| Author |
Message |
    
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14635
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 4:17 pm: | 
|
June 7, 2006
Talking Points
Can the Democrats Win Back Congress?
By FRANCIS X. CLINES
Karl Rove, President Bush's political guru, concedes that this is a "sour time," as voters confront the painful costs of Mr. Bush's increasingly unpopular war in Iraq, only one of several glaring examples of executive mismanagement.
Representative Rahm Emanuel, the Chicago Democrat who is the field general for his party in this fall's Congressional elections finds it a most opportune time, bristling with possibilities for his party to make a once-in-a-generation leap back into Capitol power. Both politicians no doubt searched for the first pulse of the looming campaign in the June 6 special election in California's 50th Congressional district. The prize was the once eminently safe Republican district of the now-imprisoned Randy "Duke" Cunningham who has become a corrupt symbol of the G.O.P.'s trembling hold on power.
The election result, in which Democratic challenger Francine Busby narrowly lost to former Representative Brian Bilbray, the Republican, was seized by both sides as definitive evidence for November optimism though Republicans, clearly, were happier with the result. To Republicans, Mr. Bilbray's victory was evidence that talk of a Democratic wave is overstated. To Democrats, the fact that Ms. Busby came within 5 percent of winning in a heavily Republican district means Democratic candidates can expect to do well with independents in the fall, and even pull away some Republican voters.
After years as the disheartened minority firmly ground beneath the dominance of Mr. Bush and his party, Democrats imagine a more than even chance if they work furiously enough and minimize their signature self-cannibalism to regain control of the House of Representatives, and maybe even the Senate. They note that rarely has a sitting president registered as badly as Mr. Bush in approval ratings. Two thirds of Americans in a recent New York Times/CBS poll found the country in worse shape than when the president was first elected; and Mr. Bush's numbers are closing in on the even lower approval ratings for the Republican-controlled Congress. Democrats are using the G.O.P.'s single-party grip on government as a campaign theme for all sorts of voter unrest on the open-ended war, the administration's nebulous homeland security strategy, botched immigration reform, pernicious neglect of the environment, spiking gas prices and the next hurricane alarm.
The stakes in the November election are huge: voters will choose 435 House representatives, 33 senators and 36 governors. Winning a majority in either house of Congress would give Democrats subpoena power to fully confront a broad range of barely investigated issues, from Iraq policies to corruption in governmental contracts, to executive abuse of constitutional rights. The final two years of the Bush administration could become a parade of government officials hauled before Congressional committees to answer questions.
Democrats have their take on how they hope the election will go. "Every mid-term election is nationalized," says Mr. Emanuel. He's betting on the fact that a nationalized election which is to say, one that is a referendum on the president and his party will give a major boost to Democratic candidates. They will need a boost. The 15-seat gain they need to regain control of the House will require a voter revolt in November akin to the post-Watergate rejection of Republicans in 1974, or the Newt Gingrich sweep to power on a 54-seat gain in 1994, when Democrats were driven from decades of House control.
The polls suggest that this could be an historic election. Current approval ratings for Congress are just over 20 percent, mirroring the mood before the Gingrich rebellion. But, unlike the '94 Democrats, the Republicans are more than ready for the fight. For all their hopes, Democrats are aware of the G.O.P. machine's formidable turnout four years ago and the hard fact that Congressional incumbents of both parties are more entrenched and difficult to defeat than at any time in history, shielded by special-interest campaign donations and partisan gerrymandering. If the Democrats fail to take back Congress under such historically inviting circumstances, it would be a devastating blow that would prompt watershed questions about the party's value and the state of the American political process.
Proven masters like Mr. Rove are working hard to make that happen. In a recent speech, the Republican strategist insisted that this "sour time" does not signal a referendum debacle for the president's party. "Ultimately," he said, "the American people are a center-right country who, presented with a center-right party with center-right candidates, will vote center-right."
But despite Mr. Rove's insistence that his party is more in sync with the electorate than the Democrats, the Republicans, once so ebullient in hailing their mid-term triumph of 2002 as a pro-Bush national referendum, are now clinging to the old Democratic bromide that all politics is local. "Sure we have the wind in our face," says Representative Tom Reynolds of New York, who is running the House Republicans' campaign, already working at a feverish pace to protect their majority. "But all politics is local block-and-tackle, making sure the districts are talking on message and we have the money to get the message out."
On Wed. Nov. 8, we will know who was right.
