Great similarities and some differences (0.00 / 0)

Depending on how the last few Senate and House seats break, the results of the 1992 and 2008 elections are almost identical:

Electoral Votes: Clinton,370; Obama,365
D House seats: 1992,258; 2008,255-260, most likely 258 or  
259
D Senate seats: 1992,56,fillibuster required; 58-60, the new 60 rule

President Bush leaving office.  Despite an Ivy League education, the man has no public speaking ability and can sound inarticulate to an extreme.

Republican deficits based on tax cuts. Same, only Bush I raised them a bit while Bush II has huge cuts that are expiring.

Poor economy. Perhaps a bit worse now but not so hot then,  Remember the famous Clinton line, "It's the economy, stupid. Sluggish stock market.  

Coming off war in mideast (paid by others) to slowly disengaging off a longer war we are paying for.

The insurance companies are promising to play ball on health insurance if we "cooperate."

The differences are at least two.  The media seems mostly in Obama's pocket and the "momentum" favors Democrats with two cycles of big legislative wins.

---

by: David Kowalski @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:29:33 PM UTC

I think you're underestimating the difference in the economy (4.00 / 1)

In 1993 there was no serious talk of the auto industry being wiped out.  The fact is we've gone about as far as our crappy old healthcare system can take us, and it's obvious even to the corporations that there needs to be change.

That's why this is coming to the fore now.  It's necessary even if we "can't afford it" because we can't afford not to do something bigh.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:13:16 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Some Great Points... (0.00 / 0)

I'd also add that there seems to be more of a UHC or at least cheaper health care mandate right now... more so than in 1993, where costs weren't anywhere near as high as now.    That should help as well.

---

by: yitbos96bb @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 14:36:44 PM UTC

Thank you David (0.00 / 0)

After all the process stories, the agonizing drip of vote count stories, the Lieberman atrocity, how nice it is to read an issue-based story.  I just wrote a diary on the same thing.

We need to be doing some serious thinking about what this all means.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:15:37 PM UTC

Wouldn't the insurance industry be part of the braindead megaphone? (0.00 / 0)

AHIP and Blue Cross jumped onboard the Baucus/AHIP/SEIU push for insurance mandates yesterday.  Go check out this commentary from the incomparable Don McCanne of PNHP.

Basically they said they'd guarantee issue to all comers--if they got a guarantee that every American had to purchase their, better yet, some of them with government subsidies.  Which is a great deal for them, locking in customers revenues and profits for decades.

Is it good for healthcare reform?  Will we be able to provide care to every American while we protect the 30?% overhead of the for-profit insurers?  Is this push more about appearing to do healthcare reform or actually taking on the problems?

I for one am not as cheered as you are to see the insurance corporations leading this parade.

Join the California Nurses Association and National Nurses Organizing Committee in the fight for guaranteed healthcare on the single-payer model at www.GuaranteedHealthcare.org/blog

---

by: California Nurses Shum @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 15:34:00 PM UTC

The devil is in the details, of course. (4.00 / 1)

I don't think David is arguing that we have to rush out and embrace this proposal.  Obviously, it will need to be studied very carefully.

The point of celebration here is that this is now the opening offer from the insurance industry.  In 1993 it was Harry and Louise.  We start from a stronger position.  If your goal here is single payer, you're in a much better position to argue for it now than it was in 1993.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 18:14:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

auto bailout, industrial competitiveness, and health care issues need to be tied (0.00 / 0)

Although it increasingly looks like our Betters may deliver some kind of auto bailout before year's end, isn't it time we also make the case as loudly as we can that the secret weapon of European and Japanese and even Canadian auto plants is the free health care those societies offer to everybody on two (or fewer) legs?

I tried to do it in this week's issue of BAR because I really think it's a persuasive and overlooked argument.  

I mean, I personally know a dozen entrepreneurs who are and continue to struggle with this, cutting their own margins to the bone to make health care available for their workers.  Free health care for everybody --- single payer --- is a competitive advantage that every other advanced industrial economy has over this one.  

Ain't it about time we leveled THAT playing field?

"If you want that good feeling that comes from doing things for other people, then you have to pay for it in abuse and misunderstanding..."
Zora Neale Hurston

---

by: bruce.dixon @ Fri Nov 21, 2008 at 19:59:57 PM UTC

Health insurance, Bruce, how boring (0.00 / 0)

We'd much rather obsess about the endlessly exciting vote count in Minnesota.  So that when we get sixty Democrats in the Senate, any one of them can blackmail the administration by threatening to defect to the Republicans.

Nice article.  Issues.  Well laid out.  I readily confess to no longer understanding the interests of most of the people on this site.

sTiVo's rule: Just because YOU "wouldn't put it past 'em" doesn't prove that THEY did it.

---

by: sTiVo @ Sat Nov 22, 2008 at 00:10:22 AM UTC

[ Parent ]