is too high? Why?

If I am divining your answers, have you ever considered this as a primary reason for the significant amount of GNP expended on health care to be lifestyle and consumption related?

What I mean is, American are consumers. We want everything now. Is it possible that our conspicuous consumption also creates high health care costs?

Do you believe our unhealthy lifestyles contribute in any amount to the high cost of health care in our country?

Two reasons: 1) because far too many people do not have health insurance right now, which cripples them economically or even costs people their lives, and which is a heavy burden on society at large when those individuals can't pay their costs; and 2) because the current rate of spending on health insurance is simply not sustainable.

About 1/6 of our spending goes to health care, and it is increasing rapidly. That isn't sustainable, and it is hurting us economically and competitively.

If I am divining your answers, have you ever considered this as a primary reason for the significant amount of GNP expended on health care to be lifestyle and consumption related?

Sure- consumption of fatty foods and a lethargic lifestyle are obviously contributing to high costs, but that isn't even close to the entire answer.

Obviously.

If we are spending too much on healthcare, that means we need to buy LESS healthcare.

And that's the rub. How do you buy less healthcare, and who are the winners and who are the losers.

They will talk about efficiencies, fraud, waste, etc. But we all know what less healthcare means. Rationing. That might mean only getting less expensive medicine. Forgoing expensive procedures. Not spending as much in futile care. There's any number of ways to get there. But no one wants to talk about it.

The state of Oregon has experimented with rationing. It's been a long time since I have heard about it however.

Really, none of Obama's stuff flattens the curve, as they like to say. Increasing coverage, allowing pre-existing conditions, not allowing people to lose their healthcare, etc. None of that changes costs. In fact, it increases cost. Preventative medicine? Increases cost.

The reason we dont' have an answer is because the American people are far, far, far away from wanting to make these choices. And in fact, Americans would probably say we don't need to make those choices. Yet.

You're not hearing me. You're wallowing in the minutiae of parliamentary procedure while I'm talking rhetorically. If this legislation is really what the people want, if Obama's 7-pt victory was to affirm American support for just this sort of health care reform, then it should be wildly popular. Democrats--and maybe even some Republicans--should be stepping all over each other just to get their names associated with the bill. Congressmen should be coming home to cheering crowds of adulation from fawning constituents.

It's not happening. Far more people dislike it than like it, and those who dislike it, dislike it a lot. You croon about 40% support like it's something to be proud of, when in reality that's a political disaster. A candidate who gets 40% of the vote in an election is considered to have been slaughtered.

Everything about how this bill has moved through Congress reflects its unpopularity. There's no way for you to dance around that.

This is the sound of me caring:






.

Um, no. That is almost never the case with any legislation. Can you think of any legislation that has passed with "Congressmen coming home to cheering crowds of adulation from fawning constituents?" The process of legislating is messy. The minority party frequently plays the role of demagogue (and Republicans last year more than any other), and people take unnecessarily extreme (and dishonest) positions on legislation (again- Republicans last year more than others). Some bills when enacted are relatively popular, some aren't, but none get the reaction you describe.

Again, however, you seem to be suggesting that not only is it politically dangerous to pass a bill with 40-50% popularity (polling is hard to gauge on issues), it is inappropriate. Is that your argument or not?

You are arguing as if the polls have been static on the question. Should the Congress have passed health care reform on January 12, when polling was at 49% in favor of passing the bill compared to 46% against? On your continuum, polling was in favor of passing the bill, and the electorate had spoken strongly in favor of health care reform. Did you favor passing the bill on the 12th, then? We all know the answer, so why not? How about in October 2009 when support for passing a bill was at 51% to 41% opposed? Did you favor reform on that date? Or is Gallup the wrong pollster to ask? Should we have only gone by Rasmussen Reports (which showed lower support)?

Should we care that many of those opposed (13% in December) were opposed because the bill wasn't liberal enough?