I. Once-Safe Republicans Tumble Into Play
The footsteps Mr. Reynolds may be hearing lately are the scrambling sounds of more and more incumbent Republicans once solidly rated as beyond serious challenge coming into electoral play and having to fight for survival.
The driving force in the election could be the surprisingly large gap that polls are showing right now in support for Democrats and Republicans. Last month, a New York Times/CBS News poll found that voters favored a generic Democratic Congressional candidate over a generic Republican, 44 percent to 33 percent an enormous margin for a poll of this kind.
These polls do not neatly translate into pick-ups of Congressional seats, because voters are often attached to their own congressmen even when they think the other 434 should be run out of Washington on a rail and because district lines have been drawn in a way to minimize the number of competitive seats.
Still, there appear to be a growing number of Republican seats that could turn blue. Charles Cook, Washington's ranking nonpartisan handicapper, counted only 24 G.O.P. House seats in play in February. But lately, as President Bush has led the Republican tailspin in the polls, the Cook Political Report has increased the total to 36 seats, cheering Democrats in their quest to hold their own and pick up 15 Republican seats for majority power next year.
There is growing evidence of voter dissatisfaction with incumbents. In the primary in Pennsylvania last month, 17 Republicans ensconced in the legislature were upended by party insurgents who denounced the incumbents for selling out conservative fiscal dogma a charge even more applicable in Washington, where G.O.P. hegemony has seen budget surpluses blown and record deficits and debt mount for future generations.
The conservative core of the president's base has become openly critical of him, prompting another pre-election round of red-meat politicking on social issues like gay marriage. The conservative Cato Institute has been lambasting Mr. Bush for abusing constitutional protections, citing habeas corpus and the secret invasion of privacy through unwarranted wiretapping. Its recent study concluded: "Far from defending the Constitution, President Bush has repeatedly sought to strip out the limits the document places on federal power." The National Review, long a conservative lodestar, reports Republican voters frustrated by their party's congressional majority are increasingly asking, "Is it worth saving?"
On the national level, Republican candidates privately concede the "drag" of the president on their public campaigns (even as they may yearn for one of the closed visits he has been making to districts lately with his still-powerful fundraising machine). A recent Pew Research Center poll found fully a third of those polled in a 1994 mood, looking to use the Congressional ballot as a vote against the president. For all this and more, the Republican mantra six months out is that there's still campaign time and money enough to prevail. Democrats don't doubt that. As promising as things are now, they cringe at possible future surprises, beginning with a "Finding Osama" nightmare scenario as a lead-up to election day.
II. Translating Polls Into Ballots Is No Snap
A big debate among Democrats right now is whether criticism of the Bush administration's mismanagement of Iraq, high gas prices, and other perceived Republican failures is enough to turn the tide without some new philosophical underpinning and clearer party identity to drive the challenge to success.
Party polemicists and bloggers have been harping on the Democrats' lack of a campaign theme as a shortcoming, warning against the traditional politics of stroking interest groups and taking the edge off issues with centrist appeals. They point to the 1994 elections, when Republicans swept to victory on the "Contract With America," which laid out a specific agenda. But other theoreticians question whether the "Contract" was an important factor in the Republicans' success that year. Getting very specific about policy, they argue could turn off more voters than it turns on.
Whatever the Democrats decide about message, the most crucial factor in any mid-term election may be voter turnout something Republicans wielded in their victory four years ago. Democrats concede that Republicans have more money and an organizational advantage in getting out the vote, but there has been evidence this year of growing faint-heartedness among G.O.P. voters. Polls currently show that Democrats are noticeably more enthusiastic than Republicans about the November ballot, so the G.O.P. national operation is busy earlier than ever working to energize its base. On the California race just settled, Republicans spent an estimated $4 million, and another small fortune will be spent on the November rematch.
The Democrats' most serious problem in sparking turnout may be a nasty, internecine dispute over where to channel their streams of campaign money. Howard Dean, the former presidential candidate and now Democratic national chairman, is intent on financing long-term party rebuilding. But Mr. Emanuel and Sen. Charles Schumer of New York, chairman of the party's overall Senate campaign, want resources focused on the most promising races this year.
Mr. Dean maintains that the Democrats' best investment is to build infrastructure across the 50 state organizations. But Mr. Emanuel warns his fellow Democrat that spreading resources too widely will allow the national Republican machine to outspend Democrats by four to one in the closest fought races. "This is a flashing red light for us, not a yellow light," he says.
