The Demoralized Democratic Base

[PHIMG]

The Demoralized Democratic Base
by David Sirota

http://www.openleft.com/diary/16358/the-demoralized-democratic-base

The Associated Press is insisting that Americans don't give a shit about President Obama's Afghanistan War escalation. An outlier poll from CNN goes even father, asserting that Americans actually love the idea of intensifying the war. So maybe it's true - maybe President Obama and Democrats won't face the same price Democrats faced, say, durning the NAFTA debacle when a Democratic president rolled "over the dead bodies" of the progressive base and then watched Democrats get crushed at the polls.

There's just one problem - more specific polls about the state of the Democratic base show. For instance, new polls show much of the erosion in support for Democrats' health care effort is coming from the progressive base that believes Democrats have compromised away too much to the insurance industry. More broadly, those polls show a general demoralization among self-identified Democratic voters:

Among Republican respondents, 81 percent said they were definitely or probably going to vote, versus only 14 percent who were definitely or not likely to do so. Among independent voters, it was 65-23. Among Democrats? A woeful 56-40: Two out of every five Democrats are currently unlikely to vote.

A look at key Democratic constituencies shows how demoralized the party's base currently is. Among African-Americans, just 34 percent are likely to vote, versus 54 percent unlikely to do so. Republican-leaning white voters clocked in at 66-29. Only 41 percent of 18- to 29-year-olds, a key constituency for Democrats in both 2006 and 2008, are likely to vote, compared to 49 percent likely to sit things out.

These numbers (of course) may end up changing dramatically between now and the 2010 election. But they highlight an important point: Destroying a political base often isn't only about one single issue, even an issue as important as a war. It's about a set of issues and, even further, an overall feeling of demoralization - one that can't be turned around a few weeks before an election with some cynical press releases and inspiring speeches.

So sure, the politics of the Afghanistan War are still fluid. But when you put the escalation next to Obama's wavering on the public option; next to his broken promises of transparency; next to his stances on the Patriot Act and Gitmo; next to his full-on abandonment of his NAFTA pledges - well, you get the kind of demoralization that Kos's new poll shows.

NOTE: To hear more about this, listen in to my interview this morning on KKZN-AM760 with author Chris Hedges here. Tune into the show on AM760 every morning from 7am-10am MST (9am-12pm ET) at www.am760.net.

[cliffordu]

1. I think this is complete garbage.

And if 'progressives' are this capricious and shallow, fuck them, I got no time.

The people I know and consider progressives work for what they want beyond showing up at the ballot box once every so many years and snivelling about how fucked up Obama is.

[tavalon]

4. We are only a year into the debacle called the Democratic majority

I will vote but I'm not exactly sure why. I'm somebody who has always voted, even in local elections and off year elections and volunteered in the Kerry headquarters and so on. I got some cred.If my reason is to vote just because it's what I do, bleeding hearts just like mine are going to stay home, refuse to vote for those who shat upon them yet again. You can be grumpy about progressives but I'm telling you, too many believed that thing about Hope and Change. We didn't realize it was just a brand recognition slogan.

[Raine]

100. That majority will most likely

be at an end by this time next year and unfortunately that loss will be something the Democratic party earned.

[wysimdnwyg]

5. Wow, take a look at the Dem "base"

Your statement is arrogant and incredibly short-sighted. Do you really think the majority of people who voted Democratic in the 2008 elections are anywhere near as dedicated as you and "the people you know and consider progressive"? Not by a long shot. The MAJORITY are only mildly interested in politics, and typically only as much as it directly affects them. What they see is a president who has abandoned a significant percentage of the policies on which he ran and for which they voted for him. How many Americans that voted for Obama did so because he backed closing Gitmo, health care reform that means a damn and fighting for the middle class? Instead, they get words, but no action. Gitmo is still open - and will be for the foreseeable future - HCR is turning into a boondoggle that will only help the insurance companies, and a "stimulus package" that has had very little visible effect on unemployment.

These polls don't suggest that group of people will vote for the Republicans en masse. It says they're disillusioned and will just stay home. While the Republican base has something to vote against, the Dem voters have nothing to vote FOR.

[AllentownJake]

8. Bingo

However, everyone will be mad at progressives for having the sanity to realize, you aren't doing shit and speaking out about it. Like if it wasn't said, it wouldn't be noticed.

[Le Taz Hot]

30. They're pissed at us anyway

so I don't see that we have anything to lose. :shrug:

[GrantDem]

47. +1

[DainBramaged]

79. +1000

It's my friends and neighbors, my kid, the guys in the shop, all angry because they are getting nowhere and Wall Street is getting richer. Our salaries are being cut, our deductibles are going up, a college education not only costs a fortune but may be meaningless, and everything I own is still pretty much made in China.


Maybe the Freeper here at work is right, we bought a bill of goods.

[AllentownJake]

7. Progressives aren't going to be the problem here nt.

[Lyric]

10. Well, well, well.

Now who has a "purity test?"

[cliffordu]

14. Nah, just tired of the ones that claim to be progressives and then seem to

be the most disappointed that Obama ain't the messiah.

And for the record I disagree with the bailout, the WAY the Afghan surge is going to be executed, the GLBT policies of this administration, but I won't be making infantile threats over any of it - I WILL keep writing letters and showing up at crapfests like the town halls.

