Covering the Really Important Stuff
How can six senators who all come from overwhelmngly rural states — Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Iowa, and Maine — come up with health care reform legislation that addresses the needs of Americans living in large metropolitan areas? You will not even see that question asked — much less answered — in this New York Times article, titled “Health Policy Is Carved Out at Table for 6,” by David M. Herszenhorn and Robert Pear. Herszenhorn and Pear have a great deal to say about the food in the conference room where the senators work:
On the agenda is the revamping of the American health care system, possibly the most complex legislation in modern history. But on the table, in a conference room where the bill is being hashed out by six senators, the snacks are anything but healthy.
Last week, there were chippers — chocolate-covered potato chips — described on a sign as “North Dakota Diet Food.” More often, there are Doritos, pretzels, Oreo cookies and beef jerky: fuel to get through hours of talks on topics like the actuarial values of private insurance plans or the cost-sharing provisions of Medicare.
the color of the walls and what’s on the walls; the six senators’ personalities and working styles:
“The talks are free-flowing,” Ms. Snowe said. “Max is very inclusive,” she said of Mr. Baucus.
Members of the group methodically work through issues. When they reach a tentative agreement, Mr. Baucus asks, “Can I put down a ‘T’?”
“It’s very businesslike,” Mr. Conrad said. “Everybody participates. One senator might carry a discussion. Others chime in. Senator Baucus, the chairman, is the leader, but he rides with a very light rein.”
Typically, they gather at 10 a.m., break around noon for meetings, lunches and votes, and then resume at 2:30. Each senator now claims the same seat — “just like kids in school,” Ms. Snowe said in an interview.
Then, there are the refreshments. The coffee, brewed in the office, is roasted in Montana, usually the Grizzly or Buffalo blends.
I know we have seen many complaints from media pundits that bloggers are dangerous because they act like they’re real journalists when actually they can write anything they want and are not subject to the ethical and professional rules and standards to which real journalists are held, and they have no one to supervise them and make sure they are representing all points of view, but hell’s bells! I for one am sure glad we have bloggers like Matthew Yglesias around to ask the questions that real, important journalists like Herszenhorn and Pear can’t be bothered to ask because they’re too busy admiring the wall hangings.
63 Responses to “Covering the Really Important Stuff”
That's why an 18th Century Constitution is completely useless for the 21st Century. The founding fathers (at best) assumed states would be rather similar but when the states you mentioned all have less than 1 million inhabitants each, it makes no sense compared to the many states that have far more than 10 million people each. Our current US political system is completely incapable of addressing the economic and social needs of this country. This has lead to empire collapses in Rome, Spain and Britain. We are quickly following them. It may be better to split the country into different nations as our priorities and needs are completely different.
As the U.S. becvomes a one party state this will become the only way that government is conducted. It the one party state, re-electing your Senator or Congressman will be essential so that they will have enough seniority to keep maximize the amount of pork barrel spending.
Since the U.S. has a Chicago based politician as president doesn't it make sense that decisions will be made based upon clout instead of based upon the democratic process.
>>>That's why an 18th Century Constitution is completely useless for the 21st Century<<<
The Constitution specifies how it can be changed. And it has been changed substantially since the 1700s. There is no America without the Constitution. Barack Obama has no power whatsoever without the Constitution. Anti-American, Anti-Constitution forces like you can go to hell.
I <3 qwert
Couldn't have said it better myself. The problem isn't the Constitution…we are the problem. If we want the Constitution changed, we must vote people into office that are willing to change it.
The blue dogs don't have any real principles, so when it comes down to a vote they'll have to for it or get swept away in 2010, both by their voters and by their party. So, what the democrats have to ensure now is that when it comes down to a vote, the blue dogs will have to say “aye” through gritted teeth. Seriously, none of the concessions made so far have really made prospective the results better – it's all ideological debasement.
Seriously, an obsession with a trillion dollar limit? That's just because we think in decimals because of our ten figures. Why not two trillion, seeing as we have two eyes?