In the Senate campaign, Mr. Schumer faces the harder challenge of having to pick up a net gain of six seats, with perhaps only seven or eight in play. But he characteristically makes no concessions and has almost twice as much campaign money on hand as the Republicans a reversal of the situation in 2004, when the G.O.P. significantly outspent the Democrats, and gained four seats.
III. The Shifting Landscape for Democrats's Hopes
Whether the Democrats can retake Congress will turn, ultimately, on how their candidates do in the 50 or so races that are likely to constitute the battleground in this year's election.
The battleground is constantly changing, and it contains some surprises. Amazingly, Barbara Cubin, the Republican Representative at-large from Wyoming, led her Democratic challenger by just four percentage points, 47 percent to 43 percent, in a recent Rasmussen poll in a state that President Bush won in 2004 with 69 percent of the vote.
But the Democrats are putting their greatest hopes on a string of moderately conservative Congressional seats, many of them in the Northeast and Midwest, where President Bush's popularity has taken some of the hardest hits. A dozen of the races that are rated as in play are in the Midwest, including four in Ohio and three in Indiana. The Northeast has 14 contests that Democrats deem winnable, including four in upstate New York, three each in Connecticut and Pennsylvania, and two in Vermont.Connecticut shows why the Republicans have reason to worry. Both representatives, Chris Shays and Rob Simmons, were elected by narrow margins in swing districts, after promising to be moderate, independent voices for their constituents. But President Bush and the Republican Congress are wildly unpopular in the state right now, and Connecticut voters believe overwhelmingly that the nation is headed in the wrong direction. If their constituents turn their elections into a referendum on the national Republican party, both Mr. Shays and Mr. Simmons are likely to lose. Both men have to find a way to show their constituents that if they are re-elected, they will be part of the solution, not part of the problem.
In New York, the Republican seat vacated by the retirement of Representative Sherwood Boehlert is clearly up for grabs, and four-term Representative John Sweeney is facing a tough challenge from lawyer Kirsten Gillibrand. The Democrats are banking on a lift from their state ticket, which has Attorney General Eliot Spitzer running for governor a race polls show him winning in a landslide and Senator Hillary Clinton as a shoo-in for re-election.
The once safe Republican seat of Representative Henry Hyde of Illinois, now retiring, is another closely watched race. The suburban Chicago district has been becoming more Democratic, and the party has nominated a candidate with a strong story Tammy Duckworth, a Blackhawk pilot who lost two legs in the Iraq war.
In New Mexico, Republican Representative Heather Wilson, a strong campaigner, is trying to hold onto her swing district by selectively criticizing administration policies. But she faces a strong challenge from Patricia Madrid, the Democrat, the state's Attorney General and a proven vote getter. First Lady Laura Bush and Senator Clinton have each stepped in to raise money for their chosen candidates, and there will no doubt be many more fundraisers between now and November.
Another seat the Republicans probably were not counting on having to defend is the North Carolina Congressional seat occupied by Representative Charles Taylor. He hurt himself in his district, which has lost many jobs to imports, when he failed to vote against the Central America Free Trade Agreement a failure he later blamed on a glitch in the House's electronic voting system. He also courted controversy when he stood alone to oppose federal support for a memorial at the 9/11 plane crash site in rural Pennsylvania. His challenger is Heath Shuler, a former professional quarterback with a well-funded playbook.
A score of other races are being parsed by political handicappers. Republicans are getting creative in their attempts to rally voters who are increasingly disenchanted with both the president and the Republican-controlled Congress. Mike Pence, an Indiana Republican, argued that voters should ignore Republicans' recent record of running up federal deficits. "We may be the party of Big Government," he says, but the Democrats "are the party of Really Big Government."
IV. Congress's Ethical Image as an Election Factor
The Democrats have one other issue they hope to ride to victory this fall: ethics. The recent unraveling of G.O.P. superlobbyist Jack Abramoff will give them plenty of ammuniton. Mr. Abramoff, the personification of quid-pro-quo backslapping, fundraising and corner cutting, was brought down for, among other deeds, promising Indian casino tribes velvet-rope political access while bilking them of $80 million.
They are also hoping that voters will not have forgotten Mr. Abramoff's close friend, Tom DeLay, the former House majority leader. Mr. DeLay's no-holds-barred gerrymandering of Democrats and systematic milking of lobbyists for campaign funds eventually got him indicted, and forced him to quit politics.
