Specter to switch parties

[Lunar]

Sam:

Health care reform is happening differently this time... to lazy to list all the differences and how Obama is avoiding making the same massive mistakes [he'll make new ones but probably not as behemoth as Hillary did in '94]

Ironically for your economic doomsday predictions Sam, I recently went to a talk by one of the key vote-counters on health care reform in DC, and they are worried that the economy is going to recover too quickly to the point that people won't want it anymore.  If people can easily pay for their own health care and are satisfied with their coverage, they are going to be far more afraid of upsetting the status quo.  If the recession keeps people's incomes and employment down, the public is going to be a lot more receptive to some sort of massive reform.

[Ronnie]

I didn't really want to say this but:

Keystone, you were right.  Specter is a spineless, opportunistic, scumbag.  I apologize for doubting you.

[Mr.Phips]

Obviously as a crazy liberal, I am not too pleased.

Crazy liberals prefer not to have health care reform get past a filibuster?

They were going to pass it without putting it to vote on the floor. Republicans wouldn't have been able to filibuster anyway.

I can't wait for the health care reform to come up and get analyzed properly.  The bond market had a complete sh!t back in 1994 with health care, so much so it pretty much destroyed any chance of it getting passed (it's perhaps the most important reason no one knows about).

A bond market sh!t is going to happen eventually, and the sooner it happens, the better for our future.

Democrats are not stupid this time.  They know that if they dont pass health care reform by mid 2010, its over for them.  That is why they made it so a bill can be passed with 50 votes plus Biden after October 15th.  If Clinton had done this in 1993, he probably would have gotten health care.  

[© Tweed the Younger]

Holy shit.

When Franken is seated, the Dems will have a filibuster proof majority.

meaningless, the 60 will never vote as a bloc coherently

[Mr.Phips]

Sam:

Health care reform is happening differently this time... to lazy to list all the differences and how Obama is avoiding making the same massive mistakes [he'll make new ones but probably not as behemoth as Hillary did in '94]

Ironically for your economic doomsday predictions Sam, I recently went to a talk by one of the key vote-counters on health care reform in DC, and they are worried that the economy is going to recover too quickly to the point that people won't want it anymore.  If people can easily pay for their own health care and are satisfied with their coverage, they are going to be far more afraid of upsetting the status quo.  If the recession keeps people's incomes and employment down, the public is going to be a lot more receptive to some sort of massive reform.

That is exactly what happened in 1993/1994.  The economy started to improve quickly by Fall 1993 and I dont think it was a coincidence that this was around the same time that support for Clinton's healthcare plan plummeted.  

[All life is a blur of Republicans and meat.]

I didn't really want to say this but:

Keystone, you were right.  Specter is a spineless, opportunistic, scumbag.  I apologize for doubting you.

Now kiss his ring.

[Bleeding heart conservative, HTMLdon]

I didn't really want to say this but:

Keystone, you were right.  Specter is a spineless, opportunistic, scumbag.  I apologize for doubting you.

Now kiss his ring.

You don't want to know where he keeps that ring....

[Marokai]

I didn't really want to say this but:

Keystone, you were right.  Specter is a spineless, opportunistic, scumbag.  I apologize for doubting you.

Really I don't see anything wrong with it. It's opportunistic, sure, but I think it says more about the Republican Party that they're:

A) Losing voters at a ridiculous speed, leaving mostly only the far right left.
B) Republicans are far less tolerant of differing ideologies than the Democrats and don't tolerate his moderate views.

Sure Specter is doing what's best to win re-election, but I don't see anything wrong with it since it mostly fits his political views and Republicans don't tolerate heretics anyway.

[Marokai]

I didn't really want to say this but:

Keystone, you were right.  Specter is a spineless, opportunistic, scumbag.  I apologize for doubting you.

Now kiss his ring.

You don't want to know where he keeps that ring....

Well, y'know, Phil's type and all..

