The Senate Bill

Dee:
.
Believe me when I say that I'm sincere in asking:
.
What in God's name are you talking about?
.
Nobody's happy about this legislation. It's a compromise that satisfies noone, and probably creates more problems than it fixes.
.
The best that can be said about it at this point is that it's better than nothing, and that it won't damage the country or our finances more than something else that's been proposed.
.
Even if you disagree completely with that assessment, why is it incumbent upon Karen Tumulty to cheerlead?
.
Why is she required to construct balance? Isn't that the problem with He Said/She Said reporting...that balancing messages is deemed to be a higher priority than truth-telling?
.
I'm honestly not baiting you, so I'd appreciate it if you weren't to respond (if you should so choose) with needlessly abrasive language or invective...Thanks, Dee.

Stuart speak for yourself. This Pollyanna way you look at legislation is frankly childish and counterproductive. When you think of the programs that have made such a difference to ordinary people over the years like Social Security, Medicare, Unemployment insurance. Welfare, Civil rights, etc. None of them are currently in the same form that they started. They all began as far more imperfect compromises and the foundation for them didn't make anyone comptelely happy -- just read up on how roosevelt felt about social security, Instead of stiomping your feet and shaking your head no because you can't get everything you want, adults have the good sense to understand that its the foundation that's important. After 70 years we may finally have that foundation to perfect and change a nation, it starts out by releaving the fear of millions of people who are right now living inn mortal fear of flu season. Just because everyone you know thinks exactly like you do, the hubris it takes to believe that everyone is like you, thinks like you, believes what you believe is beyond descrption. The bottom line is that this legislation is not perfect, but nevertheless it is historic, it is doable and someday it might even be perfect. But if we listen only to those with no sense of history we will end up with nothing that helps anyone now or in the future. And the next time you say something so nonsensical as "no one is happy" you might want to ask yourself "What in God's name are you talking about" There are plenty of people who can't get health insurance, who understand politics and the consequences for failure on our nation going forward and the potential for achievement once the foundation has been laid who are jumping over the freaking moon.

I'm pretty certain that the number of ordinary Americans that are "jumping over the freaking moon" about this cluster-f*ck is fairly small, but I could be wrong, I suppose.
.
The point is that it's not Tumulty's job to create "balance".
.
That's the sort of working the refs that the rightists attempt with evolution or climate change reporting.

Now as to KT I have been arguing, obviously unsuccessfully with you, that the media has done more to shape negative public opinion than any other entity. Anyone with a real understanding of polling understands the role of media in shaping public opinion and the media doesn't take any responsibility for framing the debate in ways deliberately designed to feed their presumptive narrative. KT has admittedly, consistently framed health care reform from the perspective of it failed before and it will fail again, regardless of the differences in circumstances. Now, if balance is the imperative then its time for some positive framework. If the objective is honesty then against I say its time for some positive framework. I am not asking her to cheerlead anything, I am asking tor something other than "Senate Bill" She had no trouble finding a more descriptive headline when the news was negative. I mean when the house bill passed I think the most positive headline I saw that week was "House passes health care by only two votes" get my drift. Now you don't have to agree, but I would appreciate you asking more questions and making fewer accusations.

SZ actually i think the bill is plenty good. First of all, the subsidy levels have increased by 80 billions over 10 years, from 98 billion to 106 billion. coverage is still maintained at 94%. But the legislation doesn't just pay for itself anymore. It's actually bending-the-cost-curve. By 130 billion in the first decade. Then by 680 (?) billion in the second decade. One could only speculate that this will increase in the 3rd and 4th decade. And i mean, for an 849 billion investment, reducing the deficit by about 800 billion is a pretty herculean effort for our dysfunctional congressional system.
.
Now we just gotta make sure there aren't enough loopholes in the law (like the recent tobacco law funding SCHIP) that takes away all the savings.

Well I'm glad to know that you at least have the humility to posit the possibility that you might be wrong about the 31 million people, disproportionately minorities, who don't have health insurance and are scared to death that the swine flu might be the last straw. Who by the way don't give a crap about your centrist, rightist, what ever war and just support the president and have been giving unwavering support for the Democratic agenda for the past 40 years and to whom health care is a top priority because they have been on the short end of bad health care whether they have insurance coverage or not.

Dee point taken on the inherent negativism of reporting. but u n SZ might need to take the chill pill because you both are arguing two very different things and you're not even realizing it.

lupercal5
November 19, 2009
at 3:50 pm

Why take a chill pill? I think Dee is dead on, and am frankly tired of SZ suggesting that very few people support what is being proposed. His generalization of people's views is no different than what the GOP's messaging has been.

The vast majority of 'ordinary' people have minimal knowledge of what is really in these proposals - they are relying on the shoddy reporting our media is doing - and I think we can all agree that no one is going to have an understanding of the proposals if they are relying on CNN/MSNBC/FOX, etc.

I, for one, would be happy if in 2 years I am paying a bit more for health care but with that incease there were now a safety net for me if my circumstances were to change. I'm probably going to be paying more anyway! Having a society where people are covered for health care brings implicit benefits to all of us - and if what is being proposed brings us closer to that - than I support it.