If a candidate shows up that is more in line with my views than the incumbent I'll vote for them, until then I have to keep working with what I got.

If all the dems and 'progressives' stay home in 2012, they get the country they fucking deserve.

[Mithreal]

50. "...they get the country they deserve." What kind of country

are they getting now? The one they deserve? Are you getting the country you deserve?

[whatchamacallit]

53. +1

[cliffordu]

64. I'm not willing to sacrifice whatever is necessary to ensure that I am heard

and understood, and that whoever is in charge actually responds.

So yeah, I have EXACTLY the country I deserve - Bloated, selfish, misogynistic, racist, war addicted, owned by the corporations.....

People think sharing their thoughts on chat boards change the world.

That crazy guy who lived in front of the white house for all those decades had more effect on policy than every OP in every online community ever built.


IMNSHO. YMMV

[Mithreal]

88. If you were a multinational corporation you wouldn't have to talk sacrifice

We have the best government money can buy. Suggest that anyone who is apathetic gets the country they deserve and I say you are blaming symptoms and piling on. People who came out for this election and are trying to understand their government realize no matter what they do, they cannot compete on equal basis with the greedy and powerful. Maybe many return to acceptance, suffering, or apathy. Hell, even formerly strong organizing groups are caving to pressure.

Counting only the words from every op and not any effects then sure, you would be right. Just words in the past have had greater impact than you give credit and many an op has had me calling, knocking on doors, or personally in the face pressuring representatives. So discount it all you like and "ymmv", but maybe you are talking about how they effect you.

You don't know the effects of "every OP in every online community" so why do you say it with such certainty?

No one said "sharing their thoughts on chat boards change the world." But people have been able to change the world. Ideas change the world every day, maybe you or I have not directly invented one of those ideas, but I don't see that as a failing.

[SOS]

65. McCain

would now be bombing Iran and privatizing Social Security.
We certainly don't deserve that.

[cliffordu]

66. If we all stay home next time, we might.

[Mithreal]

89. You don't know that Obama won't do that as well.

President Obama warned China about playing ball or unleashing our dogs on Iran. The Obama economic team is coming after entitlements like social security.

Disclaimer: I am not saying Obama isn't an order of magnitude better.

[treestar]

25. If they are that unrealistic and give up so easily

What help are they?

[tkmorris]

31. What help are they? They elected Obama

I'm sure the hard-core, never-missed-an-election, Democrats straight ticket voter would like to believe that they elected Obama but they didn't, any more than they elected Kerry or Dukakis. Those people show up every election come hell or high water. It's the people who are fickle, those who may show or may not, the ones who need something to inspire them to get involved, THOSE are the people you need to show up for you if you want to win.

And I got news for you, right now it doesn't look good for 2010.

[seeinfweggos]

80. many didn't vote for obama to begin with

i have noticed that a lot of the obama bashers (when pressed) admit they voted Green last time. So big fucking whup.

[Mithreal]

90. Give me a break, no pressing required, hogwash

I have heard many people say they voted green when the polls in their states showed Obama with a healthy lead. Like voting green is some kind of smear?

I voted Kucinich in the WA state primary and in the caucus was a delegate for Obama. Suppose some knuckleheads would want to take a swipe for admitting that.

People who vote on their principles, even if they are so-called allies, are so worthless, am I right?

Oh wait, you were just talking about the bad progressives, nevermind.

[seeinfweggos]

91. no i'm talking about people who say obama has let them down

but didn't vote for him to begin with representing NO actual loss of support whatsoever.

[Mithreal]

92. Ok. Might I add that President Obama said he wanted to be everyone's President?

People may feel let down even if they did not vote for a particular candidate and have a right to expect things from any President. As an example, I was HIGHLY disappointed with Bush and I did not vote for him. No only did he lose my ACTUAL support but he angered me enough that I worked to see his agendas and party defeated ACTUALly.

A lot of those people you seem to be targeting would have voted for Obama if the race was closer in their state so no reason to ridicule them. Contacting the WH, talking to acquaintances, colleagues, friends, canvassing, blah blah blah, there is opportunity to support a President after the election even if you did not vote for him or her. Doesn't mean people will take advantage of those opportunities for ACTUAL support after the election but don't ignore it.

I think I get what you are saying though, but I think it is oversimplifying.

[seeinfweggos]

93. well, my reaction to the bush administration was lots of things but disappointment wasn't one

of them. and i don't think i am oversimplifying to point out that someone who voted green or republican or libertarian or whatever who says obama has let them down and disappointed them is being disingenuous because it is no net loss in numbers of votes. simplification, yes, but oversimplification, no.

and who canvasses for someone they don't even vote for? yeah, i think i'll go walk blocks for A but vote for B.

[Mithreal]

96. Ok, again. If I might address those points. You said Green

You said green, not Republican or Libertarian. To lump them green with those other two is really outrageous.

If you just want to talk about votes, you did ignore my point where greens, independents or Dems voted their conscience, which was not necessarily Obama, when Obama was a shoe in, in their particular state. You simplified to the point of causing misrepresentation, misconception, or error which is called oversimplification. I attempted to explain where misrepresentation was occurring. I am not arguing against you, just the statement.