” That's just because we think in decimals because of our ten figures.”
That should be “digits”. Calamity and damnation.
Rural states certainly benefit out of proportion to their populations, as a quick look at federal spending will reveal.
It's obvious who the real socialists are.
Heavens we wouldn't want cooperation and centrism to succeed. We'd better start criticizing it.
Lol the Constitution is a joke. All you Constitution lovers can go back sucking the red white and blue and apple pie teat, but in the real world, the United States is a functional tyranny with healthy doses of bribery to keep the wheels of bureaucracy spinning. The fact that Bill Clinton can have relations with a whore in his office and Bush and Cheney can get away with war crimes should be evidence enough.
Also, keep in mind the Constitution is nearly impossible to change. The founders did their job well, but of course, they could not see the rise of self interested political parties that love to keep the status quo going, or the “free press” that would endlessly pander/oppose the administration in office, simply based on the whims of corporate profits. Our system is broken, and votes mean nothing when there are simply two alternatives that both vomit taxpayer money by the billions to corporations but piously declare “fiscal responsibility” when it comes to the people's defense or welfare. God Damn the United States of America, indeed.
And of course, we all know that a bunch of yokels who don't live in the large, metropolitan areas can't have any sort of education or know what's good for America. I mean, really, couldn't the Senate be cut down to about 42 people or so? They can let the clueless hicks who don't live in the cities know what's best for them, right?
“And of course, we all know that a bunch of yokels who don't live in the large, metropolitan areas can't have any sort of education or know what's good for America.”
Yeah, no way are they ever going to demand dumb concessions that make things fine and dandy for their constituents in order to safeguard their careers!
Seriously, there is no reason to settle for coops. Nate Silver has already argued that the syupid finance offer not only goes against the other committees and the bipartisan HELP offer, it will also save little money and be a huge blow to coverage. Nuts to the Finance committee.
“Heavens we wouldn't want cooperation and centrism to succeed. We'd better start criticizing it.”
It's not centrism if one party gets everything it wants. Centrism and bipartisanship are terms that have been taken hostage by people beholden to lobbyists (blue dogs), ideology (people who will not tolerate good results if these results come from a method that go against their convictions) or the understanding that if reform fails then democrat voters will abandon the DNC in 2010 (DeMint, Kristol, Inhofe).
How many years of the status quo are people willing to endure in order to have this mythological “perfect bill”? The economy is troubled by the fact that premiums are going way up, and people without coverage end up costing all the taxpayers more money than if their coverage was subsidized anyway.
If we actually had a federalist system where states are losely bound by the federal government, each state having an equal representation in the federal government makes sense…and how it was designed. BUT, because the federal government takes and gives out most tax funds and our government in general is much more focus at the national level, we really don't have a federalist government anymore. Because of this change in our government, people from less populated states are much more represented in our government than people from more populated ones.
As said before, this could all be changed if we voted different people into office…but we won't…because we like our senior level reps that keep the pork rolling in.
I don't think anyone is trying to insult small state people…I'm from Kansas…we loved our Bob Dole.
It's not centrism if one party gets everything it wants.
It seems to me a lot of the criticism comes from one party NOT getting everything it wants.
“It seems to me a lot of the criticism comes from one party NOT getting everything it wants.”
Yes. The GOP and the blue dogs.
What matters are results, with ideological convictions completely on the sideline. I don't see any substantial evidence that any of the concessions demanded by the blue dogs would actually procure better results – more bang for the buck, simply. That is what matters. If one party has result-based criteria and the other party cares about other things, then only the former should be listened to.
Not Really…
Since 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, 27 amendments have been added to the Constitution, the first ten being the Bill of Rights which were ratified in 1791, the 18th and the 20th which reverse cancel each other out. So in 220 years we have manage to amend the Constitution 15 times, comes out to once every 15 years. In the same time period we went from 13 States to 50, we have increased our population from approximately 4 million to 300 million.
