Republicans have been whining about not getting a seat at the table and being excluded from giving their ideas on health care reform. So, the President has invited the Republicans to join him at a health care summit on Feb 25th, which will be televised, so that they can offer their ideas to the American people and work with Democrats to publicly discuss the reform issues.
Naturally, the Republicans refuse.
{ 49 comments }
I don’t know. When Obama was on top and the public was for his healthcare plan (before they knew the details which turned them against it) Obama’s answer to the GOP’s pleas to be included was literally “I won” which can be translated as “Frak off, I won, you and your ideas don’t matter”.
Now that he, his party, and his policies are tanking big time; now that he has lost Kennedy’s seat because of healthcare; he is blaming the GOP for “obstructionism” (as if the GOP is responsible when he has more than enough dems in the house and senate to pass any bill) and he wants to “deal”.
Face it, Aziz, your boy has screwed up so much (the country and his Presidency) that the only way he can resurrect his policies is by stealing the Tea Party’s (increasingly the GOP’s) thunder and/or linking them to the debacle if it fails once again (which it will).
Obama’s done. He should just go back to the White House and do the things he is good at (the only things he has done in his first year): give some speeches, throw some parties, play some basketball, blame Bush, and break more campaign promises.
You are a slave:
You already know what the obvious counter arguments are, and you have decided that your assertion is true because that is how you feel about the issue. You know because you want.
I”ll say it again: You already know what the obvious counter arguments are. You are a slave.
Slavery is bipartisan. You might want to give politics a rest for a while.
Naftali,
Who was your comment directed to? I assume it was Aziz but am not sure.
The GOP has been offering alternatives from Day One, and the Democrat Party has been ignoring those alternatives and lying about their existence over the same period.
Now, when Saint Barry is on the ropes, he wants to work with us? Screw him.
So, the President has invited the Republicans to join him at a health care summit on Feb 25th
Hah! That’s a pretty easy invitation to make after losing the Ted Kennedy seat to Scott Brown:)
-HB
Somehow I doubt Obama would respond favorably to being invited to the Republican summit on health care.
This reminds me of when John Edwards, after losing Iowa, after embroiled in an ugly affair, that was simmering beneath the surface, “invited” Obama to name him Attorney General:)
–HB
Yes, Mike, the comment takes aim at Aziz. Its content, however, applies to us all, to a greater or lesser degree. No creature escapes himself without G-d as his king.
The Republicans have not offered any ideas of their own beyond the same formula of tort reform, tax cuts, and privatization
Those are ideas. You just don’t like them.
For that matter, “no [to this]” is a principled and valid stand – they don’t need any “ideas” to “fix healthcare”.
Know why?
It’s not actually broken. (And to the extent it is, if it all, more government involvement is the disease, not the cure.)
Only if one assumes the Progressive view that “healthcare is a whole [rather than just the sum of individual actions], and is broken and the State must fix it [and can, and by doing more]” does your rant against the Republicans remotely follow. (To the extent that healthcare is medicare and medicaid, the first part is true – but I suggest that means the problem is the State’s involvement, not “healthcare” in general.)
Now, to be fair, I’m sure much of the opposition is purely political. But on the other hand the Republican base as well as the mass of Conservatives [not the same thing] sure seem to want nothing rather than something*.
(* “Something must be done. This is something. This must be done”. I’d rather, always, that nothing be done, instead of “something”, that has to be done because it is “something”.
That’s what the “health care reform” bill looks like.
A giant pile of steaming dung.
Kill it. Kill it dead.)
Somehow I doubt Obama would respond favorably to being invited to the Republican summit on health care.
oh?
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/02/obama-crosses-forward-republic.html
Naftali, I take the comment as a compliment. I’m pleased that you arent even pretending to read what I write. There are people I disagree with profoundly on almost everything, yet who I still retain immense (though perhaps un-reciprocated, so be it) respect for here, like Scott and Dave. You are, I confess, not among their number. But welcome back, sir.