[Sam Spade]

Health care reform is happening differently this time... to lazy to list all the differences and how Obama is avoiding making the same massive mistakes [he'll make new ones but probably not as behemoth as Hillary did in '94]

Well, the first thing he's doing is not telling anyone what he's going to do with the money.  Essentially, he's asking for the money, telling everyone that private care will still be around, but not explaining his own plan.  Sounds kinda like our invasion into Iraq.

The fact is that the numbers I've run through what it would take to cover everyone greatly outweigh the "down payment" unless you're going to do some severe rationing.

Ironically for your economic doomsday predictions Sam, I recently went to a talk by one of the key vote-counters on health care reform in DC, and they are worried that the economy is going to recover too quickly to the point that people won't want it anymore.  If people can easily pay for their own health care and are satisfied with their coverage, they are going to be far more afraid of upsetting the status quo.  If the recession keeps people's incomes and employment down, the public is going to be a lot more receptive to some sort of massive reform.

I'm not interested in vote-counters.  And most politicians don't know sh!t about economics.  If they think things are going to recover quickly, I have a bridge to sell them not far from where I am.

You're right that the public will be more acceptable to nationalized health care if times stay bad.  The problem is that the government isn't going to able to fund endlessly for *that* much longer without severe raises in taxes or major cuts in spending (which also will therefore mean rationing in health care).  It is only a matter of time.

All I care about is that private health care is kept around, so that I can avail myself of that option, as many doctors/hospitals will.

[Sam Spade]

Obviously as a crazy liberal, I am not too pleased.

Crazy liberals prefer not to have health care reform get past a filibuster?

They were going to pass it without putting it to vote on the floor. Republicans wouldn't have been able to filibuster anyway.

I can't wait for the health care reform to come up and get analyzed properly.  The bond market had a complete sh!t back in 1994 with health care, so much so it pretty much destroyed any chance of it getting passed (it's perhaps the most important reason no one knows about).

A bond market sh!t is going to happen eventually, and the sooner it happens, the better for our future.

Democrats are not stupid this time.  They know that if they dont pass health care reform by mid 2010, its over for them.  That is why they made it so a bill can be passed with 50 votes plus Biden after October 15th.  If Clinton had done this in 1993, he probably would have gotten health care.  

Go examine what the bond market did when the specifics about health care came out.

Also, I'm not going to comment on your other post for now - but right now is not 1993/94.  Nor will it be if health care reform is passed/not passed.

There are other games afoot.

[Mr.Phips]

I'm not interested in vote-counters.  And most politicians don't know sh!t about economics.  If they think things are going to recover quickly, I have a bridge to sell them not far from where I am.

You're right that the public will be more acceptable to nationalized health care if times stay bad.  The problem is that the government isn't going to able to fund endlessly for *that* much longer without severe raises in taxes or major cuts in spending (which also will therefore mean rationing in health care).  It is only a matter of time.

All I care about is that private health care is kept around, so that I can avail myself of that option, as many doctors/hospitals will.

 
Right now is not the time for politicians to worry about deficits.  Hoover tried to balance the budget in 1930-1931 as did FDR in 1937-1938 and it prolonged the depression.  I dont think politicians will start worrying about deficits again until the economy begins to recover.   
 
 
 

[blagohair.com]

Specter doesn't have any principles he just does what he has to in order to keep his job.  All this really means is that Pennsylvania has officially switched from swing state to democratic state.

[Sam Spade]

I'm not interested in vote-counters.  And most politicians don't know sh!t about economics.  If they think things are going to recover quickly, I have a bridge to sell them not far from where I am.

You're right that the public will be more acceptable to nationalized health care if times stay bad.  The problem is that the government isn't going to able to fund endlessly for *that* much longer without severe raises in taxes or major cuts in spending (which also will therefore mean rationing in health care).  It is only a matter of time.

All I care about is that private health care is kept around, so that I can avail myself of that option, as many doctors/hospitals will.

