Arlene,

“There are parts of the health care bill that appeal to me. But I do feel it will cost us in dollars and cents and also in liberty. ”

What liberty is being lost by this new law?

“I think a lot of peo ple are really unhappy. ”

Of course they are. We’re in a state of endless war. We’ve got pundits screaming bloody communist murder in our ears on a daily basis. Of course people are going to be really unhappy. Those are not conditions for people to be happy.

Remember Bill Clinton’s wake-up call in that election where the Republicans kicked the Democrats butt? Boy, Obama’s memory must be really short because I think his wake-up call is going to a lot louder than Clinton got. I think a lot of people are really unhappy. Not just Limbaugh, O’Reilly, and Palin. Normal people.

1. The public’s desire for a healthcare plan is seemingly much greater today than in Bill Clinton’s time.

2. The party in the White House almost always loses seats in the mid-term elections. Obama is certain to lose a few, but is it at any risk of losing his majorities in either the House or Senate? No. (Whether he knows how to leverage a majority is another story.) Obama should only be concerned if the Republicans can mount a credible candidate in 2012. I don’t see any credible candidates emerging for the GOP.

3. Obama’s been pretty open about how he expects things to be unpopular at first but that it will gain in popularity as people realize benefits. Whether or not this is true remains to be seen, but I don’t think it’s a case where Obama is working from a short memory.

Daniel, I believe this bill smacks of Big Brother. I certainly don’t think the government should force me to buy insurance. I don’t like it.

Cantinflas, It’s not the way he voted that bothered me. It’s that I think he basically calculated the risk. Which I could have figured out in 20 minutes. I certainly don’t think he voted his conscience. I don’t really blame him, but I thought he was better than that.

Queuno, I didn’t think about that, but it makes sense to me. But I think this coming election will be more striking than that. I suppose I could be watching too much TV and of course, I live in Utah. But I think a lot of people are going to be very surprised.

It’s not only the tea party givers who are upset.

I heard this guy on talk radio as I was driving home last night say something like “America has one party with two heads.” I think he nailed it.

I think these are great points from a regular person who is open to voting either way.

There was an article recently quoting Rahm Emmanuel about the political capital spent to get health care passed. I think in the game of politics, the Obama Administration may have gone all in and lost- politically, that is. Whether the bill was worth it will be judged in time.

Obama has a big agenda still to come with major issues, and it will be interesting to see how depleted the political capital really is. For Clinton, his wake-up call had no silver lining, you could say. And then all the Republicans could muster in 1996 was Bob Dole.

Obama may have a tougher time with low capital and the likes of Huck, Romney, and some other very good Republican candidates.

I heard this guy on talk radio as I was dri­ving home last night say some­thing like “Amer­ica has one party with two heads.” I think he nailed it.

That’s a great insight, indeed.

Daniel, I believe this bill smacks of Big Brother. I cer tainly don’t think the gov ern ment should force me to buy insur ance. I don’t like it.

The State of Texas makes me purchase auto insurance. Requires. Sometimes, we are required to do things for the greater social good. Forcing us to buy health insurance isn’t the question. The real question is whether that’s the most appropriate solution for the problem at hand.

I think Dole in 1996 will seem like a conquering hero compared to what the GOP will have to offer in 2012. (Romney still has to figure out to get anti-Mormons to vote for him and he really can’t attack Obama on healthcare, I believe.)

Frankly, the student loan provisions tossed in with healthcare are a bigger deal to students and parents of students. Anything to get rid of the naked corruption of the current system almost makes healthcare reform worth it!

“I believe this bill smacks of Big Brother. I cer­tainly don’t think the gov­ern­ment should force me to buy insur­ance. I don’t like it.”

Are you going to go on Medicare when you turn 65?

That is government-run health care after all. Which this bill DOESN’T do for most folks.

Queuno, I agree with you. I’ve voted for him every time he ran and intend to do so again. I guess all politicians have to be politically practical in some way or they don’t continue to be politicians. Sad.

Naismith, yeah, unless I’m on medicaid. You have a good point and Rbc makes a good counterpoint although the counterpoint to Rbc’s counterpoint would be “yeah, but we all have bodies.”

It just seems more personal, more invasive somehow. But social security was–is?–as well and people were thrilled to get it.

Like I said these types of social programs might be part and parcel of being a huge country. I just don’t feel good about it.

Part of that could be that something about Nancy Pelosi just pisses me off.

Maybe as a country we’re compelled to being humbled because we didn’t take care of this sooner. As far as some of the goals of the HCR go, I don’t have any problem. If this law is what it took to get some of the accomplished, great! It’s not like the Republicons really attempted to present an alternative.

