Now I remember why I was an independent all those years.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Assuming we can trust the polls (which I don't) that would mean that the Republicans would have to vote 54% to 41% against the plan to accurately represent the American public. Seeing as how they voted 100% to 0%, they are very far from representing the opinion of the American people. The Democrats, having cast both yes and no votes are, mathematically speaking, infinitely closer to representing the public at large.

One of the greatest things politically about the Republican party is its ability to publicly stay on message, to keep it simple, and to maintain strict party adherence. They maintain a devotion through a few core issues which, when you break down what the individual politicians represent, it is far more broad and divisive than party voters would be comfortable with -- not that it's questioned. It is only recently that there's been any chink in that armor, but it's a sizable one in the character of the tea party. Again it's a case of a political unit holding sway over an obedient following that falls into line as long as the message is simple.

 

One of the worst things politically about the Democratic party is its inability to stay on message or reach consensus or maintain strict party adherence because it is a broad and divisive bloc of voters. For voters, the elected have open and diverse views on the core party issues. The one core rallying cry is being not-Republican.

 

This is an over-simplification, but it does explain how Democrat is the largest political affiliation, yet it struggles against itself. It raises the question which party serves its constituents best.

 

Of course, with the thread subject, Independents are not-Democrat and not-Republican.

[Central Scrutinizer]

CHENEY: No. I think you cannot be blown off course by the fluctuations in the public opinion polls.

In many respects, he's right. This single fact creates much of the inaction in politics.

 

A recent story in our magazine cites a book on governance by William Eggers and John O’Leary. In it they quote Michael Keeley, the former deputy mayor of Los Angeles. It's an indictment against bloated city government, but it could just as easily apply to public opinion polls (or becoming the Party of No®.

 

“Think of city government as a big bus. The bus is divided into different sections with different constituencies: labor, the city council, the mayor, interest groups, and contractors. Every seat is equipped with a brake, so lots of people can stop the bus anytime. The problem is that this makes the bus undrivable.”

[MattZ]

In many respects, he's right. This single fact creates much of the inaction in politics.

 

Well, whether he's right or wrong, it's pretty hard to rail against a healthcare bill as "undemocratic" if you agreed with Cheney in May 2008.

[Beltmann]

I saw earlier today a breakdown of a reform poll--I think it was on CNN, but I don't have time now to double-check, so hopefully memory serves--that said 13% of those opposed only opposed the bill because it doesn't go far enough. Assuming that's accurate, if we swing those into the pro-refom column, we have a considerable majority that favors the bill or a more expansive bill.

 

And yet we're supposed to believe that "Americans" oppose expansive health reform?

[Edie]

I saw earlier today a breakdown of a reform poll--I think it was on CNN, but I don't have time now to double-check, so hopefully memory serves--that said 13% of those opposed only opposed the bill because it doesn't go far enough. Assuming that's accurate, if we swing those into the pro-refom column, we have a considerable majority that favors the bill or a more expansive bill.

 

And yet we're supposed to believe that "Americans" oppose expansive health reform?

 

That's what I saw last night as well.

[Central Scrutinizer]

Well, whether he's right or wrong, it's pretty hard to rail against a healthcare bill as "undemocratic" if you agreed with Cheney in May 2008.

I mean from a political standpoint, if you're working from ideology, that has to be your primary focus over opinion polls. Certainly war with Iraq and health there were no surprises for supporters of either politician.

 

And yet we're supposed to believe that "Americans" oppose expansive health reform?

Lies

 

Damned Lies

 

Statistics

[LouieB]

I saw earlier today a breakdown of a reform poll--I think it was on CNN, but I don't have time now to double-check, so hopefully memory serves--that said 13% of those opposed only opposed the bill because it doesn't go far enough. Assuming that's accurate, if we swing those into the pro-refom column, we have a considerable majority that favors the bill or a more expansive bill.

 

And yet we're supposed to believe that "Americans" oppose expansive health reform?

Frankly it is difficult to figure what people really want. Assuming this is correct (and why not really, there are plenty of disaffected lefties out there, but are they really being asked this question by these pollsters???) the main message the right wing has convinced folks of (including the Chicago Tribune) is that people are down on this whole thing and want it stopped. Clearly enough Democrats believe this and voted against it and NO Republicans believed that they might gain by supporting this bill. What are all those Attornies General thinking by filing suit?