Mark, the GOP has not really offered any serious, complete policy alternatives. Theres a good overview of their strategy here:
http://prescriptions.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/02/08/risks-and-perhaps-rewards-in-obamas-health-summit/
Hank, the conventional wisdom about MA is quite wrong, as polling has clearly revealed. Daniel Larison, no liberal he, debunks:
http://www.amconmag.com/larison/2010/01/21/kill-the-bill/
Mike,
my “boy” ? excuse me?
You are a reaction.
This Republican has an idea in this comment.
That said, I don’t hold out much hope for Obama’s summit. Obama won’t be willing to make the kinds of changes that will bring the American people on board unless he starts over with something small. Comprehensive reform of a system where 70 to 90% of the people like what they have now is a bad idea. I don’t think Obama will be willing to abandon a comprehensive appoach.
If I were the Republican caucus I’d start by setting a firm page limit of less than the original Medicare bill. I really question Congress’s ability to produce a quality bill of any kind with a page count above two-hundred. I’m thinking about how IT folks produce quality code for large projects, and what I see from Congress doesn’t resemble that. What they have for really big bills doesn’t seem as good as shoddy peer review in a badly run journal. Small bills, OTOH, they can do very well on.
Yours,
Tom, aka Wince
Aziz,
‘Your/my boy’ is commonly used to refer to a sports hero or someone you support fanatically. As in my boy Zack Greinke or your boy CC, or even Your boy John McCain. Don’t go there, OK?
Yours,
Tom, aka Wince
reprinting Toms comment from another thread:
We could encourage insurance companies to offer plans which make those percentages explicit, and allow hospitals to deny care on that basis as well. An 20% plan would be cheaper than a 10% plan, which would be cheaper than a 1% plan, and the broader the Do Not Resuscitate order the cheaper as well. Uninsured people would be denied care based on income unless they can pay immediately. If you are penniless you are denied at 1%. If you are Warren Buffet you are denied at 100% unless you pay immediately
The problem is the idea of a hospital being able to deny care. They can already to a certain extent, but the rules on that are really controlled by physicians and the AMA and its a matter of professional ethics more than one of budget constraints. (though there is a pragmatic aspect to it of course by neccessity).
A simple tiered system of reimbursement however is an idea I like. But funamentally the way insurance works is that the healthy subsidize the sick. Thats just the root structure of insurance. You CANNOT make it work or save costs if you let insurers cherry pick who they cover – you will end up with a lot of sick people who cant get covered, and they end up costing you the taxpayer a LOT more when they end up at teh ER at the local county hospital instead of haing been treated for $20 copay well in advance thanks to govt insurance.
I am strongly in favor of the dual-mandate. that way you have the broadest possible pool to spread risk out. And thus you have the cheapest possible premiums.
I’m a =big fan of LONG bills. Have you read the originals? a “page” in a law bill is really an outline of paragraphs, each sub-sub0-sub section indented and tagged, like a giant Word document in outline view. The more pages the better because they are legallistically tracking down every possible scenario and making sure there are no loopholes. I mean, i could write a seven line health reform bill, but it would be worthless because an army of lawyers from industry would find a thousand loopholes to get around my sentences no matter how clever they are. Frankly I think 1000 pages for a reform of this coimplexity and magnitude is depressingly low. FYI go check out the length of the Medicare Part D bill that the GOP passed in Bush’s term for comparison. Its interesting indeed.
as for “boy” the implication is that hes my child, as if I have some parental authority and oversight. Thats just ridiculous. If he was my “boy” then hed have never taken single payer off the table. I wish he was indeed my “boy” but really to pretend he is is ludicrous in teh extreme, laughably so.
heres medicare Part D
http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/PLAW-108publ173/pdf/PLAW-108publ173.pdf
clocks in at 416 pages, but thats because the PDF has single spacing. The 1000 page health care reform bill passed by teh House (HR 3200) was double spaced, but i havent seen the Senate bill which could be 1000 single spaced for all i know.
think about it though. The Part D bill is 400+ pages long, and that just added a new entitlement program instead of reforming any old ones. Any reform billis necceessarily going to be much longer because it has to go in and refer to parts of dozens even hundredds of older legislations, and then rewrite sections of those, in addition to any truly new content.
you can play te game with most legislation. Find something, anything you like – the Bill To Love Apple Pie and Mommy – I bet youll see it clock in at over a hundred pages minimum.
