My first thought at a Democrat winning the 26th district congressional race in upstate New York was one of deja vu. Didn’t this happen two years ago, with that seat up near Watertown, when McHugh was appointed Army Secretary? Bill Owens won, then won again last fall – the only Democrat in my little backwater region of upstate to manage reelection, as it turned out. Dems and liberal commentators tried to read that race as a bellwether, too, but it didn’t turn out to be predictive at all of the 2010 election. What matters is what the party does in between. If the Dems sit on their asses and wait for the check to arrive, they’ll be sorely disappointed.
There’s no denying, though, that this speaks to a strong undercurrent of distrust in the Medicare “reform” cooked up by Paul Ryan and company. As much as they try to dress up their voucher / privatization 
program, it’s still just a pig with way too much lipstick, and any fool can see it. I am a bit heartened that their attempt to buy off the elderly by saying their privatization scheme would only affect people under 55 (i.e. me) has thus far failed miserably. Perhaps they neglected to consider that eighty-year-olds might have fifty-year-old children. In the midst of all their yak about family values, they apparently forgot about families. Nice try, mothers!
This should be a gift to Democrats, but if they keep participating in the GOP narrative about deficit reduction, any political benefit will evaporate. Democrats have to overcome the generalized distrust people tend to have for all politicians, and they won’t do that by agreeing to choke off the sick, poor, and elderly person’s lifeline a little bit more gradually than their colleagues across the aisle. If they’re truly on the side of ordinary people, they should say to the Republicans: Want to cut the deficit? Bring tax rates on the wealthy at least back to where they were prior to 2001… or wherever they need to be. Shut down the wars, shutter the overseas bases, and cancel the over-the-top weapons programs. And join the rest of the developed world in building a single payer health care system for everyone, not just the oldest, poorest, and sickest people in the country. And by the way – insist that everything the U.S. government purchases is made in America.
Do all that, and if there’s still a massive long-term deficit, I’ll eat my shoes. (I don’t have a hat.)
luv u,
jp
point in the ad he says, “Taxes never made anyone healthy.” Interesting statement. I guess he’s never heard of Medicare, Medicaid, Social Security, various Health and Human Services programs, and any number of other government services, from OSHA to the FDA, that in some respect help us stay healthier as a result of tax revenues. Yeah, I know the ad is about a “sin” tax, but you can also see how taxes on cigarettes and alcohol have had a positive effect health-wise. In a sense, it’s just a way of having the price of something reflect the true cost. Sure, we want people to be healthier. But we also want to recover some of the cost of their NOT being healthy, like emergency care costs for people who sugar themselves into heart disease, stroke, diabetes, and the like. Don’t we?
And yet the philosophy continues to command respect. Somehow people like Grover Norquist and his ilk are still listened to, still asked for guidance. Meanwhile, the nation’s infrastructure is falling apart, our last major investments (beyond maintenance) in roads, bridges, tunnels, rail lines, etc., now decades old. A stiff wind storm knocks out power to whole states. Instead of investing in the future of this country, we’re putting band-aids over compound fractures. The most striking irony is that these programs are being starved by the kind of deficit hawks who constantly claim that they are doing this for our children and our grandchildren, i.e. not leaving them a huge debt. Fine. There’s a solution. Get people to understand that we need to pay for things, and that civilization is not free. That’s the central point of health reform, lackluster as it may be.
principle behind this choice – for example, the fact that the bill is flawed, that it gives too much to the insurance companies, that it doesn’t have a strong public option, that it is not a single payer plan, etc. But his reasoning appears to be based solely on political calculus. He’s reading the polling, and it’s showing a large majority of his district turning against the bill. Now, this isn’t too surprising, since the airwaves have been flooded with attack ads over the past month in particular, many sponsored by the national Chamber of Commerce (the folks who helped bring you our lack of a national health insurance plan in the first place). And, of course, they’ve stripped out some of the most popular aspects of the original plan in an attempt to please people who would never vote for the legislation in any form.
Mike’s take on this as that it should be done incrementally. Note to Congressman Arcuri: this is doing it incrementally. It would be a mistake to think of this bill as the last word on national health care. It is merely a stake in the ground, establishing the principle of a national system. Yeah, I think it’s a mess, and I’ve said so. It excludes far too many people. It preserves the profits of large sectors of our money-obsessed health care delivery system. It lacks the virtue of a public option for people who simply cannot get a decent plan in the private market. But the alternative is the wild west system (or lack of same) we have now. That is clearly unsustainable. Voting against an admittedly imperfect solution simply to please people like Don Jeror and other “tea party” basket cases is farcical, at best.