Crickets

[impik]

John Cole:

I’d be tired if I were Axelrod, too. If I were him, I would have already resorted to the summary execution of a number of Democratic Senators and the Stupak 12 in Congress, half the President’s “allies” in the blogosphere, and the entire Republican representation would be in Siberia. But that is just how I roll.

But no wonder they are frustrated. Look once again at the list of accomplishments in one year, notwithstanding the fact that we staved off a complete economic collapse, and then realize that this is being deemed a failure - by the Democrats (and that list is four months old). It is ridiculous.

Hell, they are on the cusp of delivering a health care reform package that wildly exceeds Howard Dean’s wet dream a couple years ago, and Dean himself was briefly acting the “genius” on cable tv trying to kill the bill. Meanwhile, members of the legislative body, the folks responsible for writing legislation, led by Democrats, are whining publicly that Obama should have written the bill and just given it to them. And there is a good chance that a couple of nutjobs butthurt about the public option and some fetus fetishists allied with Stupak might very well kill the bill.

I’d be tired too. In fact, I am. And the best part is going to be listening to the concern trolling of people linking to this piece, worried about the Obama administration’s fall, without so much as mentioning they have spent the last year tripping them up, whether it be for reasons of self-promotion or because their pet issue wasn’t dealt with first.

To me, nothing sums up the fail of the Democratic party and the blogosphere more than the Dawn Johnsen affair. For a year, she was blocked by an obstinate GOP, and rather than attack the Republicans, we got months of “Why isn’t Obama doing more?” nonsense on the blogs. Some went so far as to suggest that this was just Obama’s way of thumbing his nose at progressives, and that it was a plan to screw them over.

And now that she has been renominated (because Obama really doesn’t want her) andr it looks like Dawn will be at the OLC shortly? Crickets.

A-Men.

[Donnachaidh]

1. serving up a fresh steaming pile of propaganda?

"are on the cusp of delivering a health care reform package that wildly exceeds Howard Dean’s wet dream"

NOT even close.

Nice try though. :eyes:

[FrenchieCat]

6. Have you read Dean's Plan from 2004?

It offered less than the plan currently does that is about to pass. And his offerings at the time was his starting point. That's the reality. So yes, this plan currently as it stand surpasses Howard Dean's original 2004 starting point 5 years later

Re-reading Dean's plan is useful to anyone looking for a bit of perspective on the national debate. The Vermonter was, of course, one of the more liberal candidates in the race, and the most oriented toward health care. But there was no public plan in his proposal. There wasn't even a co-op. Dean's plan would have insured millions fewer people than the bills being considered in the House or the bill that we think we'll see out of the Senate. As I read the policy -- and it's possible there's a more detailed summary than the one I've dug up -- it didn't even include insurance market reforms like banning discrimination based on preexisting conditions or outlawing rescission.

For all that, it was a good and well-meaning plan. But it was a lot worse than what we're considering now. It was a lot worse even than the compromises we're considering now.
snip

But it was considered, at the time, a good plan, and it was. It addressed the core issue in health-care reform: that so many people lack health-care insurance and so have to live in fear. It also had some virtues of its own, particularly in the way it reimagined and expanded the Children's Health Insurance Program. The heart of this is now, and has always been, providing coverage to the people who wait in line for hours because they can't afford relief for a rotten tooth, or because they haven't had a mammogram in years. Dean's plan did that, and the plans on the table today do even more of it.

The goal posts have moved in recent years. And they've moved in the right direction. This year, Dean is, as he was then, on the left of the conversation, arguing fiercely and persuasively for a public plan, and more generous subsidies, and an array of other improvements. On Thursday, he threatened that Democrats who don't support the public plan will face primary challenges. That's a healthy threat.

But you can't survey the landscape or read the polls without recognizing that the finished product might be worse than many of us, including Dean, hope. But reading his proposal from 2004 is a useful reminder that it's almost certain to be far better than what we had imagined only five short years ago. That may not be success. But it is progress

DEAN'S 2004 HEALTH PLAN
My plan consists of four major components.