Frankly I think 1000 pages for a reform of this coimplexity and magnitude is depressingly low.
Frankly I think that if Congress needs to write a 1000 pages they are biting off not just more than they can reasonably chew, more than anybody can chew. The rule of law is not well suited to many tasks. When it’s hard to draw a bright line or you require too many words, don’t use laws. For many tasks we need to use other tools in humanity’s tool box. Health care is too complex and messy to handle via law.
as for “boy” the implication is that hes my child, as if I have some parental authority and oversight.
No, it’s not. It’s a common idiom, Aziz. It does not imply Obama is your child and you are responsible for him. It does imply that you are fanatically devoted to him as if he were your child. (It would be perfectly reasonable for you to object to this.) This usage typically applies to celebrities. Sports, acting, music, and yes, political stars. Don’t over analyze this. Mike is probably a sports fan who likes to talk smack.
Yours,
Tom, aka Wince
P.S. You could look up ‘my boy’ in the urban dictionary. It’s blocked where I work.
But funamentally the way insurance works is that the healthy subsidize the sick. Thats just the root structure of insurance. You CANNOT make it work or save costs if you let insurers cherry pick who they cover
Not exactly. The fundamental idea of insurance is that you turn a small chance of a big cost into the certaintly of a small cost. So instead of paying a quarter of a million dollars to rebuild if my house happens to burn down, I pay $50 a month every month to my insurance company, and they cover the cost if my house burns down.
In order for this to work, my insurance company *must* “cherry-pick” its customers. If we had community ratings and guaranteed issue for homeowners’ insurance, then insurance companies would be required to sell insurance to people whose houses are already on fire at the same price. If your house is already on fire, that’s not insurance — you’re turning the certaintly of a large cost into the certaintly of a small cost at others’ expense. The logical conclusion of CM/GI is the insurance death spiral, where insurance companies raise their prices to cover the increased costs, and customers drop their insurance safe in the knowledge that the can always sign up again when their houses catch fire.
Mandates patch this mess by holding a metaphorical gun to the heads of people whose houses are not on fire, forcing them to buy insurance regardless of whether they want it or not.
The Obamacare formula of mandates + community ratings + guaranteed issue locks everyone into a prepayment model that destroys market incentives, puts government and insurance company bureaucrats in charge of health care decisions rather than doctors and patients, and it sets insurance companies to collect a stealth tax on the healthy to subsidize the sick.
If you want to tax the healthy to subsidize the sick, be honest about it: have the IRS collect the revenue, have it show up on the federal budget, and write checks to people according to health status.
So, when Obama perceived to be holding all the cards he wasn’t much interested in Republican’s opinions.
Now that Republicans seem to believe that they have momentum, they are not interested in Obama’s thoughts.
So politicians on all sides are continuing to act like politicians?
Shocking.
The only amusing aspect of this is those that view this as a one way street and like to pretend that they aren’t partisan.
Aziz,
The Larison piece you cite to debunk the Scott Brown meme is interesting, but is too superficial to do any real debunking.
Nobody needs to know the motives of the Mass voters for voting for Scott Brown — the fact that they voted for him after he pledged to kill the Senate bill is what matters. True, some Mass voters wanted a public option, some hated the Cadillac Tax on unions, some were content to stick with the Mass health care plan passed when Romney was governor.
But that changes nothing. You can quibble “cause and effect” all you want — the practical effect for voting for Brown in Mass was to derail Obama’s health care plan.