What is really needed is a constitutional convention that fixes the problems that 220 years of geographic growth, population growth and technological improvements have created. The problem is that no one on the left trust people on the right and vice-versa.
So we are going to muddle through with what we have despite the fact that it is barely functional until things get so bad that we have to fix them or until the country falls apart.
My money on things falling apart…
The half a million yokels in Montana have the same level of representation as the 35 million American living in California or the 20 million yokels living in Texas, or the 19 million Americans living in New York. Thank God we have Vermont to balance them out.
“We all know that a bunch of yokels who don't live in the large, metropolitan areas can't have any sort of education or know what's good for America.”
Yes, the old ad hominem. I note handicapped and minority groups are inadequately represented as well.
Despite the mentions of food, I found the Times article very informative. Most of it was unadorned, editorial-free reporting about the progress the committee is making.
As for Mr. Yglesias's accusations that the gentlemen have tiny constituencies, he's hitting below the belt.
<o>Heavens we wouldn't want cooperation and centrism to succeed.
You can't accurately say that six senators are “cooperating” if their states all have almost exactly the same demographics and if they all agree with each other on what should and should not be in a health care reform bill.
As for centrism, no I don't want it to succeed. Obama did not campaign on a centrist approach to health care reform, and a centrist approach to health care reform would be a catastrophe for his country. A centrist approach to health care reform isn't even worth doing, because it'll be exactly the same as what we've got now.
And the fact is, Democrats don't *have* to take a centrist approach. We've got 60 votes in the Senate and a huge majority in the House, and they can just vote the bill through, and they should. (There, that's probably good for another 30 comments at least.)
And of course, we all know that a bunch of yokels who don't live in the large, metropolitan areas can't have any sort of education or know what's good for America.
Ohy my gosh, Jazz, what a total and complete straw man. What does being a “yokel” or “not having an education” have to do with anything? The “Gang of Six” who all come from some of the most sparsely populated states in the country, and some of the most conservative, know what's going to keep getting them elected by the people in their OWN states. They also know what's going to make the private insurance companies who donate millions to their campaigns, happy. Naturally, if you put six legislators in a room whose states are all *exactly* the same in terms of their demographics, and who themselves are all *exactly* the same in terms of their political philosophies, you are going to get a health care reform proposal that *they* are comfortable with.
The fact that they want to throw out the public option, the tax on extremely high income earners to help pay for it, and any requirement that employers provide coverage for their employees, is rather compelling ievidence that they are not looking at this from the standpoint of urban and suburban families' needs. Doesn't mean they don't understand; just means they don't care, because New York City is not in Wyoming.
It seems to me a lot of the criticism comes from one party NOT getting everything it wants.
Yes, the Republican Party. The “it's my way or the highway” guys.
And we don't *need* the Gang of Six, anyway. We should not be letting them hijack health care reform.
Well, there was a lot of fighting here, but it's not clear the issue in the title was discussed much. Can these Senators represent the American people as well as any other six Senators? You'd want to know a lot more about the actual people wouldn't you? The first thing to note is that Senators, especially long-term ones as is the case here, spend a lot more time in a major metro area, D.C., than they do in their supposed home states. Bush I and Gore when running for Prez had very tenuous connections with Texas and Tennessee, for instance. I bet Snowe spends a lot more time with D.C. doctors and hospitals than Maine ones. Next up, do they have the data they should have? Do they understand the issues?
I think some evidence that Senator X has a bias, doesn't understand an issue, or is unqualified would be a lot more relevant than naming their home states.
Your more recent comment, Kathy, was much more informative than the original post. The original post pretty much said: these people are from rural states, so they clearly can't do legit legislative work on health care.
Of course, you do say that the Dems should use their votes to ram legislation through and then accuse the Republicans of offering “my way or the high way”.
(Which isn't an argument that Dems are bad, Republicans good, just that on health care, you are precisely suggesting my way or the high way.)