Then there is disgraced ex-Congressman Randy "Duke" Cunningham, a Republican with a Rolls Royce and yacht, a Louis-Philippe commode and a penchant for taking millions of dollars in bribes in return for doling out scores of millions in sweetheart defense contracts.
These may be just the sort of corruption poster boys the Democrats need to stoke voter rage, and drive them to the polls. Unfortunately for the Democrats, their "Corruption is a Republican Problem" campaign has suffered a pair of high-profile setbacks lately. Representative William Jefferson, a Louisiana Democrat, allegedly took a $100,000 bribe and stored most of it in his home freezer, attracting headlines and punchlines (like "frozen assets"). Another Democrat, Alan Mollohan of West Virginia, had to quit the ethics committee after it was discovered he channeled $250 million in taxpayer money to non-profit organizations that he created back home. They, in turn, gratefully rewarded him with campaign contributions. His re-election bid is understandably rated no cinch.
Claiming the moral edge is always risky politics. But Democrats insist the issue has not been neutralized. They insist that while Mr. Jefferson and Mr. Mollahan are accused of being lone wolves of corruption, the the Abramoff and Cunningham scandals show systemic corruption in the Republican ranks. The fate of an important associate of Mr. Abramoff, Representative Bob Ney , Republican of Ohio, could become a significant election factor. Mr. Ney's former chief of staff copped a plea and is helping in the prosecution of David Safavian, a former high-ranking White House official accused of lying about his dealings with Mr. Abramoff. Mr. Ney denies any wrongdoing, but he remains a target and the Republican corruption issue could gain considerable national momentum should he face charges not to mention possibly costing Republicans Mr. Ney's own seat.
V. The Incumbent Majority's Formidable Edge
Of all the dampers on Democratic hopes for victory, the most significant may be incumbency. Incumbents have a powerful one-two punch in their ability to attract special-interest campaign money, and the likelihood that they are ensconced in districts that were custom-drawn to keep them in power. Two years ago, incumbents buoyed by safe maps and big money were unmovable: 98 percent of House members won re-election, and most of the races were by margins of 10 points or better, according to the independent Center for Responsive Politics. This year, as ever, incumbents are trouncing challengers in building campaign war chests, by a five-to-one margin. The incumbents' power to reign above serious challenge is only compounded by the latest Machiavellian twist using friendly statehouse majorities to gerrymander district security out of season, rather than wait for the next 10-year census. This maneuver, which many Democrats are calling unconstitutional and which the Supreme Court is currently looking at may prove to be Mr. DeLay's most lasting contribution to the world of politics.
It may also have a decisive impact on this year's election. The DeLay redistricting scheme in Texas, for which he could ultimately see jail time, netted the Republicans five new seats in Congress. If the Democrats pick up a net gain of 15 seats in November they will retake Congress. If they pick up between 10 and 15, Mr. DeLay who resigned his majority leadership, and then his Congressional seat, in disgrace - will have saved his party's hold on power.
The California special election result encouraged Republicans that they might, after all, brandish the power of incumbency to weather ongoing corruption investigations and the president's negative drag on Congressional elections. For Democrats, the disappointing vote is the clearest possible notice that there's no easy shockwave approach to taking back Congress only hard months of trench politicking, district by district, with the party's own relevancy at stake in November.
Lela Moore contributed research for this article.
Copyright 2006 The New York Times Company
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5698
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 4:30 pm: |
|
It seems like Democrats are taking their chances on running without a stated agenda or plan. They're got to get lucky, and any victory won't be from anything they bring to the table. Just remember 1998 when the GOP thought they could do the same thing. |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14636
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 4:38 pm: |
|
I agree with your first sentence. I expect many Democrats and Republicans to agree.
The Democrats may formulate a worthy platform and express it well. That is the task ahead of them. Time will tell. If recent performance is a predictor, their outlook doesn't look good.
But this has been restated many times recently.
|
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1488
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Thursday, June 8, 2006 - 11:35 pm: |
|
3 states are safe for the Cons, Iowa, Idaho & Utah.
CJC, you have that backwards, the Cons have no plan. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5704
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:07 pm: |
|
We do have a plan, Foj. Continue to train Iraqis to make our front-line involvement there lessen, continue the war on terror in other countries with multi-lateral cooperation. We want to open ANWR, abolish the death-tax, keep tax rates low to grow the economy while at the same time stimulating revenues to the Treasury, pursue measurable standards in education (and modify the earliest attempts that have proven cumbersome or ineffective), support school choice, appoint conservative judges, expand free trade and promote freedom, allow small business and individuals to pool assets across state lines for affordable healthcare, among other things.