Dee:
.
You're being needlessly abrasive again, and your coherence is suffering for it. Would it hurt you to be a bit less antagonistic?

Stuart -- I don't get it, is it that you don't recognize your own abrasiveness or do you only recognize it when its turned back on you? I suggest that you reread the thread and you might discover that it was you that lit the first flame. Perhaps you think prefacing your comment with "you are asking sincerely" somehow softens the impact of asking someone "what in God's name are they thinking?" But I'm afraid it doesn't. So the next time you want to chastise someone else for not being polite perhaps you'll first ask yourself what you might have done to deserve it?

Dee:
.
You aren't denying that you've got a huge chip on your shoulder that tends to an unnecessarily confrontational posture characterizing your commentary, are you?
.
You honestly don't think that you could be less abrasive or react in a little less ad hominem-filled way in general?
.
Like I asked previously, would it hurt you to be a little less antagonistic?
.
Just so you understand that I'm trying to help the forum be more readable, and not playing tit for tat, go ahead and have the last word, if you'd like.

problem is Dee is dead on. and SZ is dead on. They're just talking over each other. The media's propensity is to lean towards skepticism. it's just the default position and it's justified. but oftentimes they'll go the extra mile not to see the positives.
.
But it's just as true that the brand of journalism practiced by the likes of Chuck Todd, CNN etc... is about trying to settle somewhere between the two ideological ends as a false misconception of BALANCE. Prime example with the torture probe.
.
But these are different things. Dee is addressing the question of cynicism in journalism and SZ is just talking about the media not upholding truthtelling as its standards versus political cover. different things.
and it's not worth the petty squabble we see here. who cares if someone is abrasive. we don't need anyone to make confessions and admit to guilt here. just move on.

and besides it was a fairly innocuous comment. i mean yeah, why not look at the positive aspect of almost getting health care done after so many tries for a change? it wouldn't change a darn thing about the professionalism of KT

Typical Microsoft, nothing they produce is downward compatible the new stuff can read my old stuff, but the old stuff can not read the new.

Thanks for that link to FDL, deconstructiva.

KT:
.
I just converted the powerpoint presentation to a pdf and emailed it to you.

…your welcome, stuart. I hope recon is a real option here, what does KT think? Can you help all of us turn this powerpt. file into a .pdf or other format we can read? thx

maybe im getting lost in the numbers here but didn't the House bill cost 1.2 trillion? it was fully balanced (a second decade analysis wasn't provided so we don't know about cost-curve-bending or what have you), but the merged senate bill costs 849 billion.

lupercal5:
.
On page 21 there is the detail:

SAVINGS OVERVIEW
2010‐2019
.
Total Savings:
.
House: 1,440
.
SFC: 1,018
.
Merged: 1,109

As far as "bending the cost curve" goes, that should have never been the goal of the legislation, since that doesn't mean actually reducing the price of health care in the US.
.
US HHS says that health care costs are going up 6.1% a year. If this limits us to 5% a year, that's not going to stop Medicare from going broke (or the rest of us).
.
The overall problem isn't that we need to slow the price of health care from reaching $8000 per person in the US, it's that we need to reduce the price from its current $7400 per person now.
.
These savings aren't significant compared to the 2.2 trillion dollars the United States spends on health care every single year, and won't get us on track with the rest of the wealthy world that spend half that amount.

ah. i see. Do note though that savings aren't the same as costs. The House realizes more savings but the senate is at a lower cost.
.
if you were looking for a bill that will reduce prices to about what other developed countries spend in a ten/twenty year window, then perhaps you're in dire need of a group therapy session here.

Thanks for the compliment, but what I did honestly doesn't take any special knowledge or tech skill to accomplish.

As oppose to what rusty -- continuing to live off our reputation for greatness until there is nothing left of the country to salvage except its military and offer ourselves up as the global rent-a-cop for hire to emerging economic powers in Asia and Europe to pay our bills. And while we all get used to shopping in Kmart and eating hamburger helper what else should we do to get use to a lower standard of living as the future goes on to pass us by. Now if you are content to act like Friday night rodeo, high school football, a beer and the Texas two-step is all anyone needs to be happy in life so be it, but I want my children to have a better future and the Palin version of know nothing, GOP governance is clearly not the path I'd choose to go.

Oh God we're doomed! Dee has offspring!

2thirds:

By virtue of paentage that child never stood a chance.

Somehow Dee thinks having everything provided by government is not a third world existence. Maybe she should visit Cuba and watch folks attempt to cross the ocean in a '56 Chevy hood to get to this third world country.

I aghee with Dee on this.
.
Rusty I remember, many years ago we had a tax on the beniofits we rcvd from our employer, looking back at it I didn't mind.
.
For the life of me I do not understand the problem of paying taxes. It all seems like a bargin to me. God knows I have used Government benifits over the years.
.
I think a society benifits the average person. Certainly the wealthy take great advantage of iot also. Actualy it benifits everyone.