First, and most important, in order to extend health coverage to every uninsured child and young adult up to age 25, we'll redefine and expand two essential federal and state programs -- Medicaid and the State Children's Health Insurance Program. Right now, they only offer coverage to children from lower-income families. Under my plan, we cover all kids and young adults up to age 25 -- middle income as well as lower income. This aspect of my plan will give 11.5 million more kids and young adults access to the healthcare they need. done in the current plan


Second, we'll give a leg up to working families struggling to afford health insurance. Adults earning up to 185% of the poverty level -- $16,613 -- will be eligible for coverage through the already existing Children Health Insurance Program. By doing this, an additional 11.8 million people will have access to the care they need. done in the current plan



Many working families have incomes that put them beyond the help offered by government programs. But this doesn't mean they have viable options for healthcare. We'll establish an affordable health insurance plan people can buy into, providing coverage nearly identical to what members of Congress and federal employees receive. He's not talking about a government plan, because that's not what members of congress receive....they go through an exchange, which is what the current plan calls for



To cushion the costs, we'll also offer a significant tax credit to those with high premium costs. By offering this help, another 5.5 million adults will have access to care. Howard Dean doesn't reduce cost of premiums, but helps pay for those who can't afford it, like the current plan



Third, we need to recognize that one key to a healthy America is making healthcare affordable to small businesses.We shouldn't turn our back on the employer-based system we have now, but neither should we simply throw money at it. We need to modernize the system so employers will have an option beyond passing rising costs on to workers or bailing out of the system entirely. Fortunately, we have a model of efficient, affordable and user-friendly healthcare coverage: the federal employee health system. done in the current plan, as again, he is discussing modernizing health care, and using the exchange system that current Federal Employees current have.



With the plan I've put forth to the American people, we'll organize a system nearly identical to the one federal workers and members of Congress enjoy. And we'll enable all employers with less than 50 workers to join it at rates lower than are currently available to these companies -- provided they insure their work force. I'll also offer employers a deal: The federal government will pick up 70% of COBRA premiums for employees transitioning out of their jobs, but we'll expect employers to pay the cost of extending coverage for an additional two months. These two months are often the difference between workers finding the health coverage they need, or joining the ranks of the uninsured. Again, done in the current plan



Finally, to ensure that the maximum number of American men, women and children have access to healthcare, we must address corporate responsibility. There are many corporations that could provide healthcare to their employees but choose not to. The final element of this plan is a clear, strong message to corporate America that providing health coverage is fundamental to being a good corporate citizen. I look at business tax deductions as part of a compact between American taxpayers and corporate America. We give businesses certain benefits, and expect them to live up to certain responsibilities. Part of Dean's plan was sending a "forceful message" to corporation? What does that even mean?



I believe this plan is sensible and that it can pass Congress -- but most importantly, I believe that it is the right thing to do. When my wife, Judith Steinberg, and I graduated from medical school, we took an oath in which we pledged to practice our profession with conscience and dignity and to always make the health of our patients our first consideration. With this plan, and in my campaign for the presidency, I will make the health of all Americans my first priority. Our country has waited too long, and we must do better.

http://web.archive.org/web/20031204202209/www.deanforamerica.com/site/PageServer?pagename=policy_statement_health

So this is where Howard Dean would have started. Not with single payer, not with a government ran public option, not with outlawing pre-existing conditions, and not with covering many of the uninsured - Sorry, but as lacking as the Senate HCR bill is, I don't see Howard Dean's proposal as an improvement, and I don't even know if he would have gotten as close as Pres. Obama has, considering that he started from a point less ambitious then where Pres. Obama started.

[patrice]

7. But doesn't that assume that a characteristic such as the Mandate is of equal weight as any other

characteristic of the legislation?

(Aside from the fact that HD is now saying to pass this current piece with some modifications.)

[FrenchieCat]

8. Dean's proposal didn't include Mandates or Cost Controls.....

Here's a partial list of the cost controls in the Senate bill, with number 5 dealing with invididual Mandates as one means of Cost Controls:

1) Bundled payments: A lot of the focus has been on cost controls that work through the insurance system. But costs aren't rising because insurance is expensive. They're rising because health care is expensive. The experiments with bundled payments are an attempt to begin addressing those drivers directly. Right now, hospitals get paid for each procedure they conduct. If you come in with symptoms of a stroke, they get one check for the diagnostic, one check for the stroke medication, one check for the surgery, etc. And if you have to come back in two weeks, they get more money for that, too.

Under bundled payments, the hospital would receive one check for everything related to your stroke over a single period of time. That means they make more money from doing less, rather than more money from doing more. It also gives them an incentive to coordinate care when you're out of the hospital, as it's cheaper to get a nurse to call and make sure you're taking your medicine than it is to have you in for a follow-up procedure. For more on the bundled payments system, and Sen. Mark Warner's efforts to strengthen it, see this post, or this article.

