One of the few places. (0.00 / 0)

Stark is good.

Pelosi is more progressive than Obama.  Think about it.

 

---

by: Tom Wells @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 14:23:00 PM UTC

She might be more progressive ... (4.00 / 3)

but she is a horrid leader .. she doesn't know how to wield power .. and she lets Rahm and Steny knife her in the back a lot

---

by: Calvin Jones and the 13th Apostle @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 14:47:38 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

She may be all we have. (0.00 / 0)

It shows how weak we are.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:31:04 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Balance has changed (4.00 / 1)

We entered the elction with 239 House seats and 40 Blue Dogs.  To get anything passed, Pelosi needed the support of about 20 Blue Dogs an/or moderate Republicans.  We closed the election with 257 Democrats and a similar number of Blue Dogs.  Now Pelosi needs just 1 frigging Blue Dog or Republican to cross over.  Much, much easier.  As for Steny, he will continue to preen for the camera and knife Pelosi in the back every chance he gets.

I suspect that Pelosi will look a whole lot more effective this session than she did last.  It is a matter of numbers.

Btw, one vote we lost was Bill Jefferson's.  Everybody is doing high fives that dollar Bill is gone but the place to dump him was the Democratic primary.

And yes, some of the close losses and disappointments could come home to bite us.  Ten more House seats would make a difference.  We need to get them in 2010 (and if realignment is going on, we have a very good chance).

---

by: David Kowalski @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:14:23 PM UTC

AMA (4.00 / 2)

its my understanding that the AMA is a real problem in addressing health care costs; that they control the education process, how we define who a doctor is, and how many new doctors we create each year - basically creating a shortage. its always seemed to me that one of our big problems is that we have this two tier system (either you're a doctor or you're a nurse) vs having a spectrum of skilled medical staff. so one wouldn't need to pay full tilt just to have minor checkups or minor ailments treated, nor run the full expensive rigorous gauntlet of education to do so. then opening medical school to more doctors per year would help lower prices at the high end. more doctors would also drive education costs down as more doctors could train more doctors.

but this is an impression im under. would like to hear other thoughts on AMA's roll in the high costs of medical care.

~* the * Will * to go on *~

---

by: ObscureName @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:18:30 PM UTC

Very True (0.00 / 0)

The AMA is one of the most regressive parts of the health care system and part of the reason we have high costs and poor quality.  They have opposed every attempt at universal coverage ever attempted including 1993.  I will be shocked if they support Obama's effort - they are a very conservative group.  They have also stopped many efforts to improve quality including attempts to establish outcomes based medical reimbursement where appropriate.  

I would love to blow-up our health care system and start over but health care is like the defense industry.  There are a lot of moving major players with vested interests and getting them to support change is very, very hard.

---

by: jmnyc @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:35:53 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Speaking as a Lawyer (4.00 / 1)

I think that a big reason so many people hate lawyers is that so many lawyers work for banks and insurance companies.

---

by: kaleidescope @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:23:23 PM UTC

I think it's because of (0.00 / 0)

divorce.

---

by: Tom Wells @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:31:43 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

yeah, that's why it's only taken 50 years to get health care reform (4.00 / 1)

I love Pete Stark too, but he doesn't need to be cocky about it either.  The insurance companies know they are hated, that's why they spend millions of dollars on Madison Ave. melting our brains.  Health care reform will be a very hard fight, just like the presidential election was a hard fight but we went in knowing it would be hard, we re-doubled our efforts and we came out winners.  Pete will be a great fighter but I have disdain for language like they will be "easy to roll" and "nobody likes".  yeah, and that's why the health insurance situation has gotten progressively worse and all the while the insurance companies have increased thier profits.  If it was easy, it would have been done already.  

---

by: gaspare @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:37:12 PM UTC

Agreed (4.00 / 1)

Stark is great on issues but his flip attitude makes him his own worst enemy.  Pete is assuming you can isolate the insurance industry which I am not convinced you can do.  People hated the insurance industry 15 years ago too but they aren't stupid.  They formed alliances with employers, pharma cos, etc to help block the Clinton Health Reform effort.  There is no guarantee that this won't happen again.

---

by: jmnyc @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 15:49:36 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stark is just as glib as Cheney's and Bush's SO bullshit (0.00 / 0)

So we fucked up Iraq, so.  So, we invaded anyway, so.  So, we bankrupted the country pissing away $1.7Trillion in Iraq, So. so, 47 million Americans don't have health insurance, so what.  So, the auto industry is in immenent danger of collapse, so.  So, the health insurance industry has successfully blocked health care reform for 50 years, so.  So, big Pharma got the government to pay even more for prescriptions than we were before, so.

---

by: gaspare @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:06:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]

Stark Should Know Better (0.00 / 0)

having been in the center of the health care storm 15 years ago.  My money is on Waxman, not Stark, moving the health reform bill since their committees share jurisdiction.  Policy wise it means little difference but Waxman has a lot more respect from his colleagues as we saw in his fight with Dingell and that will make it easier for him to take the lead on a tough issue like this one.

---

by: jmnyc @ Thu Dec 18, 2008 at 16:45:40 PM UTC

[ Parent ]