And the fact is, Democrats don't *have* to take a centrist approach. We've got 60 votes in the Senate and a huge majority in the House, and they can just vote the bill through, and they should. (There, that's probably good for another 30 comments at least.)
Obviously, if this was true, the bill would be sitting on Obama's desk right now or in reconciliation. The fact is you DON'T have the majorities to support the legislation as written by the left wing of the party. The Ds have majorities in both houses only because they purposely ran moderate and conservative candidates to pick up seats.
Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff?
“How can six senators who all come from overwhelmngly rural states — Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Iowa, and Maine — come up with health care reform legislation that addresses the needs of Americans living in large metropolitan areas? “
This seems like the kind of question one asks when one doesn't have any substantial questions to ask. What different does it make? The process is transparent. You get to see what they are doing. The entire senate will get to amend and vote on whatever it is they decide. And they were put on the committee by the leadership of their parties, which leadership was voted on by all of the members of the respective parties in the Senate, presumably with the knowledge that this committee will be critical in the health care debate.
It seems to me to be way more important to talk about what is actually in their proposals, rather than come up with tangential reasons to discredit them before they've even done their work. And the article you quoted does go into specific policy proposals. Just because you conveniently decided to quote only the parts about food and decor doesn't mean that's all the article talked about.
“Obama did not campaign on a centrist approach to health care reform.”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jnk8minM3Qg
I've asked you this before, Kathy. If you support an extreme left plan for health care that completely transforms the disaster that is the health care system as you see it, why do you support the presidents plan which he proudly claims builds on the current system?
If the Democrats want to kill any chance of passing a health care bill, they should keep talking about:
1) How we should put a price on life and how “very personal, gut wrenching policies need to be made in the abstract by committees.”: http://themoderatevoice.com/40206/the-health-ca…
2) How doctor's order test and procedures to make more money (offensive to doctors, and to those people who like their doctors and enjoy being able to ask for a test and get it–whether it should be so or not)
3) That these country-folk can't possibly understand the complexities of modern urban life.
The “Gang of Six” who all come from some of the most sparsely populated states in the country, and some of the most conservative
Maine, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico all went for Obama.
Maine, Nevada, Iowa and New Mexico all went for Obama.
I forgot about that; my bad. So the Gang of Six are more conservative than their own states.
Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff?
I think that meaningful health care reform is more important than what hangs on the walls of a Seante conference room, or what kind of snacks are on the table, yeah.
Perhaps it's not where these 6 senators come from, but since there are only 100 in the entire US, I would hope each understands they must represent more than just their one state, particularly when their own populations voted rather differently. Furthermore, the NYTimes and other papers report that these 6 and other Senators have collectively received millions in campaign donations from mare healthcare players – you cannot remain neutral with such money flowing around. If there is to be a group that makes sensible compromise on various proposals, let them do it in an influence-free vacuum apart from money influences and actually see what makes sense best for the vast majority of Americans, old, young, insured, uninsured, and all our pocketbooks. Without meanful reforms – national healthcare costs in the public and private sectors will double in 10 years by just doing nothing. That is not acceptable and far more than 1.5 trillion spread over 10 years as most current proposals cost. I prefer trying some major ideas and in 2 to 3 years be open to major modifications. Instead of screaming about hypothetical outcomes we should actually try something. At this point we as a society have little to lose – except the top 2% some taxes will go up but they are long overdue for a much higher taxes to fund the social program of the nation. Those who think we have no ethical or moral imperatives to our fellow humans are simply arrogant and stupid. Best regards from a fellow blogger, MP in PHX
“I think that meaningful health care reform is more important than what hangs on the walls of a Seante conference room, or what kind of snacks are on the table, yeah.”
Oh, ok, because obviously that's what I meant–that snacks and decor are more important. I guess to each his or her own.
“Let a decent cross-section of Senators (not just Republicans and Blue Dogs) meet in an influence-free vacuum apart from money influences and actually see what makes sense best for the vast majority of Americans”
LOL, a cross section of senators? Sounds like George Washington University med students' lab work.
