danivon wrote:Well, RJ, on that last one, he and the Democrats pretty much did propose what had been Republican ideas (Romneycare and other Republican solutions based on non-single-payer insurance and extending Medicare & Medicaid). Problem was that as soon as Obama and the moderate Democrats proposed them, the Republicans decided their ideas were 'socialist' and almost universally opposed them. Thus the only debate became one within the Democratic caucuses with a handful of 'RINO's. Even then, what emerged was pretty much what a bipartisan plan would look like, just without the bipartisan part.

The Bush Medicare expansion is evidence that Republicans in Congress would do about the same, were it not part of their 2009 plan to auto-oppose anything from Obama.

We've had this conversation before. What about the Republican ideas for tort reform and interstate competition?

Perhaps a more constructive attitude from the GOP in Congress could have seen those in as well? Tort reform is easier said than done - there is a Constitutional issue, surely, of the Legislature setting limits on the judicial system concerning civil cases, in that it erodes the power of the Judiciary. Cross state competition sounds like a good idea, within the context of Obamacare. I'm unsure as to how it would work in practice with differing State laws and regulations and how to avoid companies based in big states destroying the competition in smaller ones.

The point was that the ideas that were incorporated and originated from Republicans were repudiated by them, and the whole thing was blanket opposed, making co-operation all but impossible. The 'blame Obama' narrative tends to omit the stance of the GOP leadership in Congress.

Right, the issue is debatable, and we've had that debate, and it's complicated, and circumstantial, and depends on many things including perspective, and we can discuss it for a long time.

But my central point which is apropos to the forum topic and Geo's question is that candidates -- and I mentioned 2 Republican and 1 Democratic President so this notion that I'm narrowly just part of a 'blame Obama' crowd is unfair and suggests that it is more about your biases than mine -- make promises that they do not keep.

danivon wrote:The 'blame Obama' narrative tends to omit the stance of the GOP leadership in Congress.

The "exonerate Obama" narrative tends to omit overwhelming Democratic control of both Houses of Congress in the first two years of his term.

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:The 'blame Obama' narrative tends to omit the stance of the GOP leadership in Congress.

The "exonerate Obama" narrative tends to omit overwhelming Democratic control of both Houses of Congress in the first two years of his term.

Well put, although "overwhelming" will be challenged.

Ray Jay wrote:

Doctor Fate wrote:

danivon wrote:The 'blame Obama' narrative tends to omit the stance of the GOP leadership in Congress.

The "exonerate Obama" narrative tends to omit overwhelming Democratic control of both Houses of Congress in the first two years of his term.

Well put, although "overwhelming" will be challenged.

In the House, it doesn't take much. With party discipline, an edge of one is "overwhelming."

The Senate, we all know, typically takes 60 to ram stuff through. However, there are some really weak Republicans who could have been picked off if the President had worked on it. How weak were they? One of them flipped to "Democrat."

Doctor Fate wrote:
The "exonerate Obama" narrative tends to omit overwhelming Democratic control of both Houses of Congress in the first two years of his term.

Ray Jay:

Well put, although "overwhelming" will be challenged.

Dr. Fate:

The Senate, we all know, typically takes 60 to ram stuff through. However, there are some really weak Republicans who could have been picked off if the President had worked on it. How weak were they? One of them flipped to "Democrat.".

I went back to Wikipedia to refresh my memory. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/111th_Unit ... s_Congress

The reality is that the Democrats (including the independents who caucus with them) had between 58 and 60 senators during the 2 year period when Obama was first elected. They also were able to pass legislation that had a few Republican senators supporting it, including Lily Ledbetter, Chip (Children health insurance) and the stimulus. The notion that Republican obstructionism was the problem is not supported by the facts. Obama had an unprecedented majority to lead to good economic outcomes, and he just didn't do it. He had massive support of the people and a full claim of legitimacy to implement the policies of his choice. Clinton and Reagan led with smaller majorities. He alienated the Republicans and the American electorate resulting in a Republican lanslide in 2010. Obama pivoted left and overreached.

