Health Care's effect on 2010/2012 elections

[Crazy Levi]

The Dems will lose some seats in 2010 - the incumbents ALWAYS lose
seats. But they have big majorities and no way does the right take
over.

Between 2010 and 2012 all the country is going to be hearing about is
the "historic" health care bill that Obama signed into law. People will get used to it and they'll get tired of hearing the right bitch about it.

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much
better with the public by then) on his resume, Obama and the dems will be close to
unbeatable.

[Ugmo]

As I said in the other thread, anyone pissed-off enough about this to vote for the Republicans as a result almost certainly votes for them in every other election. Whereas the flip side of the coin is you have people who will benefit from this bill almost immediately in the form of no denials for pre-existing conditions and no getting dropped if you get sick. Those people may not have been Democratic voters before, but if the Republicans campaign all summer long on repealing the legislation, it's difficult to imagine them not voting for the Democrats just out of pure concern that those newly gained "rights" will be taken away again.

[cantstopthemusic]

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much better with the public by then)

You mean, two years BEFORE any "benefits" (perceived, anyway) actually kick in.

[Crazy Levi]

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much better with the public by then)

You mean, two years BEFORE any "benefits" (perceived, anyway) actually kick in.

That's really not important.

Electing Obama was the most historic election of my lifetime.

And now, signing the health care bill into law will be the most historic presidential accomplishment of my lifetime.

Voters will be hearing the word "historic" for 2 years and they have a chance to actually learn about it. This is an amazing accomplishment and the dems will exploit that.

[Nemesis]

The Dems will lose some seats in 2010 - the incumbents ALWAYS lose
seats. But they have big majorities and no way does the right take
over.

Between 2010 and 2012 all the country is going to be hearing about is
the "historic" health care bill that Obama signed into law. People will get used to it and they'll get tired of hearing the right bitch about it.

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much
better with the public by then) on his resume, Obama and the dems will be close to
unbeatable.

The lawsuits over the constitutionality of this bill are already starting. This is going to be tied up in court for years. If the Republicans win back the Congress they can hold up any funding for it until they win back the Presidency in 2012.

[dtmfs]

I think Obama needs to do a hell of a lot more to automatically be rushed back into office. Most people I know are independent and 99% voted for Obama, and they all say they will never vote for him again because he's just your run of the mill lying through his teeth to get votes politician. Me personally I'm waiting to see what the options are in 2012. I don't think it's gonna be a cakewalk by any means.

And lets be real their are a shitload of racist mother fuckers in the world who voted for Obama only because the other option was so fucking scary,and they sure as hell won't do it again, sad but true.

[HeavyMetalZombie666]

The Dems will lose some seats in 2010 - the incumbents ALWAYS lose
seats. But they have big majorities and no way does the right take
over.

Between 2010 and 2012 all the country is going to be hearing about is
the "historic" health care bill that Obama signed into law. People will get used to it and they'll get tired of hearing the right bitch about it.

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much
better with the public by then) on his resume, Obama and the dems will be close to
unbeatable.

The lawsuits over the constitutionality of this bill are already starting. This is going to be tied up in court for years. If the Republicans win back the Congress they can hold up any funding for it until they win back the Presidency in 2012.

Which is fine with me!

[MurrayFiend]

Say it with me:

O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!
O-BA-MA!

[lerxstcat]

The Dems will lose some seats in 2010 - the incumbents ALWAYS lose
seats. But they have big majorities and no way does the right take
over.

Between 2010 and 2012 all the country is going to be hearing about is
the "historic" health care bill that Obama signed into law. People will get used to it and they'll get tired of hearing the right bitch about it.

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much
better with the public by then) on his resume, Obama and the dems will be close to
unbeatable.

The lawsuits over the constitutionality of this bill are already starting. This is going to be tied up in court for years. If the Republicans win back the Congress they can hold up any funding for it until they win back the Presidency in 2012.

If they use that tactic there won't BE any "until the win back the Presidency in 2012". Not that I think they will anyway. Eliminating the rejection and dropping of people with preexisting conditions alone will win Obama reelection in 2012 from people who have preexisting conditions and their loved ones voting Democrat in addition to the base Democratic voters.

Republicans keep saying this is not the will of the majority, but all indications are that it really is. Maybe they think that because everybody THEY know is watching Fox News 24/7. But everybody THEY know is not the same as everybody, period.

It wasn't just John McCain rejected in 2008, it was the "fuck you, I've got mine" mindset of the Republican Party.

And yes, this is as big as the New Deal was, if not bigger. It's a step forward in our enlightenment as a nation and 20 years from now no one will understand how we ever did without it, much like cable TV, computers and cell phones.

The GOP could go the way of the Whigs if it decides to make this issue its Waterloo. It'll be the Napoleon of the battle, not the Wellington, I can tell you that.

Funny how the GOP all portrayed this as an irrevocable step when arguing against its passage, but so quickly and miraculously decided that it COULD be revoked the second iot DID pass.

They wouldn't have LIED THROUGH THEIR TEETH just to scare people, would they? Nah, they wouldn't do THAT, would they?