I think at this point, the process the senators are going through is not about designing anything or representing anyone as much as trying to find some middle ground that has a hope of passing the other 529 CEOs in Congress.
Oh, ok, because obviously that's what I meant–that snacks and decor are more important. I guess to each his or her own.
Oh.my.god. Well, here's a thought, A.D. You could always try explaining what you meant. Because this — Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff? — is the question you asked me. I answered that question to the best of my ability, considering the fact I had no real clarity about what “this” referred to, or whether the “this” I was referring to was the same “this” you were referring to. So I just answered the question that I thought, maybe, you *might* be asking.
And now that I've said this, I *still* don't know what you were asking me in your first question, and I also don't know what you meant or what you were assuming I should know that you meant.
Does that clarify?
Oh, ok, because obviously that's what I meant–that snacks and decor are more important. I guess to each his or her own.
Oh, and I forgot to ask: How the hell was I supposed to know what you meant?
“How the hell was I supposed to know what you meant?”
Perhaps by reading what he wrote, Kathy? Or hell, just by reading what you wrote yourself.
Your original post dinged the Times for mentioning food in contrast to the “important stuff” like the states the senators came from. AD challenged you on that, suggesting that where the senators came from was irrelevant, that the important stuff is the substance of what's being negotiated. He also asked you a question about that.
You neither answered his question nor responded to his point. Instead you tried to reposition your rural-origins complaints as arguing for “meaningful healthcare reform” and what he had written as defending coverage of wall hangings. And now you're blaming *him* for not writing more clearly??
I'm afraid I don't believe your reading skills are as poor as you're suggesting, so I have to imagine you're simply not reading very carefully.
I would bet my house that if the 6 Senators were Kerry, Leahy. Kennedy, Boxer, Dodd and Feinstein that Kathy and the rest of the far-left crowd wouldn't worry about liberal big-city Senators setting the agenda for the rural areas.
Another just mind-bogglingly biased, and frankly mean-spirited and bigoted, post by Kathy.
>>>Not Really…
Since 1788 when the Constitution was ratified, 27 amendments have been added to the Constitution, the first ten being the Bill of Rights which were ratified in 1791, the 18th and the 20th which reverse cancel each other out. So in 220 years we have manage to amend the Constitution 15 times, comes out to once every 15 years. In the same time period we went from 13 States to 50, we have increased our population from approximately 4 million to 300 million.<<<
Yes, we amended the Constitution for little things like ending slavery and allowing women the right to vote. Just 2 little inconsequential amendments out of the 27 you mentioned.
Thanks Dr. J.
Kathy,
in this paragraph, I explain why I don't believe what state the senators to be from to be really important:
“This seems like the kind of question one asks when one doesn't have any substantial questions to ask. What different does it make? The process is transparent. You get to see what they are doing. The entire senate will get to amend and vote on whatever it is they decide. And they were put on the committee by the leadership of their parties, which leadership was voted on by all of the members of the respective parties in the Senate, presumably with the knowledge that this committee will be critical in the health care debate.”
In this sentence, I explained what I think is more important: “It seems to me to be way more important to talk about what is actually in their proposals, rather than come up with tangential reasons to discredit them before they've even done their work.”
And yet somehow you came to the conclusion that I was trying to say that snacks and wall hangings were more important. I assumed you were giving me a smart-alec response, so I gave you one in response, so I gave you one back. Now you tell me you just didn't know what I meant. My bad. But I honestly don't know how I could have been more clear.
If that were the case you would have Senators who represent approximately 20% (~50 Million) of the US Population setting policy instead of 6 Senators who barely represent 5% of the US Population (~15 Million).
I didn't say they were not important, just not very numerous, which shows just how difficult it is to change the Constitution. (The 13th, 14th and 15th were the result of the civil war).