 
Right now is not the time for politicians to worry about deficits.  Hoover tried to balance the budget in 1930-1931 as did FDR in 1937-1938 and it prolonged the depression.  I dont think politicians will start worrying about deficits again until the economy begins to recover.   
 
 
 

We are not the same type of situation as in 1930-31 or 1937-38.  It's a debt-deflation, but of different type and form.  Not to mention where our government is.

I'm not addressing Roosevelt (although the reasons are similar), but Hoover didn't try to balance the budget in those years.  He was throwing money around more greatly than any President ever before (which he could to a certain extent because we had little debt and we were a creditor nation). 

He tried raising taxes to cover the budget deficit in 1932, but that was because the bond market dislocated (i.e. took a giant sh!t) when the government raised the public debt limit from $16 billion to $19 billion, and he was concerned about borrowing more.  That's also the reason why the Feds had to raise interest rates at that point.

Anyway, I'm dragging the thread off-topic.  So no more from me.

[The Head Beagle]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

[Marokai]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

[Mr.Phips]

I'm not interested in vote-counters.  And most politicians don't know sh!t about economics.  If they think things are going to recover quickly, I have a bridge to sell them not far from where I am.

You're right that the public will be more acceptable to nationalized health care if times stay bad.  The problem is that the government isn't going to able to fund endlessly for *that* much longer without severe raises in taxes or major cuts in spending (which also will therefore mean rationing in health care).  It is only a matter of time.

All I care about is that private health care is kept around, so that I can avail myself of that option, as many doctors/hospitals will.

 
Right now is not the time for politicians to worry about deficits.  Hoover tried to balance the budget in 1930-1931 as did FDR in 1937-1938 and it prolonged the depression.  I dont think politicians will start worrying about deficits again until the economy begins to recover.   
 
 
 

We are not the same type of situation as in 1930-31 or 1937-38.  It's a debt-deflation, but of different type and form.  Not to mention where our government is.

I'm not addressing Roosevelt (although the reasons are similar), but Hoover didn't try to balance the budget in those years.  He was throwing money around more greatly than any President ever before (which he could to a certain extent because we had little debt and we were a creditor nation). 

He tried raising taxes to cover the budget deficit in 1932, but that was because the bond market dislocated (i.e. took a giant sh!t) when the government raised the public debt limit from $16 billion to $19 billion, and he was concerned about borrowing more.  That's also the reason why the Feds had to raise interest rates at that point.

Anyway, I'm dragging the thread off-topic.  So no more from me.

Hoover did try to balance the budget.  He raised taxes and cut some spending because fiscal policy before 1933 was simply to "balance the budget". 

[Sam Spade]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

That's not my argument - I'm merely looking for the straw that breaks the camel's back.  I actually still think the straw comes in Europe.

As for other health care systems, all you need to look at is tax receipts and government spending and a couple of other things.

One of the reasons why other Western countries don't have a problem with government  health care is because the US subsidizes drug costs to a huge extent.  Not to mention that US funding of global military expenditures allows other Western countries to fund health care/welfare obligations.  Thirdly, compare taxation levels between other Western countries and the US  Fourth, compare what other countries provide in terms of health care as opposed to the US.

And even then - these other Western countries have and have had shockingly high deficits/debt levels during the bubble growth.  They're, quite frankly, more levered than the US.

Just some more food for thought. 

[Mr.Phips]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

That's not my argument - I'm merely looking for the straw that breaks the camel's back.  I actually still think the straw comes in Europe.

As for other health care systems, all you need to look at is tax receipts and government spending and a couple of other things.

One of the reasons why other Western countries don't have a problem with government  health care is because the US subsidizes drug costs to a huge extent.  Not to mention that US funding of global military expenditures allows other Western countries to fund health care/welfare obligations.  Thirdly, compare taxation levels between other Western countries and the US  Fourth, compare what other countries provide in terms of health care as opposed to the US.

And even then - these other Western countries have and have had shockingly high deficits/debt levels during the bubble growth.  They're, quite frankly, more levered than the US.