2) Prudent purchasing: Howard Dean gave this prominent play in his op-ed this morning, and he was right to do so. The only problem is that he said it's not in the bill, and it is.

Prudent purchasing means that insurers can't enter, or stay, in the exchanges unless regulators are satisfied that they're doing a good job. That works both to ensure a good product, but also to hold costs down. If an insurer wants to hike premiums, for instance, they have to submit a justification to the exchanges and post that justification publicly on their Web site. If the exchange isn't convinced, that insurer can be dropped from the exchange, losing all customers and profits they were making.

Do this to one or two insurers, one or two times, and the message will be pretty strong. Moreover, it will go a ways towards countering the status quo bias that current infects insurance purchasing, wherein people don't change because, well, it's a pain to change insurers, and so insurers aren't forced to provide products as good as a competitive market would ordinarily demand. It also gives regulators a way to tamp down destructive marketing (an insurer can be dropped for using their marketing to try and cherrypick healthy customers -- say, by advertising exclusively in Runner's Monthly) and seed quality reforms.

3) The Medicare Commission: One reason there's so much packed into this iteration of health-care reform is because it's so hard to overcome the status quo outside of a massive reform effort. Common-sense delivery system reforms don't attract sufficient interest to muscle pass interest group opposition. The Medicare Commission streamlines the reform process, forcing a panel of independent experts to suggest a package of reforms in years when spending growth is too rapid and forcing Congress to vote on the package -- no amendments, and no filibuster.

The Medicare Commission enjoys a catalytic interaction with other elements of the bill, as it offers a process to take small programs and convert them into systemwide reforms. A pilot program that's working well, for instance, might be included in the next year's reform package, making it a policy that makes Medicare work better. This policy could be made a lot better if the Senate passes the Rockefeller-Lieberman-Whitehouse amendment.

4) The excise tax on high-value health insurance: This is, essentially, a tax on the unchecked growth in premiums. The key here is that the threshold at which premium dollars begin getting taxed at 40 percent doesn't rise as quickly as premiums costs generally rise. Now imagine two insurers: One holds costs down quite well, and one holds costs down quite poorly. Within a couple of years, the costlier insurer's plan is $3,000 over the threshold, while the cheaper insurer remains under it. The tax amplifies the difference between the two. The costlier insurer is suddenly $4,200 more than the cheaper insurer. In this way, plans with more successful cost-control mechanisms get an even larger market advantage. This makes the insurance market even more competitive in terms of price. For a longer explanation, read this post.

5) The individual mandate: In the last few days, an odd argument has arisen. The individual mandate, people say, must be sacrificed on the altar of cost control. The truth is quite the opposite. First, the individual mandate lowers average premium costs by bringing healthy people into the system. If the only people buying insurance are the people who expect to need to use it, the average cost will be prohibitively high. But second, the individual mandate is the political spur for future cost controls.

In a world without a universal health-care structure and an individual mandate, premium increases are a shame, but not much of a political problem. In a world with an individual mandate, large premium increases are Congress' problem. It focuses the mind on cost control. Given a choice between passively letting people become uninsured and taking on providers and insurers, Congress will choose the path of inaction. But given a choice between voting to take people's insurance away and taking on providers and insurers? That's a harder decision. Right now, the pressure in the political system comes from organized interests. The mandate levels the playing field. More on that here.

And that's not all, of course. There's the interaction of comparative effectiveness review and health information technology. There's the hope that regulations on insurers force them to innovate on price and quality, rather than on denying coverage to sick people. There are the good points Jon Gruber makes in this interview.

Will it all work? Define work. Will it be enough? Almost certainly not. Is it more than we've ever done before? Absolutely. And does it do more for cost control than the continuation of the status quo? Again, absolutely.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/five_cost_controls_in_the_sena.html

[patrice]

10. I know that. I bring it up as an explanation for why some have valid problems with this legislation.

Yes, there are similarities with HD's proposals, but to assume that one important difference, the Mandate, is of equal weight with anything else that was either left out or included, doesn't seem right to me. Mandates on something that is going to end up charging seniors more AND cutting services to them could create a big pool of HC Ins Co business that is primarily young and healthy (fewer claims). Mandates (without a Public Option) make it possible for the companies to create their own markets by means of their control over prices that exclude and eventually kill undesirable risks. That's a big qualitative difference between HD's proposal and what we have here.