 

Many people can't focus on any of the issues long enough to figure that some sort of reform was needed and this is the best we can do at the moment. Even Miohael Moore admitted that this is the best we can do and it wasn't worth scuttling, while totally bad rapping it as a payday for the capitalists. But really what in this country isn't a payday for the capitalists?

 

Meanwhile the so called libertarians here can't figure out what side to be on, which may be many of those who claim to be disaffected independents. It is just stunning that the line of thinking goes that this is more government interference, like the health insurance companies give a good goddam about anyone but themselves. Maybe the government shouldn't be more involved, but who really wants to trust the market when lives are at stake, particularly if it is your life or your friends or family.

 

LouieB

[ikol]

Name two legitimate ones that would cover as many people as the law of the land does. Name minority bills that existed. They'd be a matter of public record. I went over the summit. The only detailed proposal Republicans offered was "let's start over."

 

HR 4038, HR 2520, and S 1099. Just because you are not aware of the other bills doesn't mean they didn't exist. I watched a little over half of the summit, and they brought up allowing insurance to be bought across state lines (allowing more competition without restricting the types of plans that people must purchase), increasing health savings accounts, and tort reform.

 

Seeing how close the plan is to Mitt Romney's plan, I think Mitt Romney's feelings will be hurt by you calling a plan like his a turd.

 

Mitt Romney is a turd. Now that we've cleared that up, who wants chocolate chips?

[Central Scrutinizer]

HR 4038, HR 2520, and S 1099. Just because you are not aware of the other bills doesn't mean they didn't exist. I watched a little over half of the summit, and they brought up allowing insurance to be bought across state lines (allowing more competition without restricting the types of plans that people must purchase), increasing health savings accounts, and tort reform.

Fair enough. And I generalized. I remember a few cases where issues were brought up and Obama acknowledged they were plausible options.

 

Mitt Romney is a turd. Now that we've cleared that up, who wants chocolate chips?

Did you wash your hands?

[ikol]

Did you wash your hands?

 

If you are implying that I would ever touch Mitt Romney, then I am offended.

[Central Scrutinizer]

If you are implying that I would ever touch Mitt Romney, then I am offended.

... I was referring to the turd. [edit: unless that's redundant]

[Guest Speed Racer]

Great article in the New York Times about how a lot of health clinics are opening up legal clinics in their offices to address socio-economic and cultural problems that affect patients' health:

 

As Part of a Check-Up, Help With Every Day Problems

 

By Eric Eckholm

Published March 23, 2010

 

It was not the normal stuff of a pediatric exam. As a doctor checked the growth of Davon Cade’s 2-month-old son, he also probed about conditions at home, and what he heard raised red flags.

 

Ms. Cade’s apartment had leaky windows and plumbing and was infested with roaches and mold, but the city, she said, had not responded to her complaints. On top of that, the landlord was evicting her for falling behind on the rent.

 

Help came through an unexpected route. The doctor referred Ms. Cade to the legal aid office right inside the pediatric clinic at Children’s Hospital in Cincinnati.

 

Within days, a paralegal had secured an inspection that finally forced the landlord to make repairs, and also got the rent reduced temporarily while Ms. Cade searched for less expensive housing.

 

“It got done when the lawyers got involved,” Ms. Cade said.

 

Doctors and social workers have long said that medical care alone is not enough to address the health woes of the poor, which are often related to diet, living conditions and stress.

 

The pediatric clinic in Cincinnati is one of 180 medical sites around the country that now seek to address at least some of these broader issues by bringing lawyers and doctors — so often foes in the courtroom — together into a close partnership.

 

In a process being duplicated nationally — the latest partnership started in West Virginia in the fall — the doctors at Children’s Hospital, using a protocol that started 18 months ago, referred 500 patients for legal aid last year. Some needed help getting food stamps, heating aid or cash welfare that had been wrongfully denied; some received help with evictions or home repairs, and others got legally mandated help for children with learning disabilities.

 

The idea was developed in the 1990s by Dr. Barry Zuckerman, chief of pediatrics at the Boston Medical Center. In recent years it has taken off, mainly in pediatric centers, although the technique is being tried with cancer and geriatric patients as well.

 

“This has transformed the way we think about giving care,” said Dr. Robert S. Kahn, a pediatrician at the Children’s Hospital who helped start the collaboration with the Legal Aid Society of Greater Cincinnati.