Once derailed, of course, Obama is left with no options, other than to “invite” his obstructionist friends from across the aisle to, ahem, discuss ideas.
I’m all for discussions!
–HB
Tom, thanks for backing me when I should have been defending myself. Yes, the term “My boy” or “your boy” is to indicate my candidate or your candidate. It’s kinda like saying “I have no horse in this race” (I hesitate to use the term “I have no dog in this fight” for fear that twits like Aziz who believe Israel is building a genetics bomb to wipe out Arabs will naturally take it the wrong way since they are not intelligent enough to understand).
But as was warned before the election that any and all criticism of Obama would be labeled “racist” has come to pass. Now his ‘bots are grasping at Orwellian straws as he and his party continue their death spiral in the polls (note to Aziz: I’m not saying they’re actually going to die; I’m saying that they are sinking in the polls so low that it’s hard to see them pulling out even a status quo victory in the fall.
Sigh, why is it you always have to explicitly explain things to children, the unintelligent and the political fanatics?
Mike,
> (I hesitate to use the term “I have no dog in this fight” for fear that twits like Aziz who believe Israel is building a genetics bomb to wipe out Arabs will naturally take it the wrong way since they are not intelligent enough to understand).
You should have hesitated before this whole paragraph. Aziz isn’t a twit or a conspiracy theorist.
> But as was warned before the election that any and all criticism of Obama would be labeled “racist” has come to pass.
Oops. Aziz doesn’t appear to have been taking the ‘racist’ route.
> Sigh, why is it you always have to explicitly explain things to children, the unintelligent and the political fanatics?
This is twaddle in reference to Aziz. Maybe you should let me defend you. So far I haven’t over reacted in the other direction.
I have been known to overreact when defending my own hobby horses…
Yours,
Tom
Tom,
Yes, I do tend to overreact when someone implies my comment was racist. I’ll go back to allowing you to defend my figure of speech.
I apologize to you for overreacting, Tom.
Thanks, Mike.
If you lay all the cards on the table, Republicans don’t want to do anything about the spiraling cost of health care. Oh, yes, that is one of the criticisms they make of the current health care bill. They say it does not do enough to rein in the growth of health care spending, but then they are strongly opposed to every single suggestion for how to begin to rein in health care spending. (Yell death panels).
They don’t want to rein in health care costs, because that would take the wind out of their argument for why Medicare must be abolished. They want the cost of Medicare to grow to the point that it bankrupts the government and they can abolish the program.
It is that simple.
Mikeca,
Right, that’s why the Republicans have proposed allowing you to buy from any insurer nationwide instead of one or two you can now buy in your state; that’s why they’ve suggested tort reform to end junk lawsuits and enormous judgments that far exceed the damage the person endured or lawsuits where the doctor did no harm; or… oh heck with it, just read this (http://www.gop.gov/solutions/healthcare) the actual proposals from the GOP.
Not that I’m a GOP booster, but saying the Republicans have offered no ideas is just a flat out lie.
mikeca,
I don’t want Medicare. I’m not going to give it up, because I paid for it. What I really want is to cash out my share and buy my own old age health insurance from a private company. I believe in freedom. Social Security and Medicare are tyranny. People should have a choice. People should be treated as adults and made responsible, not dictated to by a paternal, maternal, nanny state. That’s a human rights issue, mike. You remember how people were all up in arms over tapping foreign phone calls? Well, that’s a tiny imposition on a few people. Social Security and Medicare cost every working person an hour’s pay every single working day, and lock us all into a badly run pension and a badly run health care system that are guaranteed by their massive nature to be poorly customized to our wants and needs. That’s tyranny.
As regards your whole death panel argument, welcome to opposition behavior. Usually it’s the Democratic politicians applying lots of voltage to the third rail. Well, turnabout is fair play and those bums fully deserve the trouble they are in. I linked “here’s an idea” response to the death panel complaint above. Aziz replied about it, but it’s been crickets from you, probably because you simply missed it. What do think?
