Could Botched Heath Reform Resuscitate the Right?

[Omaha Steve]

http://www.inthesetimes.com/working/entry/5108/baldy-flawed_health_reform_could_rescuscitate_right/

Thursday October 29 2:01 pm

By Roger Bybee

"Why in the hell would we want any healthcare reform with a big explosive device built in the middle?" demands Chris Townsend, the national political director of the United Electrical union workers for the past 17 years.

As perhaps the nation's most consistently left-wing union, it is no surprise the UE has long been a strong supporter of a single-payer, "Medicare for all" system that eliminates the central role of private for-profit insurers.

But now the UE and other more traditional unions are recognizing that the Democrats' various health plans contain elements union members will find very hard to swallow. "These plans are the product of weak, corrupt Democrats trying to have it both ways," says Townsend, voicing openly what other union leaders are concluding quietly.

If the Right plays this revolt effectively, Townsend believes, it could be channeled into a pseudo-populist right-wing direction that will revitalize the divided and rudderless Republicans.

The present direction of Democratic reform is much worse than anything Townsend or fellow union lobbyists imagined in their worst nightmares, he says. Healthcare will remain unaffordable and employers will see an opportunity to dump those already insured.

At the same time, as former Cigna executive and now leading industry critic Wendell Potter has warned, a popular revolt could be triggered by the combination of high premiums (and other costs) with an individual mandate to buy the defective and unreliable product of private health.

FULL story at link.

[AllentownJake]

1. This coupled with the economy will make 2010 more competitive than it should be

I was talking to someone running for state office today and I said the national party is doing you know favors in 2010.

[NYC_SKP]

2. Seems unlikely that those unhappy would bolt to the right, to those who resisted even this weak HCR.

I get what they're saying, there will be dissent, but why go to the Republicans?

:shrug:

[cornermouse]

10. Its the mandatory part with nothing to show for it

that will make some mad. Others will need only the word mandatory to get mad.

[Bonn1997]

11. People tend to ask, "Do I like what the current party in power is doing?" If not, they vote for the

other party IMO. They have short memories.

[Kansas Wyatt]

16. How do you get a 30% Republican to beat a 60% Democrat?

The base of that 30% Republican will always turn out.

That 60% Democrat just stabbed his base in the back, and the other 10% is not happy about being shit on either.

If the Democrat thinks their base is not important and doesn't get their will met, then the Democrat's base STAYS HOME, while the Republican fans the fire of those pissed off at the Democrat for selling them out to Corporate America. Suddenly, that 30% Republican is at 45% and the Democrat is at 44%.

The Democratic base is not interested in voting for anyone at all, because their candidate is the same as the Republican, with how they just got 'represented.'

Now you know how "Democrats" lose to Republicans... They don't care to work for and represent the people who put them in power.

Enjoy scratching your head in bewilderment after 2010 & 2012, because people vote against their alleged 'best interests.'

[Bonn1997]

17. I believe 2010 is when redistricting occurs and it's essential to maintain control of the House.

Even if many of the Dems are bad, they're NOT as bad as the Republicans.

[mn9driver]

3. Yes.

A bad health reform bill will cause an awful lot of us to disengage. No turnout on election day means the right wins.

[eridani]

7. Yep. Joe Bageant explains it all to you

In 2010, we will need the vote of a woman I met while doorbelling. I made sure that she was able to vote for Obama. She's white and low income. Her records had inconsistencies, and she had gotten notices that she was not registered. She didn't have a computer, so I got online, found that she was listed, and asked someone from the elections department to get back to her. She said she had not voted since voting for Clinton in 1992, but that this year was really, really important.

What was apparently not very important to her after 1992 was voting in 1994, and I'm sure you all remember what happened that year. Here is Joe Bageant having a chat with someone a lot like her.

http://www.counterpunch.org/bageant09092004.html

The truth is that Dottie would vote for any candidate, black, white, crippled blind or crazy, that she thought would actually help her. I know because I have asked her if she would vote for a president who wanted a nationalized health care program?" "Vote for him? I'd go down on him!" Voter approval doesn't get much stronger than that.

Quite a few of the Dotties of all colors came out for Obama last year. If we don't make some serious improvements in their lives, they'll stay home in 2010.

[Laelth]

4. k&r for labor. Speaking truth to power, as usual. n/t

:dem:

-Laelth

[Tim01]

5. Yes. They are already gaining ground.

Resuscitate? The republican party isn't in much trouble. The current situation is just a political downturn, it will swing back again.

[flyarm]

6. yep because without real HEALTH CARE REFORM, many of us dems will stay home from voting next time !

