Airplanes!

« The Sarah Palin Reality Show | Main | Super Duper Evildoers »

November 17, 2009

Disconnect

According to the new ABC News poll, 72 percent of Americans support the public option.

Meanwhile, Dick Durbin says "it's a struggle" to get 60 votes for the public option in the Senate.

In a strict 100 senators equals 100 percent representation, this means that at least 12 senators don't give a shit what you think. At least. If there are only 55 or 56 votes for the public option, that means even more senators are out of touch with the American people.

The other thing I've been wondering about is what level of polling approval would single-payer require in order to get 60 votes in the Senate (insofar as 60 votes are needed for cloture, barring a reconciliation vote). I mean, 72 percent is massive super-majority support and yet it's this much of a struggle. What would single-payer require? 80 percent? 90 percent?


Filed under: Healthcare || Polls || Public Option || Single-Payer

Digg This Post  Reddit This  Share on Facebook  Add to del.icio.us  Add to Stumble Upon

Posted By Bob Cesca | November 17, 2009 12:30 PM

Comments

@Cesca: In order to get single payer, you would need a 90% approval of it by members of Congress, not the American people.

Posted by: Allonfla [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 12:43 PM

But Bob, you know that there are two Senators per state and that the people that have the most influence also, unfortunately, come from the least populated states.

Given the incentives, what's a Senator to do? Apparently, the good of the whole country is less important that re-election.

What kills me is that if most of these folks (read Senators from Maine) lose in the next election, they will make tons of money on the lecture circuits.

I am so confused about what makes these people tick.

Posted by: ec [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 1:17 PM

I remain highly skeptical that any bill with a public option can get through the Senate. As Durbin points out, they're "struggling" to get 60 votes behind it. If they can't muster the 60 votes, does anyone seriously believe that Reid will go with reconciliation? Not a chance.
Meanwhile, McConnell is saying they want to delay a vote by at least 6 weeks, which puts us into 2010, and yet another looming election. This doesn't look so good.

Posted by: Canadian Simon [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 1:20 PM

I am so confused about what makes these people tick.

M.O.N.E.Y. for re election.

Posted by: Jan [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 1:22 PM

Certainly there is a segment which plainly does not give a shit, but I think an even larger segment is utterly disconnected from real people and mainstreet america.

When they spend so much time hunkered down in Washington, going to lunch with lobbyists and watching corporate media news, its no wonder they have no idea what average people go through. And think about the guys who have been there for multiple terms or even decades.

Posted by: J M Ashby [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 1:31 PM

I've been reading the House bill and it's really not so hot. The most dismaying is premiums won't even go down much. If one is so called middle class this won't help you much. Low income folks will do a little better. Lots of restrictions, tons of "rules and regs", does nothing to keep the ins. companies from raising their premiums to whatever they want. It truly is a big gift to ins. companies and huge gift to big pharma.

The mandate is disturbing and most likely illegal if there is no po. The govt. cannot FORCE us to buy a commodity. If they do mandate us with no alternative, I think you will see this country finally wake up. There will be legal challenges all over the place and probably class actions on behalf of us. This isn't really "reform".

I think Obama should trash it all and start over with Medicaid for folks fifty and above and kids and perhaps the unemployed for now. That would be a start and get alot of people covered immediately. This bill does nothing to get us away from employment based insurance. Only if you are not employed or work for a company that doesn't give insurance can you get in on a po.

It has just become a huge political mess.

Posted by: Jan [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 2:04 PM

It because they're total assholes who believe that if they do nothing controversial, they will get reelected. Of course, they would also get reelected if they did what is in the best interest of the people. But these guys all subscribe to the beltway CW, and we all pay the price for it.

And of course there's the fact that they get paid to work for the giant corporations...

Posted by: Ari Rutenberg [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 2:21 PM

I read in the NYT today that the bill is pretty much dead and won't pass this year....

In a report to investors on Tuesday, Richard Evans, an analyst with Sector & Sovereign in New York, writes, “We no longer expect Congress to pass impactful health reform legislation this year, or even in this political cycle.”

Mr. Evans cites several factors that he believes makes passage less and less likely, including the increasing public opposition to the overhaul, as well as the emergence of politically divisive issues like abortion and immigration in the debate over the legislation’s specifics.

http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/11/17/analyst-doubts-health-overhaul-can-pass/?hpw

How is this happening?

Posted by: indyinwc [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 2:32 PM

What would single-payer require? I don't know the exact number, but it would have to be preceded by a dollar sign, not followed by a percent sign.

Posted by: alopecia [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 3:28 PM

It would require taht our MS cover the issue accurately. They have enabled lies and falsehoods. --just like with Iraq.

Our media has provided cover for the bought and paid for Senate--They still...STILL paint the public option as unpopular and "far left."

Politics is sport for our millionaire media figures--who care really when people like Chris Matthews on the "liberal" MSNBC make 5M a year. He's gong to be just fine.

Posted by: JG [TypeKey Profile Page] at November 17, 2009 3:56 PM



pixel.jpg
rogue_blogging_logo.jpg

Buy my book!