It's so much more than "I'll go walk blocks for A but vote for B." Right now you can canvas for your party, take Votebuilder which needs regular updating or become a precinct level organizer and take more responsibility. Just because you may not have voted for a particular candidate means less than what you think. A lot of people focus on local and statewide elections and that's cool too but not necessarily about the President, see? Some argue we should focus more on issues so you could join an organization that represents a particular issue and canvas, phone bank, or do anything practically.

Everything is not about Obama. His message was about WE, not just those who voted for him, but everyone. Should anyone too young to vote last election not have the right to expect something from the President or Congress?

[Umbral]

48. You'd almost think progressives have been ignored and abused only since Obama won the primary. nt

[nofurylike]

52. yes, "work for what they want.... " well said, thank you, cliffordu. nt

[leveymg]

54. You call it whatever you want. But, the OP is right - the roots have been switched-off

and is unlikely to work hard to turn-out the base. The next two election cycles will go the way of Virginia - disastrous losses for the Blue Dogs, and the Democratic Party as a whole, because the leadership has turned too far to the Center-Right.

[laughingliberal]

57. Unfortunately, the people you know and the people who frequent DU are not

the average voter, not even the average Democratic voter. Turnout has always been the key to electing Democrats. For most of my lifetime there have been more registered Democrats than Republicans. Getting them to the polls is a challenge. A large part of the Democratic base is poor and working poor. The logistics of transportation and taking off work, obstacles like long lines and other voter suppression techniques mean they have to feel very invested in the outcome of the election in order to make the effort. If this part of the base does not feel strongly that a candidate will stand for them they don't go to the polls. In order for Democrats to get the turnout they need at midterms the base must be energized and enthusiastic. Without that, we're facing a debacle.

[county worker]

78. You got no time?

Hey dude or dud-et which ever. You need them. You do not stand alone as a power house. Fuck em! I heard that in 1994. God how I remember the day after the 1994 elections and talking to my ditto head friends who were very happy.

[Warpy]

2. It's not Afghanistan, buddy, it's health care

We watched in 1994 when they wimped out so completely they didn't allow it out of committee. We're watching now when the news trumpets defeat of all pertinent reform daily, whether or not that defeat is in the works. We're watching our future held hostage to a handful of self serving senators who hate women and/or love insurance company campaign contribution.

That Democratic voters are disgusted and demoralized is no wonder, but the author of the OP has the reason for it dead wrong.

Health insurance reform will make or break the party. If they wimp out on us again, it will be 1994 all over again and for exactly the same reason.

I wish there was something we the people could do to wake up those old boys, especially the somnolent Harry Reid who should have changed the filibuster rule months ago.

Health care isn't the only issue being stymied by Republicans and a handful of DINOs. Something like 100 bills have been passed by the House and sent to the Senate and they're all being blocked by conservatives with an axe to grind and a filibuster to threaten.

I don't know what will get through to those idiots, especially Reid. Losing badly in 1994 and being kept out of power for 12 years didn't do it.

Maybe we need a mass movement to go to DC and slap some sense into them, at least metaphorically.

[PHIMG]

29. Right on!

The elite will not allow the election of a good Democratic president, one committed to the people and the values that made our country great.

So the elitist DLC took control of this party (nationally) with Carter and they will not let go. We were all faked into thinking Clinton was the DLC candidate and that Obama was the real deal but you need have only read that great post a few days ago showing how ingrained the DLC is in Obama's administration to know the truth.

We can't wait every four years to fight the elite and the DLC in a primary. With the media in thier pocket, we'll never win on that battle ground anyway.

Obama and Clinton before him shows how they can bring in a likable telegenic puppet, Madison Avenue up an image and bait and switch us like Chumps. How many times are we going to fall for that? The elite gets the candidate they want. Clinton was seen as unelectable and damaged goods, they coudln't have a Republican win because there could have been rioting and strife and also because they couldn't have the Republican brand tarnished by more bailouts and welfare for the titans of capitalism. We must disenthrall oursevles with naive ideas like there is such thing as a contest at the president level.

They played Kingmaker with a state senator in Illinois. The Obama presidency is going to be the worst thing for the Democratic party since Clinton and the best thing to the elite since Reagan.

Social change is needed. That is never on an ballot.

We have to work to bring people into politics in a real way. Working in the local party or volunteering with a single issue group that directly challenges the DLC Corporatist agenda.

This is why Dean got in and did the 50 state strategy, to plant this sort of seed out there in the states.

[NoPasaran]

41. "So the elitist DLC"

So the elitist DLC (which was founded in 1985) took control of this party (nationally) with Carter (who was President 1977-81).

No wonder the DLC grinds "progressives" into dust, they have added time travel to their other evil powers.

[FBaggins]

3. I wouldn't say that it's an "outlier" poll.

It's just an issue of how you word the question.

The question that I assume is being taken here as "actually love the idea of intensifying the war" asks whether (regardless of your opinion on Afghanistan otherwise) do you support his sending 30,000 additional troops.

CNN said that support was 62-36... Bloomberg just put it at 62-34

The Gallup poll actually asked a different question. They combined this one with the timetable to begin withdrawal and came up with 51-40 support. That's consistent with the CNN/Bloomberg results since that second part was not favored (45-49 and 39-59 respectively).

[hfojvt]

6. did Democrats really lose in 1994 beacue of NAFTA?