[Nevermind]

It wasn't just John McCain rejected in 2008, it was the "fuck you, I've got mine" mindset of the Republican Party.

As opposed to the "you have more than me, so we'll have the government take money out of your pocket and give it to me" mindset of the democrat party?

[MurrayFiend]

It wasn't just John McCain rejected in 2008, it was the "fuck you, I've got mine" mindset of the Republican Party.

As opposed to the "you have more than me, so we'll have the government take money out of your pocket and give it to me" mindset of the democrat party?

Yes, as opposed to that.

[Nevermind]

It wasn't just John McCain rejected in 2008, it was the "fuck you, I've got mine" mindset of the Republican Party.

As opposed to the "you have more than me, so we'll have the government take money out of your pocket and give it to me" mindset of the democrat party?

Yes, as opposed to that.

That's nice. Liberals are always so generous with other people's money.

[MurrayFiend]

Yeah, I know. I'm a moderate so it really depends on the day for me.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

As opposed to the "you have more than me, so we'll have the government take money out of your pocket and give it to me" mindset of the democrat party?

Yes, as opposed to that.

That's nice. Liberals are always so generous with other people's money.

As are Republicans. That's why the biggest corporation on Earth, Walmart, is America's biggest welfare queen.
http://www.progress.org/2004/corpw37.htm
http://www.citizen.org/congress/welfare/index.cfm

Each year, U.S. taxpayers subsidize U.S. businesses to the tune of almost $125 billion, the equivalent of all the income tax paid by 60 million individuals and families. These corporations receive a wide range of favors: special corporate tax breaks; direct government subsidies to pay for advertising, research and training costs; and incentives to pursue overseas production and sales. While Congress institutes dramatic cuts in funding for traditional support programs for individuals and families, corporate giants continue to live off the dole. Each dollar spent on these "aid for dependent corporations" welfare programs means one dollar less for environmental programs, support for education, assistance to those in need, tax breaks for families, or deficit reduction. Public Citizen is helping to lead a major push to reduce corporate welfare.

Thats a helluva lotta cash, ain't it?
http://www.cato.org/pub_display.php?pub_id=8230
http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/html/pa592/pa592index.html
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/artic ... 08,00.html

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/P ... 4shiob.asp


It's not socialism when it's promoting business, I guess.

[Ugmo]

Most people I know are independent and 99% voted for Obama, and they all say they will never vote for him again because he's just your run of the mill lying through his teeth to get votes politician.

Are those people referring to anything specific when they say he lies through his teeth? His record so far on keeping his promises has been pretty good:

http://www.politifact.com/ (right margin)

Whereas his likely 2012 opponents - the Sarah Palins and the Mitt Romneys of the world - have a very poor record of distorting the facts or outright ignoring them.

Obama ain't superman like a lot of people were expecting, but I have to wonder what world people live in when they accuse him of lying through his teeth.

[Ugmo]

As opposed to the "you have more than me, so we'll have the government take money out of your pocket and give it to me" mindset of the democrat party?

What you're describing is the Bush tax cuts, which did more to shift wealth from the middle class to the already ridiculously wealthy than anything the Democrats have done. I mean, I don't know if you believe what you just wrote, but maybe you need to look at the facts a little more closely.

[chickenona]

I love the smell of sour grapes in the morning.

[tin00can]

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much better with the public by then)

You mean, two years BEFORE any "benefits" (perceived, anyway) actually kick in.

Perhaps you can explain this for me. This healthcare reform is supposedly going to destroy America, and yet the "perceived" benefits won't even kick in for another two years? How exactly does that work?

[Crazy Levi]

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much better with the public by then)

You mean, two years BEFORE any "benefits" (perceived, anyway) actually kick in.

You are actually quite wrong about this: There are a number of huge, "actual" (as opposed to perceived) benefits that millions of Americans will start enjoying this year-

Seniors get $250 rebate (and they love to vote)
You get to stay on your parents insurance till you turn 27 (millions of Americans will benefit)
No more pre-existing conditions bullshit for kids (parents vote)
No limits on coverage - no more caps (millions will benefit)

And there's more.

I "perceive" that this will help the Dems in the long run.

[bane]

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much better with the public by then)

You mean, two years BEFORE any "benefits" (perceived, anyway) actually kick in.

You are actually quite wrong about this: There are a number of huge, "actual" (as opposed to perceived) benefits that millions of Americans will start enjoying this year-

Seniors get $250 rebate (and they love to vote)
You get to stay on your parents insurance till you turn 27 (millions of Americans will benefit)
No more pre-existing conditions bullshit for kids (parents vote)
No limits on coverage - no more caps (millions will benefit)

And there's more.

I "perceive" that this will help the Dems in the long run.

Well, I will say that holding off on the mandate until after the election was a pretty smart move. I think there are some good things in that bill, and some bad ones, but for all the press about how historic this is, we'll be seeing just as much about how it is stealing rights etc. It's a liberal victory party today, but it will be a while before we see how this shakes out politically. I don't think it's nearly the democrat slam dunk you seem to think it is. Time will tell I guess.