I absolutely love the way I'm being accused of employing strawmen and everything else, when what I was responding to was, *gasp* the actual original post and Kathy's own words.
“How can six senators who all come from overwhelmngly rural states — Montana, Wyoming, New Mexico, Iowa, and Maine — come up with health care reform legislation that addresses the needs of Americans living in large metropolitan areas?“
Ok, now YOU tell me exactly what that was supposed to mean. If it didn't mean what I touched on in my only comment, then it was very, very poorly written. You said, line for line, that you doubted six reps from “overwhelmingly rural” states could possibly come up with a comprehensive health care reform plan. If that's not what you mean, then perhaps you shouldn't have written it.
DQ – Ah, so suddenly pure majority rule is the watchword of the Left? No need to worry about those in the minority any more?
Your original post dinged the Times for mentioning food in contrast to the “important stuff” like the states the senators came from.
Like the states where the senators came from, and how that affected the substance of the bill (“important stuff”).
… AD challenged you on that, suggesting that where the senators came from was irrelevant, that the important stuff is the substance of what's being negotiated. He also asked you a question about that.
Nonsense. He suggested no such thing. He may have *intended* to suggest that, but it was not conveyed, because of totally unclear pronouns and antecedents.
In point of fact, where the senators come from is not at all irrelevant. It is entirely relevant, because it speaks to their political priorities.
Given that “the really important stuff” in my post title was a sarcastic reference to the reporters' fascination with food, wall hangings, and personalities, logic would dictate that the *actual* really important stuff is how the senators' states of origin affect the substnace of the bill. That being true, A.D.'s questions, “Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff?” carried the clear implication that A.D. was expressing disbelief at my notion that the senators' background and political beliefs were more important than wall hangings.Of course, I realized that he probably did not mean that — that he actually meant something else — but what that “something else” might be was not at all clear.
And that is the fault of A.D.'s vague and sloppy phrasing, not my understanding or reading comprehension.
How about equal representation? 100 Senators, 300 Million Americans, approximately 1 Senator for every 3 million Americans. Now we 6 Senators who barely represent 6 million Americans writing policy.
The problem here isn't the Senators, it's the ridiculous variation in the population of the states. California is 70 times bigger than Wyoming, New York & Texas are both 40 times bigger.
You said, line for line, that you doubted six reps from “overwhelmingly rural” states could possibly come up with a comprehensive health care reform plan. If that's not what you mean, then perhaps you shouldn't have written it.
If “comprehensive” in your use means a strong health care reform bill that significantly closes the gap between insured and uninsured Americans, and lowers health care costs, then yes, that's what I meant — that those six senators would not be coming up with such a plan. It's not because of just the literal fact of what state they live in. It's the fact of their political beliefs, the demographics of their states, and which political and economic forces they are beholden to. All of these things are subsumed in the fact that they come from overwhelmingly rural and sparsely populated states, albeit as DaGoat pointed out, in 2008 those states did go for Obama. Which only makes those six senators' conservatism more out of place.
And having said all this, I don't know why you're so upset that I'm suggesting these six senators couldn't come up with a good bill, because in fact, they didn't.In fact, they stripped everything out of the bill that is there for the purpose of insuring 47 million uninsured Americans and lowering the cost of health care.
DQ -
Thanks for the clarification.You apparently just do not believe in the Constitutional purpose of the Senate, a legislative body of equal proportionment by State, not population. It seems you think we should only have a House of Representatives.
What is it with the need to continually trot out the completely discredited '47 – 48 million' number?
For those who do think health care reform of the type under discussion is a good idea, what is wrong with the really big numbers that are accurate – 15 – 30 million?
Constantly needing to use an acknowledged inflated number only makes your cause seem more suspect.
That and the lying about it saving money (it doesn't), keeping your existing plan (you will be forced to change within 5 years), that everyone will receive better care (only the chronically uninsured will – the rest will see reduced care over time, except, as always, the very wealthy).