Or was it the 'largest tax increase in history' after Clinton had run as Reagan-lite, promising a 'middle class tax cut' and bashing Bush for working with the Democrats and raising taxes. Also, Republican strategists keyed on Hillary and the failed healthcare bill. So 'doing nothing' rather than passing an imperfect bill may have cost us in 1994. If it really was leftists cutting off their nose to spite their face, then that is really sad, especially since they repeated the error in 2000.

[AllentownJake]

9. Nice history re-write

Rahm is that you?

[hfojvt]

12. which part is a re-write? n/t

[AllentownJake]

16. The progressive vs. Clinton on Health Care

Southern Democrats in the Senate killed health care reform in 1993

[hfojvt]

42. Huh? I did not say that progressives killed health care reform

Only that the fact that health care reform was killed in 1993, hurt Democrats in 1994. Sirota was the one who claimed that Democrats lost in 1994 because progressives felt abandoned and thus abandoned the Democratic Party. I don't think that's true, but if it is true it is very sad - a sad commentary on progressives and their willingness to shoot themselves in the foot and undermine the things they are supposedly working for.

[zipplewrath]

15. Healthcare, and assualt weapons

The usual reasons given are the collapse of his signature health care bill and the forcing through of the assault weapons ban. IIRC Clinton himself gives more credit to the later.

[Winterblues]

18. Talk about right wing talking points

It was no where near "the largest tax increase in history" in fact for most middle class it was a tax decrease. Taxes only went up for those wealthy enough to afford it easily. IMO it was Right wing talk radio that came into it's glory under Clinton that caused such a landslide victory for Republicans. It also was lack of promised Health Care Reform. IMO Clinton also shot himself in the foot with his "Don't ask don't tell" policy. It sent the right into orbit..really energized them and left the left mumbling "is that it?" Obama is making the very same mistakes. If you believe in something then you damn well have to stand up for it. It is a definite sign of weakness to not do so and Democrats/Obama have been demonstrating that weakness, in fact showcasing it..

[anonymous171]

44. Here's why 1994 happened: NAFTA, Gun Control, and Health Care "Reform."

Nothing else.

[HuckleB]

11. Hogwash.

Politics is messy. It's time to stop throwing tantrums, come down from the ivory towers of ease and dig in... and keep digging in...

[JHB]

19. Glad to...

...as long as that includes tantrum-throwing tower dwellers in "centrist" "think tanks" and "policy instiututes", those well-paid folks who treat the rest of the party like something they need to scrape off their shoe.

[HuckleB]

20. Yawn.

You're just wasting time pointing fingers. It doesn't lead anywhere.

[JHB]

26. Quite right...

Enforcing party discipline requires a big stick, not just fingers.

[HuckleB]

28. Working to improve things via politics requires being able to ignore big sticks and fingers.

It requires focus.

[PHIMG]

37. Sadly the DLC focus is on the wrong things

Getting into office, serving the corporate agenda, leaving office and getting rich in the corporate world as do-nothing "consultant" gig or sitting on boards of directors.

[HuckleB]

75. Uh huh.

When you're ready to refrain from the usual demonization, maybe something will change.

[EFerrari]

35. Time to stop spamming cliches!

[HuckleB]

73. Why?

[HuckleB]

74. Why?

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

13. Hmm... let me think... what happened last time Democrats didn't bother to vote...

[spanone]

17. i've noticed a media trend....anyone who disagrees with the mainstream dem views is a 'liberal' dem

or progressive....so i guess the democratic party is the conservative party?

[PHIMG]

38. Yes and how sad is that. n/t

[mmonk]

21. The politicians take the money and run and cross their fingers.

[Greyhound]

22. Clinton's inaction and anti-democratic motivation, combined with

the party's incompetence gave us the third wave of That's-con fraud.

Just as he did as governor, he rolled over for big business at the expense of everyone and everything else. That's why he's as wealthy as he is today.

It was always about Bill.

[taught_me_patience]

23. Younger voters/workers have a right to be demoralized

Most of us believe SS will not be available by the time we retire (or the eligible age will be 87)
We will shoulder the tax burden of the endless wars
We will shoulder the tax burden of the bank bailouts
We get to live with 0% interest rates... making building a nest egg nearly impossible
We're forced shoulder the extra Medicare tax burden (if they lower the age to 55)
We get to live with endless "jobless" recoveries
We'll shoulder the burden of a hopeless energy policy, built around a dwindling resource
We get to watch Obama shower home owners (most of us younger workers still rent) with tax breaks on interest, buying, and fixing homes, while we get shit.
We face the prospect of higher taxes to deal with an insane deficit
We'll be forced to purchase health insurance from the private companies that created this mess, with no public option, or be fined.

Yeah... younger voters basically got kicked in the balls.

full disclosure... I'm 31.

[LooseWilly]

33. And how.

How can the party "strategists" not see that mandated health insurance without a worth while plan available is like squeezing a turnip? Wage stagnation, not to mention those of us who are getting by as independent contractors and have no benefits at all... and now we get to be forced to buy so that the corporate health care offerings will be more affordable (for the corporations to offer as a benefit, at least)?


Way to win over the youth vote !!...