[Crazy Levi]

It's a liberal victory party today, but it will be a while before we see how this shakes out politically. I don't think it's nearly the democrat slam dunk you seem to think it is. Time will tell I guess.

By the same token, I'm sure you agree that the people who are saying this is the final stake through the dems' heart are delusional.

There are actually people who think this is the "slam dunk" that will kill the Dems.

[bane]

It's a liberal victory party today, but it will be a while before we see how this shakes out politically. I don't think it's nearly the democrat slam dunk you seem to think it is. Time will tell I guess.

By the same token, I'm sure you agree that the people who are saying this is the final stake through the dems' heart are delusional.

There are actually people who think this is the "slam dunk" that will kill the Dems.

Agreed. It's going to be tough to see the real effect of this on voting any time soon. The stuff that kicks in right away will be pretty popular I think, which should help the dems, but once the mandate kicks in, I think it may be another ball game. I'll be interested to see how progressives handle this in a few years. They didn't get what they want either. This is probably just the tip of the iceburg for where we're headed.

[VinnieKulick]

As I said in the other thread, anyone pissed-off enough about this to vote for the Republicans as a result almost certainly votes for them in every other election. Whereas the flip side of the coin is you have people who will benefit from this bill almost immediately in the form of no denials for pre-existing conditions and no getting dropped if you get sick. Those people may not have been Democratic voters before, but if the Republicans campaign all summer long on repealing the legislation, it's difficult to imagine them not voting for the Democrats just out of pure concern that those newly gained "rights" will be taken away again.

Have you seen the poll where 20% of Americans self identify as LIBERAL and 40% self identify as CONSERVATIVE? It's the swing votes that matter, and the swing votes that put this POTUS in office were tired of the Bush years. In case you haven't noticed the economy is still in the shitter. The people who expect action are the ones who are going to be determining this fall's election results. And that 40% is hard to steer one way or the other. It's far from a forgone conclusion that the Dems have anything wrapped up.

In 2012, with historic health care reform (which will be polling much better with the public by then)

You mean, two years BEFORE any "benefits" (perceived, anyway) actually kick in.

That's really not important.

Electing Obama was the most historic election of my lifetime.

And now, signing the health care bill into law will be the most historic presidential accomplishment of my lifetime.

Voters will be hearing the word "historic" for 2 years and they have a chance to actually learn about it. This is an amazing accomplishment and the dems will exploit that.

You really think the dems are going to exploit something that is going to be turned into the biggest negative campaign issue since Viet Nam? If you don't think when this thing shakes out, and the facts come out, that this is going to cost a LOT of seats, you're delusional. But it's going to cost some GOP seats as well.

[Ugmo]

Have you seen the poll where 20% of Americans self identify as LIBERAL and 40% self identify as CONSERVATIVE? It's the swing votes that matter, and the swing votes that put this POTUS in office were tired of the Bush years. In case you haven't noticed the economy is still in the shitter. The people who expect action are the ones who are going to be determining this fall's election results. And that 40% is hard to steer one way or the other. It's far from a forgone conclusion that the Dems have anything wrapped up.

People can describe themselves however they want. Rush Limbaugh made "liberal" a dirty word over the past 20 years, so a lot of people are reluctant to describe themselves that way, but the truth is when you ask people what they think about traditionally liberal policies - be it Medicare/Medicaid or whatever - those things are very popular.

I agree with you that it's the swing votes who will decide, and by and large the swing voters are not all frothing at the mouth with their pitchforks in the air like the teabaggers. Many of those swing voters will see almost immediate improvements in their health care situation that will make them more likely to vote Democrat, but probably most of them will be watching the economy to see if the situation improves any more.

I think the only way this is an issue is if the GOP teabagger base is more motivated to go to the polls than the Dems' liberal base, but this legislation has likely evened the score a little. Remember that the Republicans killed health care under Clinton and the Democrats suffered for it in 1994. It's faulty to logic to assume that the Democrats will suffer this time as a result of passing it.

[Ugmo]

You really think the dems are going to exploit something that is going to be turned into the biggest negative campaign issue since Viet Nam? If you don't think when this thing shakes out, and the facts come out, that this is going to cost a LOT of seats, you're delusional. But it's going to cost some GOP seats as well.

It will only be turned into a negative campaign issue if the Democrats allow the Republicans to dictate the message again like they did last summer. I think I said this somewhere in another post (or at least I was planning to), but the Republicans so far have had the superior message machine. These are the people that brought us "death panels", "Marxism" and a whole bunch of other bullshit that was patently absurd. The Democrats need to campaign on the merits of this bill and they'll be okay, because the merits of this bill are generally positive for most Americans.

I keep repeating myself, but my take is that the only people who are genuinely angry about the passage of this bill are those who reliably vote Republican every single time anyway. The more reasonable voters may well be doubtful about the bill, but that's why it's up to the Democrats to get the message out and communicate its positive aspects.

[TravisBickelsMohawk]

I am pissed that there's no Public Option or Single Payer, but perhaps those will come in time. This bill is a damn good start to getting the insurance companies in line.