There are things you attack the Administration and Republican leadership on, but they're mostly moderate or less-than-conservative positions you support or have supported in the past.
Immigration? Hard to say how to play that. Dems and a minority (but powerful) contingent of the GOP are standing against popular opinion. An entirely secure border with enforcement of existing law followed by some sort of guest-worker and citizenship reform AFTERWARDS is a winning conservative position. |
S.L.K.s. Ghost
Citizen
Username: Scrotisloknows
Post Number: 1650
Registered: 10-2005
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:33 pm: |
|
cjc-
Don't you just love this projection game the Dems have been playing lately?
They haven't had a plan in 5 1/2 years and instead of developing one they turn the question around on their political adversaries.
It never ceases to amaze me that they still haven't figured out by now what wins you an election and what doesn't.
-SLK |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5706
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 1:51 pm: |
|
SLK -- it might be they've used focus groups on what they'd like to do and it came back negative. Real life example -- the classicly trained "tax the wealthy for pre-school for all" failed in CA. EJ Dionne writes it should have worked but the public is skeptical of government spending. No s--t?!!? He says better just to limit that program to 'the poor,' implying that extending entitlements to the middle class isn't a winner, for now.
National Security is such a loser they're having seminars on how to talk to a military crowd I read the other day. Sheesh.
They've hoping people are as mad at Bush as they were with Gray Davis. That's putting your success in someone else's hands. I've never liked bets like that. I guess that's the only choice they have. |
dave23
Citizen
Username: Dave23
Post Number: 1824
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:13 pm: |
|
They can and they should but they won't. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5072
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:37 pm: |
|
There was more to the California preschool issue than that. Preschool is an obvious success, so much so that a huge number of California kids are already enrolled. The ballot initiative, while guaranteeing preschool for all, would have moved those kids already in successful programs out of them, into the already strapped public school systems. It also would have locked it into the state constitution. There were a couple of other good reasons to vote against it, reasons one could reject easily and be a liberal Democrat. |
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 96
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 2:45 pm: |
|
One reason Dems have an uphill fight...
http://www.cleveland.com/news/plaindealer/index.ssf?/base/news/1149841896184260. xml&coll=2
"On the contrary, responded Republicans, the Democrats' call for Blackwell to step down is a particularly malignant strain of politics."
Uh...yeah.
|
ae35unit
Citizen
Username: Ae35unit
Post Number: 97
Registered: 2-2006
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 3:12 pm: |
|
As the Ann Coulter Republicans talk among themselves on this post
Let's see, hmmm:
"We do have a plan, Foj. Continue to train Iraqis to make our front-line involvement there lessen,"
Yeah, that's hard to counter
"continue the war on terror in other countries with multi-lateral cooperation"
Multi-lateral? Oh yeah, I forgot about Poland!
"We want to open ANWR, abolish the death-tax, keep tax rates low to grow the economy while at the same time stimulating revenues to the Treasury"
You forgot go to Hollywood and become fabulous stars...
"pursue measurable standards in education (and modify the earliest attempts that have proven cumbersome or ineffective), support school choice, appoint conservative judges, expand free trade and promote freedom, allow small business and individuals to pool assets across state lines for affordable healthcare, among other things"
What about that Mars mission?
|
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5073
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Friday, June 9, 2006 - 4:04 pm: |
|
"allow small business and individuals to pool assets across state lines for affordable healthcare"
Not to go on a tangent, but what is this an issue and why is it controversial? |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1499
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 1:11 pm: |
|
ANWR would provide how much oil?
....it would be cheaper to increase CAFE standards. It would be cheaper to have more energy efficient home applainces.
Etc.
ETc.
eTc. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5074
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 1:36 pm: |
|
ANWR is not about oil production, it's about conservatives' desire to dismantle any kind of regulation on corporations. Land set aside as wilderness is anathema to them when there's a buck to be made, and whether ANWR has enough oil to last six months or six minutes is irrelevant to the symbolism of it. |
Foj
Citizen
Username: Foger
Post Number: 1500
Registered: 9-2004
| | Posted on Saturday, June 10, 2006 - 4:14 pm: |
|
LOL.....Oh my... thanks Tom, I stand corrected....... LOL |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5707
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 9:07 pm: |
|
tom -- actually, the insurance idea is to let people and small businesses pool their assets and be able to buy insurance across state lines. That's against the law. Weird, huh?