[FrenchieCat]

12. Where is this....." charging seniors more AND cutting services to them"

in the legislation? :shrug:

Revising Medicare Part D, closing the Donut hole, and paying the same amount to doctors for medicare services as what is charged to the general public at large doesn't result in charging seniors more or cutting services to them.

What are you quoting?

[patrice]

13. Well, I should look that up. Heard it on Bill Moyers this morning and, then, of course, we

do continually hear about cuts to what Medicare providers are paid.

I'll go get the name of the Harvard policy-wonk who said seniors are going to be charged more, on Bill Moyers this a.m., but I'm not sure why you'd think, just from common-sense, that would not happen. They are a more expensive market to serve, the mandate will cause pressure from younger healthier markets to pay less, no truly competitive alternatives, private HC Ins Co will respond to that pressure with cheaper deals for younger healthier people.

back in a bit . . .

[FrenchieCat]

15. Cuts to Medicare providers doesnt equal to cuts in services....

that's a cause and effect not proven.

If there is a larger pool (healthy younger folks paying premiums that aren't paying now), why would there be a need for Medicare recipients to pay more for services? You are linking Doctors not getting paid more specifically for Medicare patience (as they are now) automatically translating to Seniors getting fewer services. How does that figure?

The President's proposal strengthens Medicare and extends the program’s solvency by more than nine years by:

Attacking fraud, abuse and waste in an unprecedented fashion
Simplifying the bewildering array of insurance paperwork that patients, doctors and nurses have to deal with
Developing innovative payment systems that will “bend the curve” by rewarding the efficient delivery of high quality, well coordinated, care.
And at the same time – improving – not cutting – benefits – in particular, filling the “donut hole” in Medicare drug benefits and ensuring continued access to the doctors that seniors know and trust.
http://edlabor.house.gov/labor/health-care/



President Obama's proposal includes health insurance market reforms that will bring immediate benefits to millions of Americans, including those who currently have coverage.

Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
Access to Quality Care for Vulnerable Populations
No Pre-existing Coverage Exclusions for Children
Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans
Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit
Small Business Tax Credits
Ensuring Value for Premium Payments
Patient Protections
Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
Free Prevention Benefits
No Lifetime Limits on Coverage
Restricted Annual Limits on Coverage
Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage
Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary
Public Access to Comparable Information on Insurance Options
Health Insurance Consumer Information
http://edlabor.house.gov/labor/health-care/

[patrice]

17. If doctors et al are paid less for Medicare patients, they're not going to refuse Medicare patients?

[FrenchieCat]

23. No, I don't think they are.....

What do you think is meant in that Patients won't be denied services
based on their health conditions? You think that somehow Doctors
will be able to simply refuse to treat a large part of the population
simply because they are on Medicare, because the government won't subsidize
the doctors being paid extra? Mandated insurance would mean that
there would be more money for health care providers, not less.
To cut off their nose for an extra 25% here, when the mandated subsidies
could bring them an additional 50% overall doesn't make sense.

[patrice]

14. Dr. Marcia Angell

http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/index-flash.html

and of course . . .

http://www.google.com/search?source=ig&hl=en&rlz=&=&q=Dr.+Marcia+Angell&aq=f&aqi=&oq=

[FrenchieCat]

20. Marcia Angell is a single payer advocate, and always has been......

which means that anything short of that, in her mind translates into something
she'd rather not support. So in essence she is one of those "Rather have nothing",
as though those who would be helped by this bill don't count, and they can just keep
not having any alternatives, because she's for the good being thrown out for the sake
of the perfect, which as a progressive advocating progress, I personally consider that
a very narrow view. I respect her for her principles, but let us not fool ourselves
into believing that she is somehow helping millions who could be helped by this bill, because
she is not. In her choosing the status quo, which in essence is what she is doing,
even though she may never admit it, she is indirectly advocating for a health care system
which she herself knows cannot be substained.....and I guess she's hoping that a
Single Payer Bill will one day be law, and that it will all be done in one fell swoop.
In the meantime......nothing.
In the meantime, Republicans take back congress.
In the meantime, Pres. Obama loses in 2012 to a Republican.
In the meantime, folks just go without healthcare and die.

[patrice]

24. I hear you. I know some of those. It all comes down to a calculated risk as to

what happens AFTER whatever happens.

It seems to me that a strong Public Option is a reasonable half-way point between some relatively valid opposing issues.

[hulka38]

16. The 108th Congress (2003-2004) had a Senate Democratic caucus of 49 including Jeffords an (I)

And you guys want to talk about what's possible and the hardships of finding consensus to overcome a filibuster? Get real. The political landscape has changed completely in our favor. You think Dean wouldn't have had the PO in his plan in 2009 or rammed it through in 2010?

