Nancy Pelosi has said that she will likely not be able to pass a universal health bill this year. Her refusal to use this rare moment to move on one of the fundamental promises of the Democratic party is shocking. The Democrats control both houses of Congress by large margins and the White House. Barack Obama campaigned on a promise to provide universal health care. If they were able to find trillions to bailout the banks and a trillion on a questionable stimulus package it is unacceptable to claim there is no longer enough money or political will to pass health care reform.
46 million Americans don't have health insurance, and the number will likely grow by several million in the next year. The Democratic party won this election with the promise of health care and they were delivered the votes to make it happen. If the Democrats are unwilling to move NOW on health care reform, what is the point in ever electing a Democrat?
Showing posts with label democrat. Show all posts
Showing posts with label democrat. Show all posts
Give Democrats All The Rope They Need on Health Care
A piece of advice for the new congressional Republican minority: give the Democrats as much rope as they need to hang themselves with health care.
Everyone admits that health care is in desperate need of reform. There are already 47 million uninsured Americans, and that number is only going to grow during the economic downturn. Health care commitments are slowly strangling businesses, and even people with health care are watching their premiums rise rapidly.
According to exit polls, the economy dominated as the top issue for voters, but terrorism, Iraq, and health care all basically tied for second. In four years, the majority of American troops will be out of Iraq. And regardless of what happens to the economy, it is unlikely (for good or ill) that it will not be in "crisis" mode. Already, 2/3 of voters are worried about the cost of health care, and the vast majority of those voters voted for Democrats. If nothing is done, it is impossible to imagine that health care won't grow as a decisive issue.
Ideally, the GOP would come up with their own free market solution to the health care crisis and own the problem. That has not happened and likely never will. John McCain's health care plan was a sick joke. Try to make everyone privately buy insurance with $5,000 refundable tax credits! How is this fiscally responsible and not "spreading the wealth around"? The overhead cost of simply sending a bill, depositing checks, and processing 100 million individual Americans would be over a billion dollars. Finally, McCain's plan would make it easier for insurance companies to cherry pick customers and not cover preexisting conditions. This would leave the million Americans who most need health insurance (those will diabetes, high cholesterol, heart disease, cancer, AIDS, etc...) without it.
John McCain's plan was not the answer to our health care woes, and I don't think the Republicans could ever come up with an ideological solution. Health care simply can't work on free market principles because no one wants to die. I can choose what car, TV, or phone I buy, but I can't choose my body. If I don't want to or can't pay for car insurance, I can choose not to drive. If flood insurance is too much, I can move to a drier climate. If I don't have health care, I die. While one can shop around for a primary care doctor, that is not the source of most health care expenses. If I'm being rushed to the hospital while having a heart attack, I don't really have time to do some price comparisons. If my appendix bursts, I either get expensive surgery, or I die. If there is only one medication for my fatal disease, I literally have no choice but to pay any price. There is not a free market solution to health care because there is a lack of freedom. You normally can't wait, can't shop around, can't choose an alternative treatment. Either you get what you need now (at any price), or you die.
If the Republicans are smart they will let the Democrats push through whatever universal health care plan they want and allow them to take the issue off the table. Of course, they can't allow it to look like they are giving up. The Republicans will make a public protest warning about all the new problems the plan will create (and like any large change, it will create a bunch of unforeseen problems), setting themselves up to capitalize on the birth pains caused by the new program. Meanwhile, behind the scenes, the Republican senators will trade their non-interference for concessions on other issues.
Democrats could easily become victims of their own success. With the war in Iraq brought to an end and health care dealt with, they will lose two of their most powerful rallying points. They will also be forced to own all the problems of the new health care program. American voters have short memories. Let the Democrats deal with health care, and it is possible that Republicans can quickly turn the national debate back to friendly ground of taxes, crime, and family values.
Sloppy Reporting, Pushing the Race Narrative
The Hispanic vote has been one of Hillary Clinton's most important constituencies. In most contests she won them by large margins. It is a fact that Hillary Clinton has done better with Hispanics than Barack Obama. There are many reasons that could explain why Hillary Clinton has preformed better among Hispanic voters, yet those reasons are almost never mentioned. Overwhelming the story has been not "Why does Clinton do well with Hispanics?" but, "What is Obama's problem with Hispanics?"