Yours,
Tom, aka Wince
It would be interesting if instead we had a bill that got rid of medicare and transitioned people into a both publicly and privately funded plan that had many health care options. Such a bill could have bi-partisian support and really take us on the first step to getting coverage for everyone. We could call the plans Healthy Americans Private Insurance Plans or HAPIs. Wait a minute! This bill existed and probably would have fared well; but we have this stupid bill instead. The current bill which will not offer me any insurance and make me pay for it. Oh I’d laugh but I… just… can’t.
Mike, I think I owe you an apology for not making my quibble with your word use explicit. In retrospect i see what you meant, and i see how you might have thought i was callig you racist. Credit to Tom for cluing me in. My irritation at your use of the word was simply that it implied falsely that Obama has done everything I have wanted him to do, and that I am not a critic of his in any way. Of course, you still believe that, so we are even.
I’ll forgive you the attempt to smear me about bioweapon concpiracies or whatever. I’ve already acknowledged a dumb credulity in my blogging youth and disavowed it. if thats not eough for you, then theres a long walk on a short pier I can recommend.
Hank,
You can quibble “cause and effect” all you want — the practical effect for voting for Brown in Mass was to derail Obama’s health care plan.
it absolutely does, and that was never a point of contention. But the assertion to which i was providing teh Larison ref was specifically that the MA outcome represented a repudiation of Obama’s policy goals, not just a roadblock. So I take it you will agree with me that there was no such repudiation.
And I’ve argued that in many ways the 59 majority is much more conducive to progres on HCR than the 60 was.
http://blog.beliefnet.com/cityofbrass/2010/01/massachusetts-senate-race-post.html
I mean really. Denmark is how big? Not 300 million people. The British National Health care system is too massive. For a country this large the states should handle it. One size fits 300 million is a bad idea. Shoot, the big states like California are really too big to govern a health care system for the whole state. Something like counties or cities would be better there.
Yours,
Tom
Tom, I never try to argue that anecdotes are data, but I do want t oshare a fact with you. If not for medicare, my aunt would probably have died of her diabetes. Thanks to Medicare, she probably will get about two decades of life that she wouldnt have otherwise had.
Im not trying to shout anyone down about choices or lay guilt trips here. Im just pointing out that the program works and does what it does, well – which is save lives. You hopefully will be a fit lion well into your gray years and never need it. Me too. But then again, my parents are also fit as lions, and they arent poor either, but they just recently qualified for medicare too – and the money they saved is substantial enough to start college funds for their grandkids (all of them). If you consider that they have worked their asses off for decades to get where they are, then suddenly me paying some money for payroll to support people like them all over this country – and people like my aunt – doesnt really strike me as a burden anymore, but an investment.
al too often we lose sight of the human side. I admit Im a flaming liberal of the sort that people like Naftali can sneer at. So be it.
> doesnt really strike me as a burden anymore, but an investment.
Sure, and the Iraq War isn’t a burden, it’s an investment in a better world!
Hey, I like this formula! :)
Yours,
Tom, aka Wince
This proposal will not reduce health care costs in any way. It is gift to health insurance industry. If this were enacted, you would quickly discover that all heath insurance plans you could buy would be from Idaho, or whatever state had the most lax regulation of health insurance companies. (Just like all corporations are Delaware corporations, because that state has the most business friendly regulation and courts.) If you had a dispute with your health insurer, you would have file your complaint with the Idaho insurance commissioner, not the regulators in your own state. The net result is that health insurance might be a little cheaper, but you would get you poorer coverage.
Now a real nationwide system with the federal government taking over regulation of health insurers might be beneficial, but that is not the Republican plan.
Some tort reform is actually included in the Senate Bill I believe, but it is probably not as much as Republicans would like. Even the kind of tort reform Republicans are proposing will do very little to reduce the growth of health care spending. There are a several states that have implemented tort reform, and it has not significantly reduce the growth of health care costs. This might be a one time 2% reduction. The cost of lawsuits and the practice of preventive medicine to avoid them is simply not the major driver of health care costs.