[Romulox]

39. One better: mandated health care is YET ANOTHER subsidy of the old by the young.

:hi:

[Bluenorthwest]

56. Well when the young build their own universtities and roads

to get to them, and learn only from themselves, this notion that they are giving but not getting might fly. But the young pay little, although I paid mountains of tax as a young man, and they have the use of an entire culture and world pre made for them to live in.
Now if they were growing their own food, treating their own illnesses, building youth hospitals, (oddly, as a middle aged person, I am asked to support a 'children's hospital' which is headed by people even older than me. Not by youth but by elders).
The first 18 years of life are utterly subsidized for most of us. We contribute very little to the whole during all of those years. We go to schools that we do not pay for, and all of the rest of it. Takes a couple of decades for us to start chipping in, but we all start taking day one.
The elders could pull out and the youth would wander and starve. Each of us, everyone of us, is here today because of sacrifices by many, many elders. Sacrifices that were never repaid, some of them being sacrifices of life itself.
But cool talking point you have, for those who can not think at all.

[Romulox]

58. What part of "THIS IS NOT SUSTAINABLE" eludes you?

If the richest generation America has ever known must live parasitically on the poorer generations that follow it, how, pray tell, will today's young people survive their dotage? :hi:

[laughingliberal]

59. I'm not sure how people who have spent their entire working lives working for stagnating wages and

increasing health care costs qualify as the richest generation. I'm 54. My parent's generation had decent employer benefits like fee for service health insurance and pensions but not many of us do. We are of the generation who was expected to save our own money out of our dwindling wages in order to have any retirement funds. Wages have been stagnant since 1980. I graduated from nursing school in 1982. My entire working life has been spent working harder every year for less money.

[Romulox]

60. It's all relative. Their children are fighting for their scraps.

The young cannot subsidize their parents while competing for ever-decreasing wages. It's just not possible. Something's going to give.

Telling me that your life hasn't been all roses misses the point--your children's generation has it demonstrably worse. They can't afford to pay for your healthcare.

[laughingliberal]

62. Unfortunately, global warming has seriously decreased the available ice flows

and your "your life hasn't been all rose," is belittling and a great example minimizing. We are the 50 somethings who have become unemployed in this downturn and have little hope of ever securing work again. Our houses and our jobs are gone.

I agree with working for solutions for everyone but all these squabbles, young against old, inter-racial, homeowners against renters, gay vs straight, etc...just plays right into the hands of those who are screwing us. If they keep us fighting among ourselves for the scraps we will never get out shit together to organize against them. Period!

[Romulox]

63. Nope. It's "belittling" to let your anecdote cloud the bigger picture.

Young people today have lower standards of living than their parents had at their age, and can expect to "enjoy" that same lowered standard throughout their lives.

[laughingliberal]

67. you can call this an anecdote all you want but it has been widely reported in the news that a lot of

the currently unemployed are those in my age group. It is not a secret that our wages have gone down consistently for 30 years and many are left unemployed now at an age where they are unlikely to ever find work so long as employers remain on the hook for their health care benefits.

Your point about mandated health care being the young subsidizing the old is something which would be true of any health care system except one very similar to what we have now plus abolishing Medicare. Every one who has worked since the inception of Medicare has subsidized those older than them. Any plan that included universal coverage would be the young subsidizing the old and the healthy subsidizing the sick. Even the clear preference of most of us, HR 676 would include that. Under that plan, everyone would be taxed at the same rate and everyone would be in the pool. Older, sicker people would be using the benefit and younger, healthier would not be using as much. Is it your position that we stick with the plan that those who can afford health care have it and the others are SOL? In other words, what we have now?

[Romulox]

68. Young people have the highest unemployment, by a long shot. nt

[laughingliberal]

70. That's true but the umemployment among the over 50's is still significant and younger

workers will, likely, be better able to find jobs if the job market starts improving. I will say, from personal experience, it is a lot easier to start over at 30 or 40 than at 50 or 60. I am not discounting the impact on the younger workers but, as someone who has had to start over from scratch a few times, it is easier then than it is now.

[Romulox]

81. Actually, no matter what the age, most studies show that worker's never fully recover

from periods of unemployment and delays in career development.

In other words, those who are at the beginning of their careers feel the effects of economic downturns throughout their careers.

[Romulox]

69. Slightly more substantive response:

Your point about mandated health care being the young subsidizing the old is something which would be true of any health care system except one very similar to what we have now plus abolishing Medicare.

Nonsense. The current proposal is that young people cover the astronomical increases in costs for private insurance under the (admittedly paradoxical) theory that "the government shouldn't run healthcare, but they should pay for it!" A single payer not for profit plan would require a far smaller transfer of wealth from the young to the old while at the same time covering everyone--something the current plan does not do.

Every one who has worked since the inception of Medicare has subsidized those older than them. Any plan that included universal coverage would be the young subsidizing the old and the healthy subsidizing the sick. Even the clear preference of most of us, HR 676 would include that. Under that plan, everyone would be taxed at the same rate and everyone would be in the pool. Older, sicker people would be using the benefit and younger, healthier would not be using as much. Is it your position that we stick with the plan that those who can afford health care have it and the others are SOL? In other words, what we have now?

This is not correct. The current proposal is to force everyone to purchase private health insurance. Everyone is not being promised the "the same rate", nor is everyone going to receive the same care; they are going to be subject to whatever their private insurers will cover. Most young people will not be able to afford full coverage plans for themselves, especially since they will be required to subsidize their elders.