[FrenchieCat]

21. This is what we do know: Howard Dean proposed a health Plan and Single Payer or a PO were not a part

......that's what we do know.

We also know that Howard Dean didn't run in 2008, so we can only determine what he proposed when he did run, and attempt to conclude what he would have offered up had he won at that time....and it doesn't look like he would have proposed single payer or a PO.

Had he won in 2004, then we could easily project that the outcome of the 2004 elections would have been totally different as to the make up of our congress, as we can safely then assume that more progressives would have been elected, since Howard Dean would have had coattails that would have given us a much different congress than what we ended up with, with a Bush win instead.

Trying to "Figure" what he would have tried to implement in 2009, when he didn't even run in 2008, would be taking reality much further than we reasonably can.

So what we have is what he actually proposed as a starting point,
and what the Senate Bill that passed actually looks like.

When those two are contrasted and compared, the Senate Bill actually looks better.
That's a fact.

[hulka38]

25. ..in 2004. Being 11 seats short of overcoming a filibuster isn't a problem? Dems were

the minority party. A PO couldn't have possible made its way out of any Republican controlled committee. You guys hang around this board fretting daily about you slim 18 seat advantage. The chess board of today is completely different than the way it looked six years ago. It is therefore a different game. You see that reality, right?


"Had he won in 2004, then we could easily project that the outcome of the 2004 elections would have been totally different as to the make up of our congress, as we can safely then assume that more progressives would have been elected, since Howard Dean would have had coattails that would have given us a much different congress than what we ended up with, with a Bush win instead." - you can easily project what? Break this down for me please.

[Bluenorthwest]

28. We also know that he did not foist 'mandates' on us

Dean's plan had no forced purchase element, Obama's plan forces people to buy defective products. Obama himself loudly mocked such mandates during his campaign, and derided those who suggested them. He claimed to be holding a well thought out position that could not be argued. No mandates.

[Oregone]

30. Obama didn't either until AFTER he was elected

There is no proof of what Dean would of brought to the table. No proof at all. It could of been better or worse than what he campaigned on. His rhetoric was certainly killer though.

[hulka38]

34. What proof could there possibly be outside of Dean as a candidate in 2008 spelling it out?

None. So why even make that point? Frenchycat speculated that Dean wouldn't have had the PO on his plan for 2008 based on 2004. So, let's speculate.
Why wouldn't any serious Democratic candidate for president campaign on giving the American people a PO in 2008? With huge majorities in the house and a 15-20 seat advantage in the Senate, Repubs at 20% approval, a change mandate that we know existed regardless of who the candidate was, a popular issue especially with Democrats and the chance to do something historic, is there any question about where the candidates would stand on HCR in 2008? Obama, Clinton and Edwards all made the case for a PO. How could they not? They were competing with each other for Democratic votes. Can you suggest that Dr. Dean would have advocated for no PO in that political climate? That makes sense to you? Dean would have come out more conservative than Obama, Clinton and Edwards on this issue that he cares as deeply about as any and argued against the PO? Nonsense. Dean would have been leading the call for a PO.

[Oregone]

29. But he sure did have much better populistic and socialistic rhetoric

I was young then and he fooled me too at the time. Seems like people like being fooled though. No one wises up to these people who use certain imagery, motif, and language to get elected and don't support policy that coincides with it.

[dkf]

33. As long as there are no mandates I don't need a public option.

I'm perfectly fine with Deans plan and think it is infinitely preferable to what is being proposed.

[cliffordu]

37. Explain to those of us interested in your contempt

why you think this isn't true.

Examples would be preferable.

[jaxx]

2. +1

and then some.

[dkf]

3. The error is in thinking we have staved off economic collapse.

All we've done is stuck our finger in the hole in the dike. We haven't solved the structural deficiences nor have we done what was promised which was to keep unemployment at 8 percent.

Unemployment is a bigger problem than health care. With high unemployment there are even less people with health care.

[damonm]

19. Get some reality, please.

At NO point was keeping unemployment at 8 percent promised. In point of fact, I distinctly recall the President saying unemployment may reach 10 percent.
Unless of course, you're referring to this debunked GOP talking point?
http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2009/jul/09/promise-or-projection-unemployment/

No argument about unemployment being a huge problem, but you neglect the salient fact that high health care costs are a contributing factor in continued high unemployment. Once HC is solved (or on the road to being solved, as the current bill is only a start), that takes upward pressure off unemployment, and REAL work on fixing the jobs market can start.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

22. Before lecturing others about "reality" try to get your own facts straight

"At NO point was keeping unemployment at 8 percent promised. In point of fact, I distinctly recall..."