These two proposals vaguely sound like they might do something about health cost, but they really are just payoff to Republican special interest groups that will not have any real effect on health costs.
If this were enacted, you would quickly discover that all heath insurance plans you could buy would be from Idaho, or whatever state had the most lax regulation of health insurance companies. (Just like all corporations are Delaware corporations, because that state has the most business friendly regulation and courts.) If you had a dispute with your health insurer, you would have file your complaint with the Idaho insurance commissioner, not the regulators in your own state. The net result is that health insurance might be a little cheaper, but you would get you poorer coverage.
You don’t understand insurance regulations and law very well. If I, living in California, went to my local Californian Hospital Californian law would trump whatever state’s law they’ve declared as their home base.
Mark, the GOP has not really offered any serious, complete policy alternatives.
Aziz (as long as we’re using given names here), you’re a lying sack of shit.
Aziz (as long as we’re using given names here), you’re a lying sack of shit.
I’d rather we say “mistaken” when we hear a claim of fact we disagree with. Don’t presume malice (or stupidity, for that matter) when an honest mistake is plausible; it makes fruitful debate difficult. Besides which, while I disagree with Aziz fairly often, I’ve never had reason to question his sincerity or his desire to seek the truth.
the GOP has not really offered any serious, complete policy alternatives.
Various congressional Republicans has offered three sets of alternative reform bills:
1. The offical Republican proposal, which consists of a modest set of incremental reforms (tort reform, lifting the ban on interstate insurance purchases, etc). It’s not a complete solution, but it covers most of the low-hanging fruit. It’s something that could pass with large majorities and which would likely cover millions of the uninsured at little additional cost.
2. The Ryan proposal, which is a good example of what a sweeping market-oriented health-care reform package would look like. It expands on McCain’s 2008 tax credit proposal, and would also transform Medicare and Medicaid into voucher programs, solving the entitlement crisis in the meantime.
3. Wyden-Bennett, which has some broad similarities to Obamacare, but has significant differences that appeal to a number of Republicans. The official GOP alternative is a modest bipartisan health reform package, while Wyden-Bennett is potentially a Grand Bargain bipartisan compromise.
I personally think #1 is a no-brainer, which should be voted on immediately while debate continues on more fundamental reform. I’m also a big fan of #2. I’m not too fond of #3, since it still includes community ratings, guaranteed issue, and mandates, but it does at least address some of the underlying issues in a fundamental way that Obamacare in its various incarnations does not.
#1 is not complete, but it is a genuine proposal that would help a lot of people and would have an excellent chance of passing if it were to come to a vote. #2 isn’t going anywhere in the current Congress, but it is a serious policy proposal, and it’s considerably more complete than Obamacare. #3 isn’t really a Republican proposal, but it is both serious and complete and does enjoy a measure of support on the right-hand side of the aisle.
I’d rather we say “mistaken” when we hear a claim of fact we disagree with.
I’m perfectly willing to do that when I hear such coming from people whom, either because of a lack of intelligence or because of their own ignorance, we can assume actually are mistaken. Aziz is both intelligent and well-informed; ergo, he’s lying.
It’s rather difficult dealing with the opposition party these days – they call us “teabaggers” and “obstructionists,” and accuse us of racism and intolerance, all while completely ignoring the obfuscation and arrogance of Saint Barack “the debate will be on C-SPAN” Obama.
And we’re supposed to be all niceynicey? Screw that.
It’s rather difficult dealing with the opposition party these days – they call us “teabaggers” and “obstructionists,” and accuse us of racism and intolerance, all while completely ignoring the obfuscation and arrogance of Saint Barack “the debate will be on C-SPAN” Obama.
And we’re supposed to be all niceynicey? Screw that.
You should probably get your information from the liberals instead of secondhand from your cult members. It would be helpful and make you sound a bit more intelligent.
