dagblog - Comments for "It's never too late to make a second impression."

Jason, nice to see you

Beetlejuice — Sun, 05 Jun 2011 19:24:58 +0000

In reply to It's never too late to make a second impression.

Jason, nice to see you grazing in the pasture too.

As usual, I'll taking a little time to digest your two posts before I ask a question or two.

I do think a better marketing

jasonmillerdc — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:33:11 +0000

I do think a better marketing job would have yielded better results. The idea of reforming government-run health coverage into a "public option" was always inherently the best initial solution.

That money is being spent every year across multiple plans and populations. Of course combining them would save money immediately, whatever growing pains might have been encountered along the way. I bet a package of common sense private insurance reforms could have passed with a super majority as well.

The president forgot all about what makes him and every other iconic president famous in the first place: Talking sense to the American people directly and then making us force Congress to act in all of our best interests in percentages that ensure the nation knows what our collective mind is on an issue and then support it moving forward.

Like Social Security and Medicare and Civil Rights and Suffrage and Prohibition.

The jury has long been in on their desire to have public health and retirement programs, despite any rhetoric to the contrary or possible improvement could be made to the existing paradigm on how those public services are delivered. Plus, old people are the ones who vote in primary elections, where all candidates are promoted or broken.

Interesting point. I hadn't

jasonmillerdc — Wed, 01 Jun 2011 18:22:40 +0000

In reply to Of course. And one of the BIG

Interesting point. I hadn't considered the previous democratic administration in that equation. Bush Jr. had the same problem. I appreciated the president's instincts in wanting to bring the parties toward smarter, non-idealogical solutions.

Not sure how he ended up with Clinton Cabinet Part Deux, but I am willing to chalk it up to the learning curve any president will face. I would love to see a way for him to bring back the coalition of voters in every state in the union that helped him make it to the general election in the first place.

Publicly funded--meaning

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 26 May 2011 18:27:38 +0000

In reply to The current public heath

Publicly funded--meaning federally funded--public health plans don't exclude abortion? Are you Mr. Jekyll or Mr. Hyde?

Of course. And one of the BIG

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 26 May 2011 18:25:42 +0000

In reply to The president doesn't (and

Of course. And one of the BIG reasons he set our principles, but let Congress work out the details is the critique of the Clintons. They, it was claimed, did all the legislating (in private) and then tried to foist a plan on Congress. Obama went the other way. Maybe he needed to find a middle ground between the two approaches...or something.

I congratulate you on a

Peter Schwartz — Thu, 26 May 2011 18:22:32 +0000

In reply to There is no difference. The

I congratulate you on a FABULOUS name: AmeriCare. It is PERFECT. I agree with you on positioning. I also believe that Medicare For All would have had the advantage of being...easy to understand. That was one of the bill's big faults: It was hard to hold on to.

But given what happened, you may be being a bit--how to put it? disingenuous or naive?--in thinking that a single payer system would have gone down smoothly. MAYBE if it had been sold right.

I mean, would it not have brought out the deficit hawks in even greater numbers and with even greater fury? In their heart of hearts, almost all Democrats would go for a single payer. It's just that they don't believe it could ever be passed.

You have. :O) I am happy to

jasonmillerdc — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:51:45 +0000

In reply to Jason, have I mentioned how

You have. :O) I am happy to contribute.

You highlight so many of the

jasonmillerdc — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:50:27 +0000

In reply to You are absolutely right.

You highlight so many of the areas where a 70% or more majority could agree we need to publically manage and fund those operations, perhaps some with private support as needed. A functional, technologically-advanced society costs a lot of money to build and maintain.

I would stay away from taxes to begin with, mostly because I am convinced the tax system would be plently equitable if we could find a way to spend our money more effectively. Simply refocusing our military posture abroad would free up funds almost immediately.

Given the varied voices in the commercial sector, it is easy to gain the support of one interest group even as you end the influence of others.

The current public heath

jasonmillerdc — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:38:47 +0000

In reply to Any Americare plan would have

The current public heath plans don't exclude those services, so there is no reason why a system that combines all of them into a single entity would restrict access. Despite whatever power the religious fringe has with regards to the national dialog, they rarely get their rhetoric passed into law at the federal level.

The president doesn't (and

jasonmillerdc — Thu, 26 May 2011 13:35:28 +0000

In reply to Yes; please don't blame the

The president doesn't (and shouldn't) legislate. Obama may have been naive to think the parties could come together for the good of the nation, but he wasn't wrong to try.