 

A survey of patients in his clinic, where nearly all are on Medicaid, found that 28 percent of families had their gas or electricity cut off in the previous year and that 23 percent had doubled up in housing or had to move to a cheaper residence. One in seven mothers with infants said they had diluted their formula to make it last, and one in three said they had sometimes run out of formula without money to buy more.

 

The partnerships do more than provide quick access to legal aid, Dr. Zuckerman said. They alter perspectives for both the medical and legal professions, as physicians become better at spotting underlying threats to health, and lawyers engage in what he called “preventive law.” The concept has been officially endorsed by the American Bar Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics.

 

A recurring concern of hospital executives has been that patients might try to draw the lawyers into malpractice suits. Dr. Zuckerman said that had not happened, and the legal aid groups involved say that malpractice was not their mandate and that they would tell complaining patients to seek advice elsewhere.

 

A vital first step is teaching doctors how to ask the right questions, said Elaine Fink, a senior lawyer with the Legal Aid Society who founded the partnership with Dr. Kahn of the Children’s Hospital.

 

“What can a doctor feel comfortable asking in a few seconds that will identify a legal issue?” Ms. Fink said. “It’s quite different from an attorney questioning a client.”

 

The society helped develop a two-week course that teaches medical interns how to probe about home life, school and finances during routine exams.

 

Diana A. of Cincinnati took her prematurely born daughter for her first checkup in the fall. (She spoke on condition she not be identified because she did not want her relatives to know of her hardships.)

 

Diana said she had been working as a home-health aide and had received no paid maternity leave. Her application for food stamps had inexplicably languished. “Pretty much all I was eating was oatmeal,” she said.

 

The baby was not gaining the expected weight. Doctors introduced her to a paralegal who got Diana baby formula and other aid on the spot, and food stamps and temporary cash assistance within days. Her daughter is now doing fine.

 

Felisa Tremble’s 16-year-old son was flunking out of school and she had been unable to get his learning disabilities properly diagnosed until she took him to Children’s Hospital. A psychiatric nurse called in legal aid and with that help, Ms. Tremble said, Medicaid paid for a costly neurological exam and the school developed an individual learning program for her son.

 

“He likes school now,” Ms. Tremble said. “If we hadn’t seen the lawyers, maybe he wouldn’t be in school at all.”

[Atticus]

I went to see my ENT this morning. I had to wait an hour and a half before finally seeing the doctor--thereby PROVING that Obamacare is an utter failure. took less than 48 hours to unravel the whole system into madness.

[mpolak21]

I went to see my ENT this morning. I had to wait an hour and a half before finally seeing the doctor--thereby PROVING that Obamacare is an utter failure. took less than 48 hours to unravel the whole system into madness.

 

Well played.

[Beltmann]

Now that the bill has passed, a new Gallup poll shows more Americans support the passage than oppose it. 49% of national adults think it is a "good thing," while 40% think it is a "bad thing."

[Guest Speed Racer]

Now that the bill has passed, a new Gallup poll shows more Americans support the passage than oppose it. 49% of national adults think it is a "good thing," while 40% think it is a "bad thing."

 

Probably because only once it passed did all of the major media outlets have a decent "What does this mean for YOU?" section on their website. And most people realized nothing in their lives would change.

[Atticus]

Probably because only once it passed did all of the major media outlets have a decent "What does this mean for YOU?" section on their website. And most people realized nothing in their lives would change.

 

did you not read my post. hour and a half wait. and they tried to get me to have an abortion.

[bleedorange]

I thought polls were not to be trusted

[Ghost of Electricity]

did you not read my post. hour and a half wait. and they tried to get me to have an abortion.

so did you have one?

[bleedorange]

Well, I forgot to call my eye doctor today to set up an appointment, so I still don't know when I'm going to see her. Friggin' Obamacare!

[tugmoose]

did you not read my post. hour and a half wait. and they tried to get me to have an abortion.

They aborted me and raised the taxes on my remains!

 

. . . and you're required to take your Death Panel out for drinks!

[Guest Speed Racer]

They aborted me and raised the taxes on my remains!

 

And they sent the bill for your and Poongoogler's procedures DIRECTLY TO IKOL!!!

[ikol]

And they sent the bill for your and Poongoogler's procedures DIRECTLY TO IKOL!!!

 

Joke's on you, I performed the abortion!

[Beltmann]

Joke's on you, I performed the abortion!

I'm looking for a vasectomy cheap; are you busy over spring break?

[Atticus]

so did you have one?

 

that is between me and my death panel