[Kansas Wyatt]

15. I won't, nor will I...

Constantly be telling people in Missouri that I work with how important it was for them to only vote Democratic, because Republicans will always hurt them.

I would hear, 'But there is no difference between them.' I stayed on them about how they are harmed more by Republicans, until they finally got it.

After this Democratic Health Care Sham, the Democrats have convinced me that 'there is no difference between them.'

NEVER again, because the Democratic Party just told the American People that you are on your own and nobody will stand up for you.

Democratic pundits are still pissing themselves that the Republican Party is collapsing, but they have no idea that they are in a free fall themselves.

[Fumesucker]

8. If I'm forced to buy overpriced and useless private insurance I certainly won't be motivated to vote

Vote for those who put me in that situation.

I certainly won't vote Republican but there's an excellent chance I'll just stay home in disgust.

Yes, there is a difference in the two parties, one is nakedly and openly corporatist and the other tries to put a fig leaf over their corporatism.

[Union Yes]

9. I've learned in life that NOONE is more capable of resuscitating the Reich Wing than the Dems in DC.

[Bonn1997]

12. "These plans are the product of weak, corrupt Democrats trying to have it both ways,"

This quote can't be repeated enough times! "These plans are the product of weak, corrupt Democrats trying to have it both ways,"
The problem has little to do with corrupt Republicans as we can pass a bill (especially via reconciliation) without their support.

[Phoebe Loosinhouse]

13. I posted this 2 months ago

Phoebe Loosinhouse (1000+ posts) Tue Aug-25-09 07:30 PM
Original message
You know all those people who supposedly love their healthcare?

Whatever percentage they may be, they exist. They currently have what they consider to be decent affordable coverage through their employer.

Now imagine that the Dems pass some sort of insurance reform. Imagine that few if any Repubs vote for it. Imagine that the healthcare the Dems pass is seriously flawed with giveaways to the insurance and drug industries. I could cite numerous things I have read, but suppose just a few of them make it through to the final bill. ( Larger co-pays, no drug price negotiation, delayed effective dates for banning prior conditions, etc.)

The day AFTER the bill is signed, the Republicans run around proclaiming that the reason they didn't want the bill is because it is a BAD bill, filled with CORRUPTION and payoffs to the health industries pushed through by those very bad, very corrupt Democrats. Some of the facts of the bill might be quite difficult to put a different face on, particularly if they ARE the result of back-room, secretive dealings. Now imagine the resulting anger multiplied by about 10,000 when people open their very own healthcare packages that they had previously been satisfied with and DISCOVER the bigger co-pays, etc?

Who is going to bear the brunt of this anger? The Democrats will be sent to the woodshed and into oblivion for the next 20 years.
They will become painted as the party of corruption and pay-offs. Forget whatever good the bill might do, or however many previously uninsured it might cover. That will all be lost in the resulting Maelstrom. You think you have seen Dem hating and liberal bashing? My friends, we have seen nothing compared to what will be unleashed.

Of course there is one action the Democrats could take that could prevent all I have described.

They could reject poor leadership, bad judgment, expediency, over-compromising, however you want to describe what appears to be going on and PASS A GOOD BILL, one that puts the people before the insurance and drug industries.
*******************************************************************************************************

I wouldn't change a word today. The bill, the House bill anyway will help a lot of people right away, BUT what I said above will happen for everyone else because they are NOT goiing to pass a good bill that puts people before insurance and drug industries.

And of course the ones who will suffer are ALL of us. And yes, there will be a resurgance of the most horrible type of Repub - the Tea Bag variety who will have thousands and thousands of new co-horts -courtesy of mandates.

[WeCanWorkItOut]

14. Labor sacrificed for health care, gave up income and time off. In return, did they get any control?

No, they let the crazy health price inflation go on. Recently,
they saw doctors investing heavily in CAT scan and MRI centers,
and then find ways to refer patients to them. But Labor did not protest.
They saw a big wave of hospital consolidation, and did not protest.
Prices went up and up for many avoidable reasons. Labor felt sad,
but did not protest. Possibly due to the advice of
people whom I think of as "the Bastards of Berkeley,"
(Princeton, etc.) who really don't mind transferring income
from labor to doctors and hospitals.

And now the Democrats devise a plan that imposes big costs on
Labor and Medicare patients in order to cover a portion of
the costs of the uninsured. Something the Republicans can exploit?
Very likely. Not that they particularly mind transferring income from
labor to other elites. But they might profit from hope for change
all the same.

[treestar]

18. This sounds like the reverse version of idiotic right wingers who

claim McGramps lost because he was not conservative enough. Like those people voted for Obama, because McDope was too librul! Or stayed home and let Obama win, because McOld was not conservative enough. Who does that?