I literally laughed out loud when I heard the comparison of being forced to buy health care on oneself with the requirement that owners of cars purchase insurance against the damage that they could do to others in that car. When someone says something that stupid, it’s renders any attempt at response futile.

First of all, you can’t argue that because you live some place where it’s very difficult not to own a car, that you’re forced to own a car. There are no restrictions on eligible workers moving between or among states or territories in the union.

Second, the difference between something imposed by a state government and something imposed by the Federal government is immense. Federalism is the only objective guarantor of civil liberties, because it allows you to locate yourself within a regime of your own choosing. And every important political science question ultimately resolves to a question of who makes the decision, not what decision gets made.

I’m reminded of how it was back when I started my 2nd business. I was married and we had an infant daughter. Running one’s own business has all the short term advantages of indentured servitude: my work week averaged in excess of 100 hours per week that year, and I earned US$10K. I also forewent health insurance. Had we not done so, there’s no way we could have weathered those 1st few years. Within several years, we had more than 75 people on a payroll that totaled several million dollars. It was a risk that I counted as paid off every time I approved the payroll.

But what if something bad had happened? I’d have worked out payment terms. Would I have declared bankruptcy? No. I consider bankruptcy to be dishonorable, and I believe that those who declare bankruptcy are dishonorable. Harry Truman suffered huge financial losses, and spent decades paying them off rather than declare bankruptcy, because he felt the same way. If possible, my feelings are stronger than Harry Truman’s, because bankruptcy has been used to cheat me out of more money that you can probably imagine.

I took a risk — one that I could be paying for to this day. That’s my right. That’s how life works. When the government tells me that I can’t take that risk, it imposes an additional cost on me — a cost that your average lazy-ass, die-hard Democrat can’t grasp, but that the average American does grasp. The majority of Americans still oppose the health care bill.

And another thing: When the government promises “affordable” health care, it’s like when they promised “affordable” housing. To the federal government, “affordable” housing means increasing the prices of homes by artificially increasing demand by forcing banks to make loans to people who can’t repay them, and then forcing communities to rent to government-subsidized tenants. When housing prices actually begin to fall, and the prospect of actual affordable housing appears on the horizon, the government does everything that it can to avoid affordable housing and artificially prop up the prices of homes.

The lesson: When the government says that it’s going to make something affordable, you’re gonna’ get screwed. Nobody refuses more claims than Medicare and Medicaid.

One last thing, queuno: The current division of public opinion on health care is, in almost every respect, the same as it was in 1994. It was a voter revolt against health care here in Massachusetts(!) that got resulted in a record voter turnout to elect Republican Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy. Nobody saw that coming until the final days of the campaign. Come November, watch out Democrats.

Great cartoon, Stephen!

DKL, the first thing that came to my mind was you employed all those people and made all that money and you don’t have a couple of guest houses?? I have to stay at the Best Western? Oh, fine.

Naismith, at least he didn’t call people “shitbags.”

And David, another question, could you outline Massachussetts health care, pro and con?

You know, Canada’s health care basically sucks you guys. You have to experience it to believe it. We’re very pampered here in the US. I can’t remember the countries–I’m thinking Denmark–or Holland-who pays 50% of their income in taxes. Countries with nationalized health care pay huge taxes.

And after we write that check next week for our taxes which would pay for my trip to Boston for the next few YEARS I’m born again against taxes.

You know, it’s true that I’ll be getting social security and medicare (hopefully not medicaid) in a few years. There are benefits but we’ll probably lose some personal freedom. Where do we draw the line on these programs? Is loss of liberty inevitable with a huge population needing government support? Are we destined to be a nation or rich and poor?

And if the last is answered “yes” will we lose the moral standard by which most middle class citizens live their lives? The rich can decide their morals and the poor can’t afford the luxury. We could be going to hell in a handbasket.

Well, I don’t really believe that. Because in my circle, most of us are middle class–and highly moral people. But what are we in for? Dunno.

Nai­smith, at least he didn’t call peo­ple “shitbags.”

Just give him time.

Yeah, Peter, explain your obsession with mocking DKL? What goes? Go ahead and threadjack.

“annegb, both Peter LLC and Nai­smith feel per­son­ally wounded from hav­ing been repeat­edly bested in argu­ments online,”

Oh, this is even better!!!!! Now he can claim to read our minds.

Why do we even bother to exist? Oh, right, so DKL can have someone to complain about.

Naismith: Oh, this is even better!!!!! Now [DKL] can claim to read our minds.

Naismith, I know exactly why you think I can’t read your mind.