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/im.../21/rel19a.pdf

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/...alth-care.html

Given the overwhelming passion people on the left and the right have on the issue, is it even possible to get a bill, any health care bill, to a high level of support? If, as in December, 42% favor the bill and 56% oppose the bill, but 13% oppose because it doesn't go far enough, and 39% oppose because it goes too far, where do you expect to see significantly more support for any proposal on health care? If you make it more conservative, you will definitely lose people who currently support it now, and certainly won't get anyone who already thinks it isn't liberal enough. If you make it more liberal, you lose more who support it now and won't get any of the 39% who think it is too liberal. Honestly- what is your target poll percentage before you favor passage? If polls are what you find important, then there must be a number at which you would support the bill. What's that number? And why the number you pick?

My guess is you don't care at all about the polling, other than you think it supports your opinion today. If it were to change, I am quite certain you would jump off board with it as your benchmark.

The fact that the polling has shifted so much from month to month is precisely why politicians should just be working for the best possible bill they can support, let the polling fall where it may.



I already knew that. If you cared, I assume you would have changed by now.

It was a bit of playful hyperbole to make a point.

Um, no, I haven't. Or have you already forgotten this scatterplot I showed you just a week ago? There is a clear trend against this bill. I also noted back then that there's a distinct difference in polling between this bill, and a bill--a difference you apparently failed to notice when you posted that Gallup link.

No idea. But if you're going to re-architect 1/6 of the American economy, you'd better damn well have some level of consensus on how to do it, rather than pounding it through with parliamentary tricks.

Then you would be wrong, as usual. It's hard to fault politicians who are listening to popular opinion. That's what they're there for. Indeed, I don't blame Obama and the Dems for wanting to tackle health care (their poor timing notwithstanding), since "generic" health care reform gets popular support. But this bill is a disaster. The American people know it, have communicated it in numerous ways, and the thick skulls in DC refuse to listen.

Then as I said at the beginning, stop whining about it.

Okay, now you're mentioning specifics.

Why do you believe the number is far too high?

Secondly, what do you believe the number is? Working in the health care industry, at least incidentally, I don't believe the big numbers politicians quote.

But a follow up question, what portion of whatever the number is attributable to choice, i.e., college kids risking it to save a few bucks, versus those who are uninsured because of uninsurability or unaffordability?

Now, if you're honest, you'll have to admit we have no idea what the number of uninsured is who are uninsured by choice versus the other subcategory. And if we can't determine what the number is with any reasonable degree of confidence, how can we say it's too high?

But let's move another step, let's assume that the number of uninsurables for cost or coverage is 8 million persons, a lot of persons.


And you know where costs outstrip demand, costs are reigned in, so why the alarm?

These are two assumptions which liberals make but I don't see proof of it. I see many factors in our international competitiveness, but health care? In many of the countries, such as Brazil, China and India, which are hurting our economic base, they don't grand social contracts for health care.

You'll have to make a good argument that is hurting us.


I never said it was, but it's not even part of the liberal equation to "remedy" health care. Why not?

What if this is the primary reason, combined with the impossible to satiate appetite for health care on demand?

Nobody even studies these lifestyles angles, because they don't yield political results which give more power to politicians. Politics is about gaining power and if one can't get power from an issue then you ignore issues such as the ones highlighted.

Wait- so you are taking the position that a Gallup poll from January 12, taken within days of an expected final vote on the merging of the House and Senate health care bills, and which expresses support of health care reform 49%-46%, reflected voter opinion on passage of a bill but not on the bills which were actually being considered and very close to final passage? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Your scatterplot is also helpful to make my case. Note how many blue dots there are above 50% (representing approval). Why not look at those polls, if that's what you care about? Sure, we can average all those polls and come up with a trend, but that isn't necessarily right either. Each poll has phrased the question slightly differently, has a varying sample size, a varying margin of error, differences in technique (including live questioner versus robocall), etc. The one poll which has no margin of error is the one taken in 2008.

If the polls were very bad for the health care bill, I could accept an argument that the bill isn't representative of what people want, but with about 40% supporting the bill and another 13% opposing it because it isn't liberal enough, I feel pretty good in saying this bill is splitting the difference about right.



Language language.

Your consensus comment is addressed above.