The world is not limited to what you recall, distinctly or otherwise.

The administration said that the stimulus package would keep unemployment below 8%.

AFTER it ripped through 8% without a backward glance the president say it may reach 10%.


After the first 2000 dead and 500 billion spent Bush started saying the Iraq War would be expensive and hard. I distinctly recall it. But that doesn't mean that at NO point (the caps are a nice touch, BTW) did he suggest it would be cheap and easy.

[dkf]

32. Thanks. That is exactly what I was referring to.

[damonm]

40. And the post to which I responded is STILL wrong.

So try actually reading the link before you castigate others to "try getting (their) own facts straight".
The claimed "promise" never happened. According to PolitiFact:

...
The debate about the numbers comes from the inherent uncertainty in economic forecasting. How can you ever prove that if the unemployment rate gets to X percent, it would or would not have gotten a point or two higher if not for the stimulus? The same holds true for Republicans who say the rising unemployment rates prove the stimulus isn't working. Again, it's difficult to empirically prove whether they're right or wrong.

We're certainly not going to try here. What we can rule on, however, is whether the Obama administration "promised" that unemployment rates would not rise above 8 percent if the stimulus were passed. We could find no instance of anyone in the administration directly making such a public pledge.

What we saw from the administration in January was a projection, not a promise. And it was a projection that came with heavy disclaimers.
(snip)
"It should be understood that all of the estimates presented in this memo are subject to significant margins of error," the report states. "There is the more fundamental uncertainty that comes with any estimate of the effects of a program. Our estimates of economic relationships and rules of thumb are derived from historical experience and so will not apply exactly in any given episode. Furthermore, the uncertainty is surely higher than normal now because the current recession is unusual both in its fundamental causes and its severity." (Emphasis added)

Doesn't sound like a promise to me. Didn't to PolitiFact either. So unless you're going to try and tell me Eric Can't-or is correct...

[Cha]

4. President Obama and Team are

working with reality while bloggers and corporatemediaWhores are trying to bring them down through all their negative carping. My money is on this White House.

[TheWraith]

5. Kicked and recommended. nt

[firedupdem]

9. A-Men is right. K&R n/t

[dionysus]

11. BOOM

[depakid]

18. Juveniles spouting off about "concern trolling" are likely to be singing a different tune on Nov. 3

I guess every generation has to learn the hard way...

[boomerbust]

35. That would be

"Down Under concern trolls" to you. Tie me kangaroo down sport, tie me kangaroo down.

[depakid]

38. Parties that refuse to listen to feedback tend not to be successful in the next election

Rather like parties and politicians who don't listen to experts who get it right- and instead pander to corporate interests.

Australia's labor government listened to their experts- consequently, unemployment is 5,2% nationwide and falling, whereas failing to listen and close the output gap while slashing federal aid to states from the stimulus has needlessly cost American jobs.

You also could have been on your way to an Australian style two tiered universal health care system by creating a robust public option- well over 70% of the populations supported such a policy- but again, too many Democrats wouldn't listen.

Good luck with that come November....

[Bluenorthwest]

26. It is absurd to expect rank and file Democrats to go after the

GOP while Obama keeps wailing for bipartisanship, calling them honest brokers and the like. He sets the tone. At Town Halls, when the people boo the Republicans, Obama wags his finger and says don't do that. He constantly praises them.
If he wants us to go after the GOP, he has to stop running interference for them. He needs to join us. He is the leader, by his own request. His tone sets the way.
Learn that, things might go better.

[Bluenorthwest]

27. Crickets....another drive by drooling...

why post a comment to an OP who does not replay for hours, to anyone posting anything.

[Number23]

31. That Cole guy is all right with me

My favorite comment in response to his piece:

"Stupid country, stupid party, both don’t deserve Barack Obama."

[donco6]

36. Darn, you skipped the best part:

"In a lengthy interview in his office on Wednesday, Mr. Axelrod was often defiant, saying he did not give a “flying” expletive “about what the peanut gallery thinks” and did not live for the approval “of the political community.” "

He's been hanging with Rahm too much. I guess NO one cares what we think.

[NYC_SKP]

39. K & R! nt

[Cha]

41. KR