Its not triangulation, its a clusterfuck

[ThomWV]

There is sort of a basic rule of argumentation that is that you can never come to agreement if the parties are not talking about the same thing. That, it seems to me, is much of the problem with the current public debate about health care financing. The sides are not talking about the same thing.

Where Progressives and the Insurance/Medical/Pharmaceutical-complex stand are clear. The IMP-complex wants to sustain high profits and avoid regulatory constraints on their activities. Progressives want improved health-care with universal coverage at reduced cost. The two perspectives are clearly at odds with each other

Where does the President stand? Which side does he support? Does he support either side, parts of each side, or something entirely different. I would suggest his goal is different than either the IMP-complex's or Progressives'.

The President has said time and again that the Nation is on an unsustainable path with will lead to bankruptcy if health care costs continue to rise at or near the current rate. His focus is on avoiding bankruptcy for the nation.

So ask yourself, how can any meaningful discussion take place between three groups when one is advocating profits, the second is advocating humanitarian care, and the third is focusing on national solvency? Answer - there can be no satisfactory conclusion at least as long as the argument maintains its current structure.

I'd really like to hear your thoughts on this. Are we indeed talking about three things or am I looking at it wrong?

[Buzz Clik]

1. I don't think your OP does justice to Obama's position.

Obama has never -- NEVER -- suggested that the only motivation for reforming health care was to balance the budget or something in the context of "national solvency." When he speaks of out-of-control health care costs, he means what you and I mean: it's getting more and more difficult to afford.

Are different sides worried about different things? Absolutely. Those with even semi-acceptable health care don't want to suddenly lose what they have or start paying more. Some people genuinely despise big government programs. Some in Congress are actually being bought off by the outside interests. For some of us, our number one interest is to make sure that everyone has affordable health care (that's a direct quote from Obama, by the way). Others want universal health care to be free and arranged by the government.

So, we're trying to find something acceptable to the majority in the midst of insane hysteria coming from all sides: "It's either my way, or go to hell!"

[ThomWV]

11. I didn't say balancing the budget

Sorry, maybe I didn't hit that part well. Its just that I've noticed the one point he has be utterly insistent on is that the current growth rate is unsustainable and he wasn't talking about monthly premiums - he was talking about health care costs so high they bust the national bank, so to speak. It is, as far as I've noticed, his one driving theme, that we must do something now because there is no future if we do not. This has nothing to do with IMP-complex profits, it has nothing to do with denial of care or coverage, nothing about caps and limits - it is just a matter of national economics and finance that something must be done. Of course he speaks to other issues too - he just did in an excellent speech before the AFL-CIO in Ohio in which all of the humanitarian issues were well addressed but note this. While all of the sub-issues are negotiable the only thing that isn't is refusal to make reforms - we can't afford not to.

That is why I say it is the most salient point, because it is the one demand that is not negotiable that something must be done.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

2. the problem is the president has not taken a stand.

Sure, he mouths the words about reform, etc. But he has never led on the issue. He left it to congress, as though it were radioactive. And he earned the dismay and sadness and anger that his lack of leadership has generated.

The problem with today's toxic reich wingers is that if you try to negotiate with them, or fire a top staffer because of their demands, that never pacifies them or satisfies them. It merely makes them more bold and hungry. That is precisely that is causing Beck's continued attacks and his most recent tweets.

[HereSince1628]

4. I think I heard a "BINGO!"

[HughMoran]

5. Yes, he showed no leadership in his speech to a joint session of Congress on 9-9-09

It's a shame that he failed even before he started.

[HereSince1628]

7. Exactly, and that's because you check the safety of the boat BEFORE going to sea

His, "I'll depend on Congress" to secure the safety of his most important progressive legislative initiative is a leadership failure.

Allowing the party to get in the position of trying to sell an unwritten bill over August is going to push us back another 8-12 years from reform, and in the mean time GOP approved mandated purchases of health-care will make the insurance companies rich.

Allowing the insurance companies to create a Wall street bubbling derivatives based on the dollars produced by those mandated insurance policies will create a monumental disaster somewhere about 2014-2016.

[ChairmanAgnostic]

9. giving a speech alone is not leadership

On some occasions, leadership means pulling the blue curs one by one, and grabbing them by the throat or the balls, depending on which works best, and squeezing. On others, it means sending messages about access to the White House, federal programs that he and his top folks control, and more. He has done none of the above. He hasn't even tried.

Weak knee'd leadership did in Jimmy Carter. I would hate to see history repeat itself, simply because Obama made the mistake of installing too many DLCers on his staff.

On economics, I am sorely disappointed.
On health care, I am livid.
On the environment? Wanna bet how soon Obama caves in to the perceived center, and drops important proposals like a hot potato?


One thing is certain. This is no liberal or progressive president. At best, he has been the president of "I dunno" while the GOP continues to win by being the party of "No"

[HereSince1628]

3. Historically, compromise to the middle has worked, but not now.

Once upon a time people thought of political positions as being represented by a unimodal bell-shaped curve, which might have some kurtosis, but which always had most of popular opinion in the middle.

The baby-boomers were raised on that notion. When asked most will still tell you they are moderates because they think that means mainstream.

The DLC was created on the same notion of the same big middle, the DLC'ers pushed to the right of their base because they thought, in part, that ultimately the middle is where careers were made with successful compromise legislation.

As Matthews says, HAH! The unimodal model of public sentiment is a myth. It is, unfortunately, burned into the minds of most elected Democrats and scratched into their desktops by generations of predecessors.

The reality is the politics of the nation are bi-modal, very much divided into partisan camps. There is no big middle, there is a little middle, composed mostly of old baby-boomers and die-hard DLC'ers.

When the gray and graying leaders go to the middle they lose support from both sides and get almost nothing good for their trouble from the depopulated wasteland that is desert of political opinion between the two parties.

[Mojambo]

6. Great post. n/t

[Individualist]

8. "Which side does he support?"

Hint: He began surrounding himself with DLCers as soon as he was elected.

[HiFructosePronSyrup]

10. My thoughts?

Well, "clusterfuck" sure entered my mind when I read your post.