The media decided that Obama's poor performance was based on race. When Sergio Bendixen, a Clinton pollster, said, "The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates," the MSM took the statement at face value. The "Black-Brown divide" became the prism through which the Hispanic vote has been viewed. A disturbing narrative was created; Hispanics were not voting for Hillary Clinton, they were voting against a black man.
There are some personal reasons why Hispanics may have voted for Senator Clinton. Years ago she did some work trying to register Hispanic voters in Texas. Her husband appointed several prominent Hispanic officials, and the Clinton presidency was seen by many as a very good time for the community.
While race or personal loyalty may have played a small role in how Hispanics voted, I do not believe that 45 million Hispanic Americans are driven by a strong sense of personal loyalty or are by racism. I suspect that Hispanic Democratic primary voters are just like all other Democratic primary voters. I think the Hispanic vote is based on the samesocio-economic patterns that have defined the Caucasian vote so far.
I say "suspect" because the exit pollsters do not report on the Hispanic vote based on income or education. They do break down the vote based on age, gender, and party affiliation. On these three criteria the Hispanic vote does follow the same pattern as the Caucasian vote. Males, younger voters, and independents voted more for Obama. Females, senior citizens, and Democrats voted more for Clinton.
Exit polls demonstrate that Clinton's support is strongest among low income voters and those with the least formal education. Across the board, Clinton has preformed best with those making less than $50,000 a year and those with the least education. In California, for example, she received 80% of the vote from those who had not graduated high school. This pattern holds true both in states that have almost entirely Caucasian electorates and in states with large Hispanic populations.
Given that nationwide, the median income for a Hispanic household is 30% less than that for a white household and that the Hispanic community has the lowest proportion of individuals with high school diplomas, one could assume that the Hispanic Democratic electorate would also tend to be lower income and have less education. It would seem that Hispanics are following the same income/education pattern as Caucasian Democratic voters.
The media decided that Obama's poor performance was based on race. When Sergio Bendixen, a Clinton pollster, said, "The Hispanic voter — and I want to say this very carefully — has not shown a lot of willingness or affinity to support black candidates," the MSM took the statement at face value. The "Black-Brown divide" became the prism through which the Hispanic vote has been viewed. A disturbing narrative was created; Hispanics were not voting for Hillary Clinton, they were voting against a black man.
There are some personal reasons why Hispanics may have voted for Senator Clinton. Years ago she did some work trying to register Hispanic voters in Texas. Her husband appointed several prominent Hispanic officials, and the Clinton presidency was seen by many as a very good time for the community.
While race or personal loyalty may have played a small role in how Hispanics voted, I do not believe that 45 million Hispanic Americans are driven by a strong sense of personal loyalty or are by racism. I suspect that Hispanic Democratic primary voters are just like all other Democratic primary voters. I think the Hispanic vote is based on the samesocio-economic patterns that have defined the Caucasian vote so far.
I say "suspect" because the exit pollsters do not report on the Hispanic vote based on income or education. They do break down the vote based on age, gender, and party affiliation. On these three criteria the Hispanic vote does follow the same pattern as the Caucasian vote. Males, younger voters, and independents voted more for Obama. Females, senior citizens, and Democrats voted more for Clinton.
Exit polls demonstrate that Clinton's support is strongest among low income voters and those with the least formal education. Across the board, Clinton has preformed best with those making less than $50,000 a year and those with the least education. In California, for example, she received 80% of the vote from those who had not graduated high school. This pattern holds true both in states that have almost entirely Caucasian electorates and in states with large Hispanic populations.
Given that nationwide, the median income for a Hispanic household is 30% less than that for a white household and that the Hispanic community has the lowest proportion of individuals with high school diplomas, one could assume that the Hispanic Democratic electorate would also tend to be lower income and have less education. It would seem that Hispanics are following the same income/education pattern as Caucasian Democratic voters.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
LinkWithin