Eric, you might like #3 better if you saw that there is a tax-deduction to help you pay for health care in that bill. People criticize the proposal but they leave out that there’s a tax deduction that helps families get the care. In addition, people with incomes of 150,000 a year or less will see savings. That’s most people in America.
Proposal #1 won’t do as much as you think. The problem is that opening the interstate borders does not directly give people health care. Tort reform is certainly useful and I wish the Dems would accept it, considering that they are needed to pass any bill. However, the only thing that will result in international trading rights for insurance companies is an oligarchy that essentially gives you the same prices for everything. It may initially cut costs in some areas but the end result would be very little change.
Eric, you might like #3 better if you saw that there is a tax-deduction to help you pay for health care in that bill.
I saw that. Moving the health care/insurance deduction from employers to individuals is one of my favorite things about Wyden-Benett. But I really, really hate the community ratings + guaranteed issue + mandates framework, which Wyden-Benett has. There’s a lot of good in Wyden-Benett, but CR+GI+M is a dealbreaker for me.
Proposal #1 won’t do as much as you think.
It is indeed a limited proposal. But it’s something that could be passed right now if the Democratic leadership were serious about bipartisanship, and it would do a significant amount of good. I’m more optimistic about interstate commerce in insurance than you are — today, big states (unless they have community ratings laws, like NY or MA) tend to have more competition and lower insurance costs than small states.
> This proposal will not reduce health care costs in any way. It is gift to health insurance industry. If this were enacted, you would quickly discover that all heath insurance plans you could buy would be from Idaho, or whatever state had the most lax regulation of health insurance companies. (Just like all corporations are Delaware corporations, because that state has the most business friendly regulation and courts.) If you had a dispute with your health insurer, you would have file your complaint with the Idaho insurance commissioner, not the regulators in your own state. The net result is that health insurance might be a little cheaper, but you would get you poorer coverage.
> Now a real nationwide system with the federal government taking over regulation of health insurers might be beneficial, but that is not the Republican plan.
This does not sound correct. I think we might have to actually read the law.
Yours,
Tom
Back to the original post. I just heard a Democratic Congressperson on CNN explain that the GOP-attended summit will be to “join the house and senate bills together” and that “nothing new will be added and nothing big will be taken out” because “some of what the Republicans want is already in the bills”. So this really is just a show. Why should the Republicans even show up and lend Obama’s horrible bill any credibility if they aren’t even allowed the right to change it?
I’m sorry, but poll after poll indicate (I can find them if needed) that Americans do not like this bill because it is too far left. That means it is time to scrap this and start over*; then the Republicans will be happy to come aboard and lend their support.
*Sadly, I know this is not how Washington operates. It operates under a sense of crisis and “Everything. Must. Be. Done. NOW!!!!”
But isn’t that how we’ve gotten into this mess? The wars must be done now (or the bad guys win), TARP must be done now (or the banks will fall), the Stimulus must be done now (or unemployment will go over 8%), and now Healthcare must be done now. Let’s just take a few more months, get a good bill and pass it; if that doesn’t address every thing that’s OK. Better to have an incomplete but good bill than a bill that strives for completeness and perfection and falls far short.
Mark Shaw,
I’d have to say Aziz’s comment contains two words which render it pure opinion and therefore it can’t possibly be a lie.
The first is the word serious. Aziz is making a claim about the Republican’s mental state. He is claiming they are making proposals which they know are not politically viable simply for the purpose of obstruction.
Of course it is a silly opinion. The Republican proposals would be quite politically viable if they were the majority party. I bet they would even pull a few Democratic votes. Republicans are supposed to propose things that they would do if they were the majority.
But even if it is silly, it’s his opinion and he isn’t lying about it. It’s a variation on ‘my opponents are bums’. Since I usually feel that Democratic politicians are bums, and often Republican politicians as well, not to mention a large number of voters, I have some sympathy for him.
The second word is complete. I bet Aziz did not know about the Ryan or Wyden-Bennett proposals, but even if he did, if they fail to include any one feature he deems necessary to make a health care reform package complete, than he is not lying.