Finally, it's dirty pool to make this an argument about the usefulness of helping one another out. We all agree (I hope) that that is the whole purpose for society. That does not mean that every scheme to take from one part of the population (the young, who are the poorest) and give to another (the old, who are the richest) is fair, just or desirable. I do admit that I resent the implication that arguing that a further subsidy from the young to the old, which is then handed to private insurers is not fair somehow means I don't feel a responsibility to care for my elders.

I do, just not like this. :hi:

[laughingliberal]

71. My statement about the same rate was referring to HR 676 which would be a lot better

but it will still be younger and healthier paying for services they are not, yet, using. Here is the relevant portion of HR 676:

http://johnconyers.com/hr676text

(c) Funding.—

(1) In general.—There are appropriated to the USNHI Trust Fund amounts sufficient to carry out this Act from the following sources:

(A) Existing sources of Federal government revenues for health care.

(B) Increasing personal income taxes on the top 5 percent income earners.

(C) Instituting a modest and progressive excise tax on payroll and self-employment income.

(D) Instituting a small tax on stock and bond transactions.

(2) System savings as a source of financing.—Funding otherwise required for the Program is reduced as a result of—

(A) vastly reducing paperwork; and

(B) requiring a rational bulk procurement of medications under section 205(a).

(3) Additional annual appropriations to USNHI program.—Additional sums are authorized to be appropriated annually as needed to maintain maximum quality, efficiency, and access under the Program. <snip>

Much better in terms of progressiveness of the tax system but young people will still pay payroll taxes at whatever rate their income dictates and will not cost as much as older workers paying the same rate. I am not in favor of the current proposals, either, but my point is there is no way to avoid the issue of some subsidizing others unless we just leave everyone to fend for themselves.

The current proposals suck in so many ways, it is too unwieldy to mention. One thing, though, is the subsidies will help those who have lower incomes cover their premiums. I hate that the insurance companies will still profit and would be more than happy to see for-profit health care become illegal. There will probably be a lot more of the younger workers, however, who qualify for a subsidy. If I were still working, I would not. And the cost of my premium would, in no way, be affordable. Here is a link to a post I made last night showing the current federal poverty rates and the current proposals for subsidizing the cost of premiums:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7192133

An older couple making a combined income of over $58,280 per year will be paying, as premiums stand now, around 25% of their income for their coverage. A couple with a combined income of just $1 over the limit to qualify for a subsidy paying the rate we did for our last policy ($1200 per month) will be left with $43,710 after they pay their health insurance premium. A couple with a combined income of $45,000 will qualify for a subsidy capping their rate at 10% of their income. They will be left with $44,500 after they pay for their health insurance. If we agree younger workers are poorer they will be, then, the larger group being subsidized by the current proposals and the older, richer people will, in some cases be left with less than those younger workers who qualify for the subsidy. Again, I am not in favor of this plan but the younger, poorer workers are not going to be subsidizing the older workers to the extent you would suggest. The government will be subsidizing the private insurance companies which is the part that sucks but people who are poorer will not be subsidizing richer.

I suppose I am a little sensitive about the age thing and should not take it out on you but I have, recently, seen posters here raising hell cause the "old fucks are still out there working at the jobs the young people need," and a few other senior bashing posts including one complaining cause old nurses are returning to the field and cutting the young nurses out of opportunities. As if there is a huge glut of old people working just for their entertainment and not because they need the income. So, forgive me. I don't mean this at you, personally but the bigotry that is growing against older workers is disturbing.

edited to add link

[Romulox]

72. Then we have no argument. I support HR 676. But our President, Congress does not.

Under the current plan, they are going to force young people to buy into insurance programs to ensure private insurer's profits.

That's what I am arguing is unfair. NOT HR 676, which I support.

[laughingliberal]

82. Our President and Congress do not agree and this is one of the reasons the base is demoralized

Everyone will be forced to buy insurance to ensure the profits of the insurance crime cartels. And it's not fair to anyone, young or old. If I could afford to pay their damned premiums I would not be without coverage, now. Fighting among anyone who is working class or even middle class, whatever age, is just a distraction. Everyone who falls below the top 5% in income levels is being screwed in one way or another. And keeping us fighting among ourselves just keeps the people who are screwing us in a position to continue to do so.

This is not a case of the young getting screwed to benefit the older. Almost everyone is getting screwed by this bill.

There a few who will come out better with this than they are without it:

1) People who can afford insurance but can't get it due to preexisting conditions. We have heard from a few on here being very vocal about the rest of us signing their death warrants for opposing this bill.

2) Those who are very poor but fall just outside the income levels to qualify for Medicaid. I have worked as an RN with patients who were absolutely destitute who were turned down for making $2 per month too much to get Medicaid.

There is another group who thinks they are doing alright and this will not affect them:

They are the ones who have employer sponsored health insurance. It will continue to affect them in the same way it has been effecting workers for 2 decades-wages will continue to stagnate due to the rising cost of covering workers' benefits and the portion the employer asks of them will, likely, keep creeping up. But this is the 85% we keep hearing about who "are happy with what they have." They are the ones who are providing political cover to the corporatists who are saddling us with this disaster of a bill. Although there are consequences of this bill to that group our side was unable to make the case, in a way they understood, that real HCR would benefit them.