Where were your objections with Medicare Part D, which had no funding mechanism whatsoever, has cost us well over $1 trillion, and passed only because Republicans kept the vote open until about 5:00 in the morning, several hours after the vote was scheduled to end, and refused to allow House members to leave (they literally posted "guards" at the doors to intimidate Republican House members to stay until they changed their vote)? Was reconciliation a "parliamentary trick" when it was used to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001?



That's just not polite.

If you think pursuing health care reform will be devastating for Democrats, wouldn't you favor them pursuing health care reform? If, as you seem to suggest, they aren't required to follow the polls then there is nothing wrong with them taking a different approach- they may just be punished for it on election day. I am fine with that.

I am holding out hope that my repeated mention of your refusal to answer questions will one day result in you answering questions more consistently, which is a better result for me.

If, after all the evidence to the contrary, you think public support for this bill is "about right", then no evidence will ever be good enough. As far as I'm concerned, you live in a parallel universe.

I did not like the Medicare ram-through. But you are changing the subject.


I know you are. You are one of those people who would abuse power when handed it.

The answer to your former question is no, because I still happen to love my country, and I think this health care bill would be bad for it. Contrary to numerous Bush Derangement Syndrome-afflicted liberals (such as yourself), I do not root for the country to fail so that my political wishes can succeed.

Politically, I'm not sure it matters much at this point anyway. Health care has become a symbol of failure for the Obama admin in the mind of the public, and even if they manage to squeak something through, it will be totally anti-climactic. Scott Brown has given the momentum to the R's, at least for the moment.

For something as contentious as health care, yes. Any health care bill will be divisive (because opinions are scattered all over the place on the best way forward). To secure about 40% of the public even after all the lies Republicans have told about the bill isn't bad. Especially since much of the opposition (about 25% of it if polls are to be believed) comes from the left. If you move the bill more to the right, more on the left would oppose it. If you move the bill more to the left, more on the right will oppose it. Given that the left and right are almost equally split in general in the US, getting 40% on board with any proposal is pretty darned good.

Again being rude.



No, just pointing out the inconsistency of the Republican position.


Again being rude.

So even if the bill was very popular, you would vote against it because "you love your country." YOU wouldn't require yourself to follow the polls. Why, then, can you not understand someone voting for the bill now regardless of public sentiment (which isn't even all that bad)?

Again being rude.

If you don't think it matters politically to pass the bill, why did you cite the polls in the first place as a reason Democrats shouldn't pass it?

If the best you can get is 40%, then maybe you shouldn't touch it at all.

It's not inconsistent, but it is irrelevant.

This is bizarre line of thinking. I don't hold public office.

Because people still don't want it, and basing a decision this important on mere politics is a mistake. But I think the political damage has mostly already been done.

Right. Instead we should just linger on with uncontrollable growth in health care costs and leave over 30 million people uninsured, because polls don't get to an unspecified level of support. I don't know why you keep going down this path, given that you have admitted that no matter how high public support got, you wouldn't support the bill. Quite clearly, you aren't interested in what the public says on the issue, you are just saying you do because you think the numbers support your position.



How is it consistent?



Would your reasoning change if you did? Why?



Isn't basing a decision on poll numbers "basing a decision on politics?" If you think it is right to pass the bill, shouldn't you then pass it regardless of the politics? This seems contrary to your entire premise. And if you think politics should play a role, but the "damage has mostly already been done," then what is the political harm of passing it anyways? Shouldn't that lead a Congressperson even more in the direction of doing what they think is right, regardless of the polls?

You've been trying very hard to prove some inconsistency between how I feel a politician should treat public opinion vs. his own judgment, without much success.

I'm starting to have to repeat myself as you continue that fruitless effort, making this discussion increasingly tedious particularly with the multiple blocks of quotations. I'm pretty sure I've responded to most/all of these questions already, so I refer you to my previous comments.

It honestly hasn't been all that hard.

Explains why you've done so poorly.

Things continue to look worse for reconciliation. Obama followed up his disingenuous comment in the SOTU by calling on Republicans to offer up their ideas on health care (oh, sure, NOW he wants to hear them.)

And then just yesterday he all but admits health care's not gonna make it:

Warms my cold, icy Republican heart.

Bump.