I don't see how you can reach an alternative conclusion in spite of one stray comment by the Senate minority leader.

Danivon:

Tort reform is easier said than done - there is a Constitutional issue, surely, of the Legislature setting limits on the judicial system concerning civil cases, in that it erodes the power of the Judiciary.

In rereading I got a chuckle out of this. I don't think that Obama's concerns relating to Constitutional issues were at the core of not accepting these important ideas to limit health care costs. Occam's Razor suggests that future funding by trial lawyers is at the root of Obama not considering these suggestions.

I didn't say they were Obama's concerns (or those of the Congressional committees that drafted the legislation). They are my observations. I'm also unconvinced that tort reform would make much difference in the cost of medical care. It would reduce malpractice premiums somewhat (although I suspect not that much as most awards would be below a reasonable limit), which would possibly be passed on as reductions in medical fees and thence on to insurance premiums. But I suspect there's some plasticity in the system to soak some of that up. Meantime, the costs of drugs and treatments themselves are growing apace.

I can also pretty much guarantee that if tort reform came in with a payout limit, there would be challenges up to the USSC as soon as an exceptional case arises.

People forget that there were about 5 conservative Democratic senators that Obama had to deal with. With almost no Republican senators willing to cross party lines and 5 conservative Democrats unwilling to pass liberal legislation (they each had to be given something in return for voting for Obamacare for instance) it wasn't that easy for Obama to get legislation passed. Those democratic senators were far more willing to obstruct Obama than Republican senators were willing tocross party lines

We have tort reform in California (it's called MICRA) there is a cap on pain and suffering awards of 250k (no limit on economic damages) Makes a lot of cases uneconomical. Not sure what the justification for shifting the costs of a doctor's mistakes on to patients. Also noteworthy that juries generally don't like med mal cases with doctors winning 80 percent of trial nationwide Most estimates of savings on healthcare spending is that it would be relatively small, anyway Might be interesting to see what had happened in California with regard to premiums and health care spending

freeman2 wrote:People forget that there were about 5 conservative Democratic senators that Obama had to deal with. With almost no Republican senators willing to cross party lines and 5 conservative Democrats unwilling to pass liberal legislation (they each had to be given something in return for voting for Obamacare for instance) it wasn't that easy for Obama to get legislation passed. Those democratic senators were far more willing to obstruct Obama than Republican senators were willing tocross party lined

If he's so weak that he can't lead Democrats, he should not be reelected.

freeman2 wrote:People forget that there were about 5 conservative Democratic senators that Obama had to deal with. With almost no Republican senators willing to cross party lines and 5 conservative Democrats unwilling to pass liberal legislation (they each had to be given something in return for voting for Obamacare for instance) it wasn't that easy for Obama to get legislation passed. Those democratic senators were far more willing to obstruct Obama than Republican senators were willing tocross party lines

5 Republican senators voted for Lily Ledbetter, and many more voted for closure on it.

7 or 8 voted for Chip

3 voted for the 1st stimulus

8 for the 2009 appropriations bill even though it had 8,500 earmarks which Obama said he would never do. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omnibus_Ap ... _Act,_2009 (another good example of politicians openly violating their campaign pledges)

Point well-taken-- some legislation did get passed but lets not pretend that Obama could easily pass legislation just because there were 60 Democratic senators

Let us not pretend that it was an uphill battle either.

freeman2 wrote:Point well-taken-- some legislation did get passed but lets not pretend that Obama could easily pass legislation just because there were 60 Democratic senators

That's true. My only point is that Obama did not keep many of his campaign pledges, even though he had a unique opportunity to do so and fix this country. Frankly, I voted for him partially because I thought he understood how powerful well run and well regulated capitalist economics can be. He said he would reach across the aisle. He talked about purple America.

He could have focussed on tax reform; he could have focussed on cutting wasteful government spending; he could have focussed on fixing long term deficits in entitlement programs; he cut have focussed on cutting and strengthening our regulatory mess. He chose to focus on economic stimulus (including mega-earmarks) and he chose to focus on passing his version of improving our health care system. I'm not sympathetic to the view that it is all the Republican's fault.