In this sentence, I explained what I think is more important: “It seems to me to be way more important to talk about what is actually in their proposals, rather than come up with tangential reasons to discredit them before they've even done their work.”
And what is actually in their proposals — or, more precisely, what they have actually taken out of the proposal they began with, makes their proposal garbage.
Funny how that “One Party State” meme keeps cropping up. We can thank Karl Rove for that ideology. People only seem to care when it's not their party in power.
Where were you between the years 2000 and 2006, Austinroth?
The strawman was, I think, this:
Nobody said anything about uneducated yokels.
I don't think this Kathy's complaints about this topic are very useful. There is no divide between rural and urban states in the need for health care.
But there is no question that more rural states in general have different concerns than more urban states. There is also no question that more rural states have greater influence than more urban states in the Senate, and to a lesser extent in the House.
And there is certainly no question that they make use of their greater influence to their advantage as far as federal spending goes.
It's ironic that the people who have this kind of built-in advantage also feel entitled to resentment, as if they were somehow disadvantaged by this system.
“Nonsense. He suggested no such thing. He may have *intended* to suggest that, but it was not conveyed, because of totally unclear pronouns and antecedents.”
Sorry, Kathy, I disagree. AD's post is still right there for the reading, and I find his meaning comes through fine if you're open to it. He doesn't defend wall hangings, he defends “talking about what is actually in their proposals” and credits the article for doing that.
You're illustrating a lesson virtually everyone here could take to heart. If you want a lot of conflict in online discussions, respond to the first thing you find objectionable in other people's posts. They'll probably return the favor, and before long you'll be talking smack about each others' grandmothers. But if you'd rather have more productive discussions, give what's written the benefit of the doubt and take the onus on yourself to respond to what people would agree they meant. Nothing wrong with doing it either way, of course, just a question of what you're looking for.
He doesn't defend wall hangings, he defends “talking about what is actually in their proposals” and credits the article for doing that.
Which it doesn't.
A.D.wrote: “Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff?”
Dr_J wrote: “You're illustrating a lesson virtually everyone here could take to heart. If you want a lot of conflict in online discussions, respond to the first thing you find objectionable in other people's posts. They'll probably return the favor, and before long you'll be talking smack about each others' grandmothers.”
Dr_J, I couldn't agree more.
“But if you'd rather have more productive discussions, give what's written the benefit of the doubt and take the onus on yourself to respond to what people would agree they meant.”
I can't give what's written the benefit of the doubt, or “take the onus on myself to respond to what people would agree they meant” if I don't know what they meant. Of course, you could say that I should have asked A.D. what he meant rather than making a blind attempt in the darkness to respond to something that did not make sense to me, but then I would still have been opening myself up to the criticism that if I did not understand what “Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff?” referred to or meant, there must be something wrong with my reading comprehension.
Bottom line: You think “Is the title of this post a joke? You think this is the really important stuff?” was clear as to antecedent and meaning, and I should have known what A.D. was referring to. I do not. Nothing more to be said.
Kathy, I think the problem here is that you didn't actually explain why you feel that the six senators from rural states can't possibly craft a bill that would help people in all states. Eventually, in the comment section, you defend yourself by saying that looking at the content of their proposal validates your concern, but on the face of it, your question is an outrageous ad hominem attack. Why WOULDN'T six senators from rural states be able to look at the same set of data and propose a reasonable solution? Without an explanation in your post, the reader naturally assumes that the fact that their states are rural leads to your conclusion of their incompetence, so Jazz's interpretation is the most obvious one.
As I said, eventually when pressed on this you admit that you basically don't trust them to do so because you think they're beholden to certain political interests. And the rest of the Senate isn't?
In the end, what it comes down to is that the liberal/progressive wing of the party is beholden to special interests that YOU agree with, and you resent that they don't have enough votes to pass their favored form of the legislation.
Cstanley–
Perhaps you'd like to take this opportunity of dressing Kathy down to describe your own preferred policy on the question of health care.