2016 Postmortem
Related: About this forumAh geez. Did Ms. Debbie Wasserman just run out the "free riders and the irresponsible" line? Yep.
Caught Congresswoman Wasserman just now on an interview with CNN's Blitzer. CNN seems focused on framing the ACA mandate solely in "Tax or not?" terms. No surprise. It's simplistic, plays to short segments and sound bites.
Yet Ms. Wasserman took the opportunity to chastise "those free riders and the irresponsible" who expect the rest of us to pay for their health care. No mention that the ACA was the right thing to do, got passed and signed and will expand health care to millions of currently uninsured Americans.
What a poor spokesman for the party. We ought to be crowing about this victory, as flawed as it may be, taking the benefits of the act to the public at every opportunity. Not co-opting base finger pointing at a small sliver of Americans who may choose to opt out of the mandate. Not to mention assigning some intent on those that may, for whatever reason, not comply with the requirements of the mandate.
I was flabbergasted. And embarrassed, truth be told. We have got to make our case to the public better than this.
elleng
(130,126 posts)Not much chance I would, as never watch cnn.
We NEED Howard Dean!
littlewolf
(3,813 posts)The empressof all
(29,098 posts)Perhaps the fact she is so influenced by the crazy politics in Florida she really does not grasp how these kinds of arguments fail to impress those of us in the more progressive base. I know the Party seems to love her though. I give her a hearty meh......We have better advocates and spokespeople.
russspeakeasy
(6,539 posts)We see her a lot on the TV.
I no longer care much for her.
It seems like she became a different person about 2009.
My uninformed guess is that the publicity/recognition she received in 2008, went to her head.
ancianita
(35,812 posts)She used to be cogent, compassionate and inclusive, but has now become so ambitious that she's lost her judgment. She's against progressive participants in the party and is now, disappointingly, trotting out Republican-style attack points.
tularetom
(23,664 posts)Jamaal510
(10,893 posts)those jeopardy questions required more than a yes or no answer and raising your hand.
Alexander
(15,318 posts)All because she was chummy with the Republican incumbents - the Diaz-Balart brothers and Ileana Ros-Lehtinen.
When someone called her out on it, she blamed the whole thing on liberals and bloggers for daring to question her.
Debbie Wasserman-Schultz is a completely useless DNC chair. Can we have Howard Dean back, please?
I'd rather have a loyal Democrat as the DNC chair. Wasserman-Schultz is a turncoat and a DINO.
ladjf
(17,320 posts)Pelosi pointed out that only 1% of Americans would have to pay the penalty.
What are some of the other reasons that people might choose not to comply other than the lack of funds?
a kennedy
(29,458 posts)should be required to PAY either the premium, or the "tax". Oh yah, that's the talking point now. Why can't they talk about what the ACA does for us as a country......I do NOT like what they're all saying about this. Ugh.
pinto
(106,886 posts)That the penalty would likely apply to a small segment of the population is a good point to make. Along with the fact that the bulk of taxation would accrue to those above the $200,00 income bracket. Along with the undisputed fact that millions of uninsured Americans will have greater access to healthcare.
Ms Wasserman's choice to pigeon hole some people was a cheap shot, imo.
No clue to why some may choose not to comply. Lack of accurate info may play a role in their decision making. The hyperbole on this is deep and widespread.
and-justice-for-all
(14,765 posts)They need to talk to Bernie Sanders about this stuff, not people like Wasserman.
demgrrrll
(3,590 posts)intellectual level and the benefits need to be discussed immediately but this may slow the R's from getting a foothold on the message.
Control-Z
(15,681 posts)"Personal responsibility" and "no free riders". One of the first things I heard right after the SC decision was that democrats could throw these right back in their big, ugly collective face.
I know it sounds bad but we're not even talking about the same people as they:
We're talking about people who can well afford insurance (I believe with $200,000.00 annual income) but who don't "waste" money on useless things like health insurance.
They're talking about people who don't buy insurance because they can't afford it. People who they believe don't deserve it.
So while it does feel like a stab in the back when we hear it, it just may work.
NYC_SKP
(68,644 posts)I think it's an attempt to use the RW's own form of hate language, as unfortunate as that may be....
Sad, but I'll bet the RW base might just buy it.
caraher
(6,276 posts)There is a logic to it - it's a way of explaining why a mandate is important to having the system work. While most of us are interested in seeing that everyone gets covered, the conservative mindset is driven more by horror at the idea someone might get something they don't "deserve" at their expense. So that's where the "freeloader" language might be effective, even if it offends our sensibilities.
pa28
(6,145 posts)She's using Romney's own language almost verbatim from the interview posted below. I'm guessing it's to call attention to his own naked hypocrisy.
pinto
(106,886 posts)Just caught me wrong. I really feel it's time we take the lead. "Penalty", "tax", whatever - ACA is the best, doable legislation to address health care access for uninsured Americans at this time. And there's a laundry list of benefits to cite.
GoCubsGo
(32,061 posts)Giving them the facts in plain English sure as hell isn't working. Got to do what you got to do.
Arneoker
(375 posts)off the road, because some dingbat called into a radio show, and said something like, "I don't see why they need this law, I never pay for healthcare, I just go to the emergency room!" Now of course many have no choice but to do that, but to make that an argument against ACA is ridiculous. I think Debbie made a good point, and we need to push back against the Republicans' dishonest, veiled and hypocritical "free lunch" appeal, which unfortunately could get some traction with some people who aren't thinking it through. Of course their base won't think it through anyway!
DonCoquixote
(13,615 posts)Debbie is exactly the sort of Republican lite that would rather hamstring the left than support her FRIENDS on the right. She is the sort that earns a paycheck on the ground of "we are not as scary as the right."
FIRE DEBBIE WASSERMAN SCHULTZ
hire Howard Dean or George Lakoff!
MrSlayer
(22,143 posts)Their party is from 1930s Europe.
Bake
(21,977 posts)When the uninsured go to the emergency room and cannot/do not pay, those costs are passed along to everyone else. That's one Dem response to the Rethugs.
Is that what Wasserman-Schultz was saying? If so, that's true. But maybe she needs to work on her delivery of that line.
Bake
pinto
(106,886 posts)Not all uninsured are freeloaders nor irresponsible.
To give her the benefit of the doubt she may have been trying to turn RW points back at them, however awkwardly. I just don't think t's a winning tack or necessary, for that matter. The merits of the act are the key.
Proud Liberal Dem
(24,353 posts)but I don't like it being the most prominent argument in favor of the law. It just reeks too much of conservative scapegoating of the poor and social service programs. IMHO Dems should focus on promoting the positive aspects of the law and how people will benefit from it now and in the future.
Mojorabbit
(16,020 posts)My husband isn't insured because he has a preexisting condition. We have started the process to get him insured now that they can no longer turn him down. We could not get him anything no matter what the cost because they always turned him down in the past though we could afford it.
We know a ton of people that are not insured because they can't afford it. I hope the subsidies offered will cover the cost for these people.
I don't think most people go without insurance as a first choice. There may be a small subset perhaps but I can't believe the majority are voluntaily foregoing insurance for the pleasure of dealing with the ER once things get so bad they have no where else to go.