[Romulox]

83. People 50+ will be the primary beneficiaries of this, people under 30 the biggest losers.

It's simply not true that everyone makes out the same under the President's mandatory insurance scheme. If the premium multiplier is indeed capped at 2x (or even 5x), it will amount to a transfer of money from the young and poor to the old (and relatively more) wealthy. There can be no other effect.

What's more insidious is that nobody will be guaranteed care; young people will be forced to "buy into" bare bones plans that are little more than a vehicle for the aforementioned subsidy under penalty of law. Only after their premiums are paid may they then use their own money to pay for their personal care! :wtf:

[laughingliberal]

84. Sorry, I don't see it as " young screwed, old people hit lottery"

This is nuts! From your post:

"What's more insidious is that nobody will be guaranteed care; young people will be forced to "buy into" bare bones plans that are little more than a vehicle for the aforementioned subsidy under penalty of law. Only after their premiums are paid may they then use their own money to pay for their personal care!"

How is this different than what older people are facing? We'll be forced into these bare bones plans, also, and, likely, not qualify for subsidies to help pay for them. I predict a couple at our previous income level will be buying a "bare bones" plan with a premium of at least $1000 per month and no subsidy to pay for it. The same penalty of law will apply to us.

I know people, in my age group already paying over $2000 per month for a policy for them and an spouse and it still has hefty deductibles and copays and, then, only covers 70%.

I still fail to see how any system, even HR 676, which requires everyone to participate will not be a transfer of money from the young to the old. It will still be people paying into the system who may not need the coverage yet to subsidize those who are using the services. And, btw, there are some older Americans who are not sick and not using much in terms of the services who will be subsidizing those who do.

Help me understand what system we could, possibly, come up with where no one is subsidizing anyone else. Really, tell me how you get around that if you are trying for universal coverage.

edited punctuation

[Romulox]

86. The difference is that a premium multiplier + a mandate means a subsidy for older customers.

It can't be any plainer than that. Older people are more expensive to insure, because they use more healthcare services. If the law requires that premiums be capped at an artificial multiplier (i.e. no customer may be charged more than x times what any other customer is charged) and the law simultaneously requires mandatory insurance, then young people's premiums will necessarily have to be drastically raised, for two reasons: a) because the insurance company will have to make up for revenue lost from the premiums it previously charged older customers; and b) because young people's premiums will have to be raised in order to raise older people's premiums (due to the multiplier.)

This is the entire logic of the so-called "savings" envisioned by the plan. :wtf:

"How is this different than what older people are facing?"

Young people aren't being required to buy insurance under penalty of law at the moment.

"I still fail to see how any system, even HR 676, which requires everyone to participate will not be a transfer of money from the young to the old."

It's actually not even truly a transfer from the young to the old; most of the increase will go to the insurers. But what you fail to see is that everyone will be guaranteed CARE (not insurance) under HR 676. Not so under the President's plan.

I will set this off one more time, because I'm not sure how much clearer I can possibly be:

The President's mandatory insurance scheme does not cover all Americans, nor does it guarantee decent care for those forced to buy into it. That it also effects a massive new subsidy of the old and rich by the young and poor (which will be immediately handed over to private insurers) is just another kick to the ribs.

[laughingliberal]

87. I don't think you realize that older American's premiums are not going to come down under this plan

1) Younger people's will go up but older people's will not come down. I expect the insurance companies to work it backwards. They will take the premiums they already charge us and divide by the multiplier to get to the lowest premium. Yes, the young will pay more than they do now but the old are not going to get a break on what they pay now.

2) Older people aren't required to buy insurance under penalty of law at the moment, either. I don't have any because we finally could not afford the $1200 per month premium. Should I return to work I will be paying that premium, if not more, under penalty of law.

3) It IS a transfer to the insurance companies. And there is no guarantee of CARE, not insurance, for older people under the current plan, either. Older and young, alike, are going to be paying for insurance with no guarantee of CARE.

4) "The President's mandatory insurance scheme does not cover all Americans, nor does it guarantee decent care for those forced to buy into it." The young and old, alike, are in that boat. The 'young and poor' will qualify for subsidies being payed by tax dollars and the 'old and rich' will be paying the total of their premiums out of pocket. No one under 400% of the FPL will pay any more out of pocket than 10-12% of their taxable income in premiums. Those at more than 400% of FPL (and I guess you assume us old folks all make more than that) will be paying the full price of the premium and our tax dollars will be covering the subsidies. I have friends, in my age group, who pay $2000 per month for them and a spouse. If they make over $58,280 per month combined they will pay that full price while subsidizing those who get their premiums subsidized by the government. The young and rich might have a bitch, here, but the young and poor are not inany worse shape with this bill than the old and working class. Not sure where you think this huge group of rich 55-64 year olds are but most of us in this group are working class. This does not bode well for us, either. I have been hammering on here and everywhere else since July that the bill we were likely to see was going to be a huge drain of middle and working class resources to enrich the insurance companies. But it is not a boon for older, working class Americans at the expense of younger, working class Americans.

edited for grammar

[LooseWilly]

94. I agree... it isn't the "old" that make out, it is the insurance companies...

and the corporations who offer health insurance to employees (who will find that the increases in premiums that they pay as part of the benefit package they offer the employees that they deem "worthy" of such magnanimity will not be increasing quite as much, because the insurance companies will now have the mandated poor/independent contractors- young & old, customers to collect monies from).