David, what about the Massachussetts health care system? Pros? cons? Mitt Romney’s part in it? I’d love to see a substantive analysis. Especially because Romney is sure to be a factor in the next presidential election.

annegb, The Massachusetts health care system is a mess. The insurance companies are losing money, some paying out 10% more in benefits than they’re taking in with premiums. Latest news: they’re suing to increase rates and the state agency that is set up to pool individuals into group policies has stopped taking new customers. The costs associated with it are ballooning. There’s a growing shortage of health care — when we decided that we wanted to change pediatricians for our kids, we couldn’t find another practice within a 20 minute drive that was taking new patients, forcing us to stick with the pediatric practice that we had. When we started having kids 13 years ago, every pediatric practice we contacted was taking new patients.

While the Massachusetts system worked (during the first few years) it was great. As someone who is self-employed, I was able to get insurance for my family at group rates through the state agency (the one that has now stopped taking on new customers). There are a ton of doctors in Massachusetts (thanks to all the medical schools), and all of them are on every HMO and PPO plan.

Lastly, whatever the merits or demerits of the Massachusetts system, it occurs only in Massachusetts. Any other state can barrow (or not) any aspect of the Massachusetts plan in order to improve the general lot of the insured and uninsured in that state. This is an altogether different question from whether the Federal government should adopt this policy to make it a nationwide standard. As I noted earlier, every important political science question ultimately resolves to a question of who makes the decision, not what decision gets made. In other words, even if we allow for argument’s sake that the Massachusetts plan is quite successful, that still doesn’t justify making it a national plan.

DKL,

I agree with your points about how policy is made. Who makes the decision VS what decision gets made. That goes right to the heart of the problems of government because it acknowledges that self-serving politicians will always create policy that will benefit them, and to hell with the people.

I do not agree with your analogy of getting hit by a truck. I think if someone gets hit by a truck, we SHOULD review fundamental policies regarding trucks, because (wouldn’t ya know it) we might find out the trucks were manufactured with defective brakes, and then we would find out the truck manufacturers paid government officials to change policy so it was favorable just to them and their bad brakes. Turns out the trucks bad brakes were known for years and that A LOT of people were disabled (better hope they qualify for state disability assistance) or killed because of the brakes.

Bad things happen to everyone, that is true. But it is interesting how until it happens to you, it isn’t worthy of much attention.

I maintain the problem isn’t that we should not have national health care. The problem is how we are trying to do it.

One last thing, que uno: The cur rent divi sion of pub lic opin ion on health care is, in almost every respect, the same as it was in 1994. It was a voter revolt against health care here in Mass a chu­setts(!) that got resulted in a record voter turnout to elect Repub li can Scott Brown to replace Ted Kennedy. Nobody saw that com ing until the final days of the cam paign. Come Novem ber, watch out Democrats.

It will be compelling to see if GOP gains in November due to the normal cycle of the party in power losing seats, or if HCR actually has a *significant* impact. I’d have to go look at statistics to see what’s considered a normal gain by the minority party to use as a comparison.

I would have thought Scott Brown won because the Democrats put up one of the worst campaigners in recent history…

queuno: I would have thought Scott Brown won because the Democrats put up one of the worst campaigners in recent history…

First of all, being a terrible candidate has never been a fatal flaw for Democrats in Massachusetts before — this isn’t a one party state because the Democrats field such compelling candidates.

Second, Brown’s opponent Coakley had been elected over and over, including a statewide election to be attorney general and a very competitive Democratic primary where she totally cleaned up.

Third, if Coakley lost for being a lousy candidate, then the pattern would have been that Scott would have won in a low turnout election because he mobilized people and she fell flat. In fact, it had a record-breaking turnout for a special election. The turnout was higher than the 2004 presidential election that featured Massachusetts’ favorite son, John Kerry.

Fourth, both Scott Brown and Martha Coakley did everything they could to make the election a referendum on health car — Brown by saying that he’d vote against it and Coakley by saying that she’d vote for it and by crying from the rooftops that Brown would ruin it; she misjudged what people wanted, pure and simple.

When you say things to the effect that a Republican took Kennedy’s seat in Massachusetts because the Democrats fielded a terrible candidate, it’s pretty good evidence that you’re basically out of touch with political reality.

(The funny behavior you note was being caused by a plugin called wp-Typography, which would insert characters that allow for hyphenation to occur. I’ve disabled it.)

DKL is about the dumbest person in the state of Massachusetts.

let’s all try and be civil, otherwise i’ll be forced to post my insightful comments elsewhere.

Hey! How come you never answered my email?

I just checked my email, but on second thought I don’t think the world is fully ready for a blog post from me. It could very well be the end of civilization as we know it.