Just some more food for thought. 

Well, if the US had universal healthcare, they would be able to get rid of the subsidies for drug costs. 

[Sam Spade]

How has every other western country managed the astonishing combination of a public health system and a (pre-2008) functioning bond market?

Not to drag this thread too far into the ditch but I have to agree that I doubt the introduction of a government health-care program will cause the destruction of the American economy as we know it..

That's not my argument - I'm merely looking for the straw that breaks the camel's back.  I actually still think the straw comes in Europe.

As for other health care systems, all you need to look at is tax receipts and government spending and a couple of other things.

One of the reasons why other Western countries don't have a problem with government  health care is because the US subsidizes drug costs to a huge extent.  Not to mention that US funding of global military expenditures allows other Western countries to fund health care/welfare obligations.  Thirdly, compare taxation levels between other Western countries and the US  Fourth, compare what other countries provide in terms of health care as opposed to the US.

And even then - these other Western countries have and have had shockingly high deficits/debt levels during the bubble growth.  They're, quite frankly, more levered than the US.

Just some more food for thought. 

Well, if the US had universal healthcare, they would be able to get rid of the subsidies for drug costs. 

But who else would pay then?  It would have to be the ROW, at least according to the Torie model, which at least makes sense.  Of course, that means that their health care costs would skyrocket.  Kinda what I'm saying above.

Moreover, if the government tries to tell Big Pharma to take less in terms of payments, what do you think they're going to do?  Maybe they won't spend as much for R&D.  Maybe there won't be as much supply (rationing).  Maybe the government will mandate that only certain drugs will be used to limit costs.  If there's still a private market in the US, they could attempt and raise prices severely on those consumers to make up, in addition to ROW, but I doubt that would make a difference.

I'm not going to even touch the third option - government takeover of drug manufacturing - that would be amusing.

You see - we can't just twist a square peg into a round hole just because we want "universal health care."  Consequences must be examined.  Government actions will have effects - namely on the private markets and allocation of resources.

[Kevin]

What the hell just happened with Senator Specter of PA?

After the election he was giving alot of indication that he was certainly going to stay epublican even though he voted for Obama and the Democartic Congress's Stimulus.

Then the news is flipped on it class toda and I see that Senator Arlen Specter (R-PA) has become Senator Arlen Specter (D-PA)!

So what the hell just happened here?

I personally think he did this because he was going to face an uphill battle in a Republican primary and decided he was safer off with the Democrats, a purely personal politcal move!

[Speed of Sound]

http://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=95398.0

This may answer most of your questions.

[Marokai]

Or it was maybe because the Republicans have turned into the Party of Palin (alternatively Bloc Dixie) and have shifted far to the right, and the in PA Republicans have lost 200,000+ registered Republicans to the Democratic Party thus shifting the Party Primary electorate even more and maybe it has something to do with the Republicans not tolerating moderates.

Or it could be because Arlen Specter is evil, whatever.

[Lunar]

Or it was maybe because the Republicans have turned into the Party of Palin (alternatively Bloc Dixie) and have shifted far to the right, and the in PA Republicans have lost 200,000+ registered Republicans to the Democratic Party thus shifting the Party Primary electorate even more and maybe it has something to do with the Republicans not tolerating moderates.

That all was obvious before he made firm claims he'd never switch parties and started to reverse his positions on labor

[Marokai]

Or it was maybe because the Republicans have turned into the Party of Palin (alternatively Bloc Dixie) and have shifted far to the right, and the in PA Republicans have lost 200,000+ registered Republicans to the Democratic Party thus shifting the Party Primary electorate even more and maybe it has something to do with the Republicans not tolerating moderates.

That all was obvious before he made firm claims he'd never switch parties and started to reverse his positions on labor

I'm not ignoring the obvious opportunism, I'm just saying that acting like this switch was due to Specter being evill is ridiculous, there are reasons.