All of us who have decided to opt out of unaffordable insurance, and who will now be frog marched back into the system at virtual gun point, will be losers... unless a system to control costs were implemented, which seems not to be the case. The Senate plan to extend medicare offerings to 55-64 year olds is laudable... and I'm all for it. I, personally, just don't want to be mandated to buy a shitty product from a shitty industry simply in order to help save money for corporations in the name of making said corporations more "competitive" in the global marketplace.

(It will be something of a heart cockle warming consolation prize if "labor" can at least use this as a means of negotiating some pay raises in the near future, rather than putting those off just to avoid losing benefits... but that is merely a theoretical boon for those of us eking out a living in the "independent contractor" world of no-benefits-land...)

I do feel your pain though, and as far as I'm concerned, you're in the same shitty boat with too many leaks to make bailing an option as those of us younger than you. The age issue isn't so much the real problem (I agree with you that any system will inevitably, to some degree or other, involve a "subsidy" of the old by the young)... the problem is that the bills that I'm hearing about are providing a shitty mechanism for facilitating a jointly beneficial system... with a crappy industry essentially shaking us all down.

[laughingliberal]

99. Nobody wins with this bill but the criminal insurance enterprises

I'm not even sure the early buy in to Medicare is a positive. There have been some reports (we have no details, as yet) that premiums may be as high as they are for private insurance. I think we're all screwed.

[Romulox]

95. I think we agree much more than we disagree.

You know what? I think both of us are so frustrated at this situation that we are arguing about a point about which we agree much more than we disagree.

I'm for working people. Young, old, otherwise. I want everybody to have care. I think the President's scheme is a disaster. Aren't we fundamentally in agreement here?

[laughingliberal]

97. We are. I think everyone is, basically, screwed by this bill

I couldn't be more disappointed. I have been waiting and working since President Kennedy was murdered when I was 8 for a leader who would stand up and fight for policies and legislation to benefit us working stiffs. Every time I thought we had one, his feet were of clay. Now, I think I will not see it in my lifetime and my heart is broken.

Truce?

[PHIMG]

36. +1. Awesome. Should be its own post. N/T

[varelse]

45. Younger voters put Obama in the White House

So much of what has been done since the election makes me wonder if they're somehow forgetting this very important fact.

[Tierra_y_Libertad]

24. Not so much demoralized as just disgusted with a continuation of Republican policies.

Although, some lipstick has been applied to some of them. Like the laughable "withdrawal" date.

[PHIMG]

27. The DLC is in control and they don't care about the next election.

All they care about is getting business friendly bills passed. See the Healthcare Bill, for just one example.
(Insurance Company Profit Protection Act of 2009)

[phasma ex machina]

32. The only thing more dangerous than failure is success. nt

[LooseWilly]

34. I seem to remember an OP that specifically told us that we were *not* the base.

So we could piss up a rope...

I guess there're a whole lot of us who are no longer the base... and I imagine there's going to be a whole lotta rope-piss spattering all over the place.

[geek tragedy]

43. People willing to cut and run after less than one year are by definition

not the base.

[JVS]

77. The history of the party and its base goes back longer than Jan of 2009.

[placton]

40. I ain't no progressive - I am a proud FORTY PERCENTER!

I am a liberal - and I ain't voting the straight ticket - or likely any ticket. We have been sliced, diced, pureed, eaten and shat out. My vote is the only protest they will listen to - or the absence thereof.

[bluedigger]

46. The 2010 elections are a chance to send a message to DC.

Widespread low turnout of Dem voters should be a warning to their party. Sure we would lose some seats in Congress, but so what? As currently constituted, a Democratic super majority could still be brought to its knees by a lone Republican. We would probably retain our current useless majority anyways, and the message would be pretty clear to the party bosses, and give them time to represent us before the 2012 vote. The only leverage remaining to the voting public is their votes. We can't out message the money. I don't think it's "anti-progressive" to use what little leverage we have.

[GreenPartyVoter]

49. I'm not a democrat, but I have felt demoralized for years. I vote, but

last year was one of the few times I felt any hope that it meant something. I don't expect to feel that way again any time soon.

[snot]

51. imho, we need to start campaigning NOW: give us Dean, Kucinich, or a like alternative, OR NOTHING!!!

!!!!

Sorry, but after Dems wasted the opp W gave us, no way am I wasting another vote on another pseudo-Dem.

[Thickasabrick]

55. Meh...republicans are limited to primarily old farts who don't have

anything else to do - so voting is probably the highlight of their year. This is the same group of people who were happy with Bush in every poll taken - remember the people that actually identify as republicans has been rapidly declining.

The most important element is the independents who actually control which way an election goes. I'm hoping their stay at home number increases as I suspect many are really just republicans who register independent to try and manipulate primaries.

I'm still holding out hope that we will have some gains before next November that will rally our base.

[lib2DaBone]

61. I'll vote..but it won't be for a D or an R... 3rd Party Now!

Even a broken clock is right 2 times a day... Kucinich, Bernie Sanders or Grayson. God help us if Sarah Palin and Michele Bachman get elected.

[depakid]

85. It's important to vote- that's the only way to make your values register

through the electorate.

[JVS]

76. If you want to ride a horse, you must feed it.

[JCMach1]

98. IF this holds, this means disaster in 2010

It is the base that wins midterm elections.