Stats

Comments Posted By aBigSigh

Displaying 0 To 0 Of 0 Comments

Dear Ted Kennedy, Wish you were here….

The Nixon-Kennedy Health Care Plan
How Richard Nixon and Edward Kennedy Worked For American Health Care

Nixon

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 11:20 pm

A Mandate for Civil Disobedience

What Paul Starr, senior advisor for President Bill Clinton’s proposed health care reform plan, wrote about the health care fight in a 1995 article:

The collapse of health care reform in the first two years of the Clinton administration will go down as one of the great lost political opportunities in American history. It is a story of compromises that never happened, of deals that were never closed, of Republicans, moderate Democrats, and key interest groups that backpedaled from proposals they themselves had earlier co-sponsored or endorsed.

[…]

The defeat of reform has set off a festival of recriminations. Among the criticisms, one often hears two complementary I-told-you-so’s. From the left: If only Clinton had endorsed single payer or an expansion of Medicare, he would have had a simpler plan, and by rallying the public against the insurance industry, he could have won. And then, from conservative Democrats: If only Clinton had endorsed the Cooper plan or some other more moderate proposal, we would have substantial reform today.

Since we cannot rerun history, these critics are safe from ever being disproved. However, no serious observer believes that Congress might have passed a national single-payer plan. Paul Wellstone, single-payer’s leading advocate in the Senate, had only four cosponsors for his bill; reaching 50 votes, much less 60, was inconceivable. Some single-payer advocates acknowledged that congressional passage was implausible but thought the president should take the issue to the public in a populist campaign against special interests. However, the defeat of California’s single-payer ballot initiative by a margin of 73 to 27 percent should put to rest the notion that a popular uprising against the insurance industry was ready to be awakened. The supporters of single payer enjoyed the illusion that their plan was simpler and more popular only because the Clinton plan was the lightning rod for criticism.

http://www.princeton.edu/~starr/20starr.html

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 11:56 pm

We should all hope it breaks the mold. While the Republicans were eventually all against the Clinton’s plan in 1993, it was the Democrats endless fighting that killed it off.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 11:54 pm

You are dead on.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

Be careful what you wish for. Not only would it go down to defeat, but any Democrat that voted for it’s defeat will be torn to bit by liberal activists in a primary.

You are setting up Democrats to have to chose (in the eyes of their constituents) between removing them from the insurance they have, and putting them on “government health care program” or “not supporting a single payer system”.

It may be worth it to some, but is it worth it if it is not even remotely close to having a realistic chance of passing?

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 11:33 pm

Every effort for health care reform over the past 35 years has included an individual mandate.

Every effort for health care reform over the past 35 years has been defeated because of Democratic opposition.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 11:29 pm

A Hole in the Soul

Hey there, PepeLepew.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 8:01 pm

The only trigger that stopped them from receiving the tax break would have been the selling of their stock to pay the government back. If they didn’t sell the stock, they would have been afforded this tax break.

Now, with the government owning 38% of Citi’s stock, and with Citi’s stock losing 40% of value this year, we would have seen a large loss on our initial $25 billion investment in commmon stock (which is actually now valued at $30 billion). By going through with this deal, we are able to sell that stock immediately, or at least start selling it immediately, while getting maximum value for it. By allowing affording Citi this tax break (that they would have been afforded if they didn’t pay us back) it will automatically boost the stock price, and our own investment.

So I’d argue that the taxpayers will actually receive a larger return with this deal, than they would have if they didn’t offer Citi this deal.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 6:35 pm

Which would leave us with 2 parties.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 6:24 pm

In the end, Ross Perot won 0 electoral votes.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 6:04 pm

I certainly agree.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 6:00 pm

By law they are allowed a loss carryforward. By this I mean, if a company experiences an operating loss in a year, they are able to take that loss, and exempt taxes on the amount of that loss in following years.

Last year, Citi took a loss of $38 billion. By law, they are allowed to apply those losses to following years. So in short, by law, they are able to exempt future profits (up to the amount of prior operating loss: $38 billion) from taxes. Citi was guarenteed this tax break before they decided to repay TARP funds.

The only thing that can stop the loss carryforward is if the company changes ownership. The process of Citi selling the $18.5 billion in stock, and the government’s decision to start selling $30 billion in Citi stock, is technically considered a change in ownership. Therefore, by going through with the process of paying back the government $20 billion, they would have forfeited another $14 billion in automatic tax breaks, which would have no doubt nixed their effort to pay back the TARP loans.

So the government allowed them to keep the tax break that they were guarenteed if they didn’t pay back the TARP loans, and in the process protected the governments own investment of $30 billion they own in common stock.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 5:57 pm

Any ideas, anyone?

It isn’t law, but the tradition of stare decisis makes it nearly untouchable — unless you can find 4 more Sotomayors.

It’ll be a while before we get there.

» Posted By aBigSigh On December 16, 2009 @ 6:17 pm