Politics and Medicare (and related issues)

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There is another special election in New York State today (NY's 26th district this time) to replace Rep. Chris Lee, a Republican who resigned after he sent sexy pictures of himself to a woman that he met on Craig's List. Once again it appears to be a normally safe Republican district in danger of going Democratic. But this time, while there is a third party tea party candidate involved, it appears that the main dynamic is voter anger against the GOP medicare plan. This could have implications for 2012 (both the congressional and presidential elections), though it is difficult to draw conclusions about November 2012 from what happens in May of 2011.

What to watch for in the New York special election

[Primula Baggins]

Hrrmmmmm. . . .

Things are moving fast, but some are saying Hochul's done it. She appears to be winning a county that McCain won, and winning it by a similar margin.

We'll see, but it is possible the ground has actually shifted dramatically, at least while the Ryan budget remains an issue.

Nate Silver thinks it's over. I suspect that he knows what he's talking about.

[Primula Baggins]

New York 26 has been called for Hochul, the Democrat (by the AP). That's . . . boggling.

71% of precincts reporting; it's Hochul (D) 48%, Corwin (R) 42%, Davis (Tea Party) 8%, Some Other Guy 1%.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

I won't say that it is a harbinger of things to come, but when it is combined with the extraordinary reaction to Newt Gingrich's criticism of Paul Ryan's medicare plans, it does suggest that the GOP is between a rock and hard place.

[Alatar]

As a complete outsider it seems to me that the Tea Party are just splitting the Republican vote.

[Dave_LF]

There is no Tea Party (yet?); not really. Except in a few cases like this one where they run as independents, "tea" candidates are just Republicans. The Republican party is split internally.

[Alatar]

Thats kinda what I meant.

[River]

One would think that Congress would take shifts in power and upsets like these as signs they need to stop beating on their chests and just do their jobs (I'm pointing my fingers at both parties, BTW). But I'm not going to hold my breath.

[Primula Baggins]

In this case the "Tea Party" candidate was the Democratic candidate in the 2010 election and pulled 26% of the vote. I think it would be fair to guess that he pulled fewer conservative Republicans from Corwin (the Republican) than a "real" Tea Party candidate would have. And he may also have pulled some Democrats from Hochul. In other words, it's possible to argue that he wasn't a game changer.

The significant point I see is that Hochul won the same percentage of the electorate (48%) as the Democratic candidate did in 2008, which was a huge Democratic wave (though the Republican still won). I'm not arguing that current conditions constitute a Democratic wave, not at all, but it's an encouraging sign insofar as special election results mean anything.

My brother, who's a Democratic activist in new York, was astonished, BTW. He and I agree that the important lesson that we wish, maybe even hope, our party will take away from this is to stand firm on Social Security and Medicare. Do the obvious money-saving fixes such as correcting the unfunded Part D and allowing Medicare to bargain with drug companies, and also raise the limit on taxable income for Social Security to maybe $200,000; otherwise, leave it alone. Defend it firmly.

The Ryan budget hands Democrats a huge advantage that they will lose if they allow themselves to be drawn into any changes in Medicare that are seen as cuts or can be portrayed as cuts by Republican candidates.

[Cerin]

I won't say that it is a harbinger of things to come, but when it is combined with the extraordinary reaction to Newt Gingrich's criticism of Paul Ryan's medicare plans, it does suggest that the GOP is between a rock and hard place.

I would like to understand that reaction better. I'm wondering if Gingrich simply thought he had the stature to buck the Party line, or if he thought the Republicans had put themselves in a tough spot and was trying to give them a line out. Did those who rebuked Gingrich speak for the party as a whole, or were they voices from the newer ranks of Congressmen? I guess I'm wondering to what extent the party is really invested in the Ryan plan (i.e., they honestly miscalculated), or if they're essentially being bullied by the vocal right into seeming to be invested.

[Dave_LF]

The Ryan budget hands Democrats a huge advantage that they will lose if they allow themselves to be drawn into any changes in Medicare that are seen as cuts or can be portrayed as cuts by Republican candidates.

Salon believes the situation is no accident, and that Obama knew exactly what he was doing here.

The article also makes this significant observation on the side:

It's also tempting to compare the Republican misadventures on Medicare with the Democratic healthcare saga, which also generated town hall anger and a huge electoral backlash. But there's one momentous difference. Obama got his healthcare bill passed into law. The Ryan budget is never even going to get a vote in the Senate. If you're going to place your entire party in political jeopardy, you might want to make sure you're getting something out of the bargain.

[Primula Baggins]

Interesting article. But I'm waiting to see whether that take on it is borne out in action. The budget negotiations involve Vice President Biden reportedly have Medicare and Social Security cuts or at least changes on the table. When we see what emerges from those talks and what the White House supports (and with how much energy), we'll be able to judge whether this was in fact a "long game" by Obama and, if so, exactly what he wanted to accomplish with it.

Every now and then my "hopey-changey" nerve twitches a bit, but I've been burned before.

[Voronwë the Faithful]

There needs to be some balance between political concerns and the simple needs of the country. The deficit DOES need to be addressed, and I don't see how it be without some changes to Medicare. And the debt ceiling must be raised, and that can't be done without GOP votes. And that also is probably going to require some kind of changes to Medicare.

[Primula Baggins]

Yes, but there are some simple and obvious changes that can be made without serious harm to Medicare recipients. Fixing part D and allowing Medicare to negotiate for better drug prices are two fixes that will hurt only drug company profits (and so are politically impossible, or have been in the past). We don't have to start by destroying the program.

[Teremia]

Plus the problem is health care inflation in general, and NOT Medicare, per se. Kicking people into private insurance (less efficient, profit-oriented) does not solve the problem of escalating health costs. It just takes the problem you're going to have to solve eventually (how to take reasonably good care of the health of 300 million people without breaking the bank) and makes it that much more complicated and difficult.

[Túrin Turambar]

The Ryan budget hands Democrats a huge advantage that they will lose if they allow themselves to be drawn into any changes in Medicare that are seen as cuts or can be portrayed as cuts by Republican candidates.

Salon believes the situation is no accident, and that Obama knew exactly what he was doing here.

The article also makes this significant observation on the side:

It's also tempting to compare the Republican misadventures on Medicare with the Democratic healthcare saga, which also generated town hall anger and a huge electoral backlash. But there's one momentous difference. Obama got his healthcare bill passed into law. The Ryan budget is never even going to get a vote in the Senate. If you're going to place your entire party in political jeopardy, you might want to make sure you're getting something out of the bargain.

It also shows that opposition to change is generally much easier than support for change. Small target strategy and all that.

[Holbytla]

Plus the problem is health care inflation in general, and NOT Medicare, per se. Kicking people into private insurance (less efficient, profit-oriented) does not solve the problem of escalating health costs. It just takes the problem you're going to have to solve eventually (how to take reasonably good care of the health of 300 million people without breaking the bank) and makes it that much more complicated and difficult.

Without too much further sidetrack of this thread, what Teremia speaks of is what I see as the crux of Medi-Care and all health care woes.

We bear the cost of police and fire protection through taxes, but for the most part those services have fewer profits attached to them than the health care field which we also support with taxes.

Yet if too much of the profits were cut from the system, that would lead to more unemployment and a further burden on the system. That would also be a large step towards a more socialistic environment which would disenfranchise at least half of the country and probably derail any attempt to correct the system before it starts.

Some sort of a regulated industry may be step in the right direction, but I don't have a lot of faith in that from past experience.

I plainly see no way to insure 300+ million people satisfactorally without cutting a lot of the profit from the industry and I plainly see no way this country is able to or willing to support a socialised system of health care.