What do you wish the candidates were actually talking about?

Hey Josh - thanks for taking time to read & share your thoughts. Your caps and multiple question marks tells me that this topic has really stirred you.

I'm curious to know what you mean by the DNC coddling the two final primary candidates. I actually don't recall April 2008 but I'm guessing my memory might get jogged if you do - was that around the whole Michigan and Florida delegates thing? Or something else?

Also, about term limits - I think that's just another way that voters end up abdicating their ability to have a say. They end up not paying attention except when the seat becomes open, otherwise, they're like "Oh, so and so is term-limited - we'll wait til then" since so often incumbency is an insurmountable advantage (though not always, as we're seeing more and more, and I think that's a really really good thing, because it means voters are paying attention).

I don't have a strong opinion one way or the other about what Harkin said - except maybe a smile at the thought that the average age of people in the political body in which he serves is something like 59 - not exactly spring chickens. Age is relative, obviously! (Remember when Henry Waxman of CA and John Dingell of MI were both vying for a leadership position in the House in 2008 - Waxman was 68 and Dingell was 82!)

Posted Sep 04, 2012

Josh,

The tweet was a description of Clint Eastwood's performance, and every source I can find attributes it to the 10:10 PM August 30 tweet from Jamelle Bouie.  I have not been able to find any attribution to Senator Harkin (before or after that tweet).  (There was no reference in the tweet, or anything I said, to him being angry.)

At any rate, what I focused on is arguing with the imaginary - not who is doing the arguing.  What troubles me are false assertions, which are then used as the basis to convince people to vote against someone (or something).  Both sides are doing their fair share of it.  Because it impacts me personally - the lies about what is in the Affordable Care act are some of the lies I notice most - and they are part of the imaginary Barack Obama.

As to the Affordable Care Act I have heard the following whoppers just in the last week:

Whopper #1:  Another variation of the "death panels."  None of the proposed bills (or the final version) included "death panels." in any form.  A provision which allowed doctors to be paid for the full spectrum of end of life counseling when they provide it  was misconstrued as a panel deciding whether granny should live or die.  The issue being addressed by the bill was that people who wanted their doctors to discuss hospice, or pain control, or ceasing v. continuing extraordinary care often were denied access to that counseling because Medicare did not pay doctors for the time they spent providing that service.  The change was solely to permit doctors to be paid for a service many were already providing without compensation.  The new (also false) version is that in 2014 elderly patients will be denied major medical care, like chemo, unless they can obtain government approval in 2014.

Whopper #2:  As of 2014 small businesses will be required to provide insurance to their employees and will have to pay fines even if their employees have their own health insurance through private purchase or their spouse's plan.  Completely false. as to small businesses, and only partially true with respect to large businesses.  No business is required to provide insurance.  Large businesses will have to pay a fee to help cover the cost of tax credits claimed by their employees IF the large business does not provide affordable insurance AND AND their employees claim a tax credit.  Small businesses never have to pay this fee.

Whopper #3:  The Affordable Care Act has no cost reduction measures in it.  Again - false.  The ACA has numerous cost cutting provisions from fraud reduction, the implementation of preventative care (designed to catch illness while the cost of treating them is lower), requiring insurance company rebates if their profits are too high (the first $1.1 million in rebates were returned by August 1), bundling payments, and more outlined here.   

That is the context for why the tweet resonated wtih me.  My daughter's ability to afford health care for two chronic and costly conditions depends on key provisions of the Affordable Care Act (the right to insurance, and equity of premiums, and subsidies in the likely event she will be unable to work full time).  I'm willing to debate whether the ACA is good or not.  But what I am tired of is having to spend the first half, or more, of every discussion countering all of the imaginary provisions of the Affordable Care Act before we can even start talking about whether what is in there is a good plan or not.

Whether you agree or disagree with the Affordable Care Act, if the decision about whether to keep Barack Obama as President or replace him with Mitt Romney depends in part on the Affordable Care Act, that decision ought to be based in reality - not on the imaginary Obamacare or imaginary Barack Obama, or the imaginary Mitt Romney, for that matter.  There are enough legitimate differences of opinion about the real things and their proponents.  What I want (and what that tweet captures for me) is the need to debate what is real - not what is imaginary.

Posted Sep 04, 2012

Josh,

I have now found the comment you must be referring to which Senator Harkin made this morning:  “We’ve got our work cut out for us this week, folks, following the Republican convention,” Harkin said as the delegates dined on eggs, sausages and biscuits. “I mean, how are we ever going to match Clint Eastwood? I got to thinking he is the perfect icon for today’s Republican tea party: an old angry white man spewing incoherent nonsense.”

The tweet I quoted (from a couple of days ago) described Barack Obama in the role Clint Eastwood chose to place him:  An imaginary figure, both literally and figuratively.  Eastwood's lack of coherence, at times during the speech, does raise flags for me, and the fact that it is being used as put-down or a joke is not something I find appropriate or funny.

Posted Sep 04, 2012

Josh--thanks for bringing that up. Jill and Nancy have given you a lot to respond to, so I won't push the point. I will agree with you that the double standard employed with Clint (it's alright if he's on script on TV for the Dems, but not off script on stage for the Rs) is not really defensible. The incoherence that Nancy points to is just unfortunate. 

The question I really have for you is what do you wish you were hearing from the DNC or the RNC or the candidates themselves?

Posted Sep 05, 2012