The reason the left disagrees with the idea is this: some states require policies to include and cover more healthcare services than others, driving up premiums. Say you wanted to buy a policy that you didn't need to cover something and was cheaper from another state. Right now, you can't do it. The left says it would be race to the bottom, but why not allow people and businesses to get together and enlarge their bargaining heft and buy the coverage they want to or can afford? At least they've got something, and more than they had yesterday if that's the roadblock. It also just may be that the policy they would pick is the one they really want at a lesser cost. Horrors!!
Another reason the left is against it is because it doesn't help the universal government coverage they want but can't say in an election year. And, it just might work. |
Hoops
Citizen
Username: Hoops
Post Number: 1451
Registered: 10-2004
| | Posted on Sunday, June 11, 2006 - 11:16 pm: |
|
I have a great idea cjc. Instead of allowing them to do that across state lines, why dont we nationalize healthcare, thereby saving those businesses plenty of money. |
notehead
Supporter
Username: Notehead
Post Number: 3415
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 10:28 am: |
|
Or... if the healthcare savings is that significant, the business could relocate, as many do for other financial reasons (usually tax oriented). Isn't that an aspect of letting the market sort itself out? |
Tom Reingold
Supporter
Username: Noglider
Post Number: 14652
Registered: 1-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:05 am: |
|
This happened recently. Toyota wanted to build a new plant. It had chosen Alabama (if I remember right) but ultimately chose some place in Canada. The two reasons: difficulty finding people with enough education to fill unskilled jobs (I'm not kidding), and the cost of health insurance. Canadian auto workers get paid the same as American auto workers, but the employers don't have to pay for health insurance. So Canadian workers are much cheaper, from the employer's perspective. Uh, this should be a huge no-brainer, shouldn't it?
|
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5709
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:13 am: |
|
Hoops -- myself, I don't think it's a great idea to nationalize healthcare, and while democrats want to nationalize it they don't dare say that because it's a political loser. Even in Canada, there's been a ruling to allow for private insurance recently as many people are fed up with the system up there. You make something "free" and it breaks down.
Canadian automakers may get the same gross as an American worker, but figure in the taxes they have to pay for healthcare up there and their net isn't the same. |
Dr. Winston O'Boogie
Citizen
Username: Casey
Post Number: 2155
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:24 am: |
|
allowing private insurance doesn't mean Canandians want the American health care system. what they want is something closer to the French system, which is national health care which allows people to buy private insurance as a supplement if they want it. |
tom
Citizen
Username: Tom
Post Number: 5077
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 11:38 am: |
|
Where would the responsibility for regulation fall in this interstate insurance model? Wouldn't there have to be some kind of federal-level agency to replace the individual states' responsibilities?
For example if a group of companies based in Wyoming and Colorado were to buy insurance from a company in Alabama, under which state's laws would disputes be resolved; and would those companies actually have standing in Alabama courts?
A race to the bottom is definitely conceivable. Take for example, credit card interest rates. South Dakota has no usury laws, so that's why the big firms use it as sort of an "offshore" location. I imagine that the same thing could happen with insurance, where say North Dakota repeals most regulation on the business so that national firms set up shell operations there.
Just thinking out loud (so to speak). |
Bob K
Supporter
Username: Bobk
Post Number: 11793
Registered: 5-2001
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 2:36 pm: |
|
A lot of state regulation of insurance is purely political and archaic. Right now the NJ Legislature is holding hearings on eliminating credit scoring in underwriting. The decision of the Department of Banking and Insurance to allow this has greatly eased the perpetual problem with auto insurance availability here.
However, the states regulate solvency, with varying degrees of effectiveness. Allowing group purchasing across state lines would need some sort of regulation on the Federal level. I suspect a lot of this would be done by forming Risk Retention Groups in states with little oversite such as South Carolina and Hawaii. I believe there have already been some scams along these lines that have left people without coverage. |
cjc
Citizen
Username: Cjc
Post Number: 5710
Registered: 8-2003
| | Posted on Monday, June 12, 2006 - 3:32 pm: |
|
Well, you'd have to approve an entity's operation within a state regarding solvency, liability (where any cases are decided) and other things.
Mandated coverage is different between the states. From what I've read the Northeastern states tend to mandate lots of coverage for an insurer to be able to operate whether or not the consumer (individual/business) wants it or can afford it. If they don't want it or can't afford it in a certain state, they have no options. This situation would ostensibly be eliminated if you want to buy insurance outside of that state. |
|
Closed: New threads not accepted on this page