This opinion is not stupid, but does beg the question: Do we need completeness?
I would say the answer is decidely no. I never experience the complete solution to any complex problem. Consider transportation. My car is not a complete solution, complex as it is. It won’t cross the ocean, and it won’t haul a pool table. But if Aziz wants a complete bill, I submit that Obamacare is not complete either. Not even close. Health care is too complex for law.
Yours,
Tom
It is indeed a limited proposal. But it’s something that could be passed right now if the Democratic leadership were serious about bipartisanship, and it would do a significant amount of good. I’m more optimistic about interstate commerce in insurance than you are — today, big states (unless they have community ratings laws, like NY or MA) tend to have more competition and lower insurance costs than small states.
Well herein lies the problem. No party truly is. Even if people in the party like the idea, it won’t pass under opposition leadership because they want credit for it. Also, the system only allows for the unexpected option as opposed to the expected result to occur. For example, if Obama manages to get any liberal policy (a major one that is) it will be a testament to his leadership. I have my doubts personally. Liberal policies or ideas tend to have better luck under conservatives and vise versa.
For example, if a liberal President were to say have constant diplomatic relations with Russia he would be called a socialist sympathizer and a commie pinko. If someone like Regan does it he’s a hero, a diplomatic mastermind. If someone like say, George W. Bush starts a war he’s a warmonger and an elitist bully who terrorizes the weak with his warped, jingoistic worldview. But if someone like say Franklin D. Roosevelt gets into a war he’s a hero and he’s fighting evil forces abroad. Lyndon B. Johnson is almost an exception to this but the hippies were just loud, not numerous. Most people favored Vietnam in the beginning.
In any case the Wyden-Benett has the same issue bill #1 does. Currently, even the Republicans that backed it would probably vote it down simply because they would not want such a bill to pass as it has now become a defeat to allow anything with any kind of public insurance option, even if it has private funds going into it, to pass.
Many liberals will think they are the obstructionist party until the Democrats become the minority, then the Democrats will be defending the country against evil corporate interests. Unless of course you are a Republican, then they will be the obstructionist party.
Oh, so somebody is trying to “explain” the Scott Brown vote ?
Sorry, I live in Massachusetts, I voted for Scott Brown, I know a LOT of people that voted for Scott Brown, and I know that 61% of my district voted for Scott Brown AND I know why.
The anti-Obama, anti-big government, anti-big taxes, anti-Obamacare vote. THAT is what it was. Don’t point me to any bullshit blog post that claims to explain it. Every single person in Massachusetts knew exactly what Scott Brown represented – the 41st vote. And they took that knowledge and sent him to Washington DC to oppose the Obama agenda. PERIOD.
Mike, its worse than that. Obama’s intent for the “summit” is for the House and Senate Democrats to reach a deal BEFORE the summit. As in, there won’t be ANY negotiating. It was always intended to be a show, nothing more.
And, yes, Aziz, Scott Brown’s elections was most certainly a repudiation of Obama and everything he has stood for in his first year that was a direct contradiction of his campaign. Government takeover of healthcare was never the campaign goal, but it is only halfway to the complete single payer, universal health care that Obama really wanted and still wants once Obamacare has its foot in the door. You know it and I know it. Everyone on this site knows it. The man has admitted it himself.
And by all means, you loopy liberals keep on keeping on because if you continue to persist with your outright fantasy that the Massachusetts election wasn’t a repudiation of Obama, the entire country will send you that message in November and then Obama will be dealing from a position of weakness as a new member of the minority party.
And lastly, as someone else pointed out in this thread, saying “NO” is a viable alternative, especially when 1) what you are opposing is the worst possible piece of crap legislation replete with payoffs and special favors for preferred constituencies and 2) the majority of America happens to agree with you.
Which is not meant to ignore the plain fact that the Republicans have offered alternatives from the start and continue to do so at this very moment.
Comments on this entry are closed.