The Big Lie the Democrats and their allies are telling of late is that while people are against the health insurance bill, they like what is in the bill. They cite polls that show people like this, that, and the other thing.
And indeed, if this, that, and the other thing were each a separate bill -- or combined with nothing else into a single bill -- the Congress would pass them overwhelmingly.
But that's not what this bill is. If you're going to poll people on specific items in the bill, it is only fair -- which is why the Democrats don't do it -- to poll them on all the provisions of the bill, not just the ones you think they'll like. The tax increases, the mandates to employers and individual citizens, the reduced choices, and so on.
It's these other things that are also in the bill that are the reason why a majority of Americans oppose the bill.
However, the Democrats do have a point, though most of them won't say it explicitly: despite all the bad in the bill, once it's implemented, people will get attached to the things in the bill they like, and it will be nearly impossible to repeal it.
Take Medicare: people would never vote to repeal it today. But if it were being proposed today as a new program -- laying out all of the facts, about how it is nearly bankrupt, and how many providers don't accept it, about its many flaws -- it would never become law.
This is also why the Democrats are stupid to be worried about the details. They should instead make whatever compromises they have to, to get it passed as quickly as possible, and have it implemented as soon as possible. That's all that matters. Once they get that, they have the whole shebang. Once implemented, it will never be repealed and they can always enlarge it later. By fighting amongst themselves and trying to include everything they can possibly get and pushing out the implementation, they give opponents more opportunity to kill it.
I am grateful for this.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at January 04, 2010 07:05 PM | Email ThisSo, rationing is likely the result for the elderly.
Few doctors. Fewer facilities. It equals rationing no matter how you slice it.
They're not even going to go through the normal conference procedure. That is how bad this thing stinks.
Posted by: Gary on January 5, 2010 07:36 AMMy problem is why didn't the opposition blunt this effort or even push back ? That is the problem I have with the today's GOP.
I'd say that this is what the 2010 elections are all about - it's not enough any more to stop the oppression where it is at, it's about rolling it back and offering an effective pushback. The Tea Parties (teabaggers) seem to have fire in the belly for doing this, unlike the GOP. However, it will be a tricky process to intermingle their agenda with that of the Republican Party.
Posted by: KDS on January 5, 2010 09:21 AMAnd there's nothing tricky about the Tea Party working with the GOP. Nothing at all. You work together where you agree, you don't where you don't. You find candidates both groups will support.
Granted, I live in an area where the GOP and the Tea Party tend to agree much more often than not, compared to, say, King County ...
Yeah sure they will.
So if they lie about this, how much will they lie when it comes to health care and you?
Posted by: Medic/Vet on January 5, 2010 10:01 AMHowever, if so, fine: it only takes a majority to change that, if it is in the legislation.
If it is in a Senate rule, it can require more. But in legislation, it can't.
Posted by: pudge on January 5, 2010 10:43 AMToo bad that our modern GOP has forgotten how to engage in the battle of public opinion.
I'm sure they are saving all their funds for more yard signs. (Since those have worked so well in the last few elections.)
Posted by: johnny on January 5, 2010 11:32 AMI think the battle was truly lost long ago when the argument was about whether or not there was a health-care crisis. The court of public opinion believes there is a crisis. Only in the face of a bad bill being passed are the Republicans willing to fight, which further emphasizes (to the public) their lack of will on this issue.
Instead, they should have either argued that the 'crisis' is mostly a construction of the Democrats to seize more government power, or accepted that the crisis exists and push solutions before momentum swung so far the wrong way.
Now, however, it is important to point out the complete awfulness of this bill and the hypocrisy of the president regarding transparency, openness and caring about the public. If they can build a conservative mandate (and provide Congress with actual conservative members), then Obama and his policies can be stopped.
Posted by: Erich on January 5, 2010 12:00 PMGranted, they have been pushing back in solidarity, but the results, unfortunately have been minimal. Many people, including myself are finding these results as unacceptable and unfortunately significant.
With that said, I know that cause of the problem here is that the Dems have a super majority in the Senate now, thanks to several strategic goofs in the 2008 elections. The jury is still out as to whether the GOP is going to be smart enough to move on and overcome the conundrum that this country is in over the long haul. I am encouraged by the Tea Party movement, but there are elitist (i.e. Country club Republicans who have resorted to growing government - Bush 41, 43, McCain, L. Graham - to name some) and have been a big influence on the party. I prefer the House Republicans, wno are more conservative over most of the Senate Republicans (who are more of the country club ilk). The problem is House Republicans do not have the name recognition when it comes to 2012.
This article from the GOP chairman is a bit encouraging - he is starting to grasp the real problem that the GOP must effectively deal with -
http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-politics/20100105/US.Steele.Book/
Posted by: Palouse on January 5, 2010 12:57 PM
However, DeMint is absolutely right, and a future Republican Senate would not be bound by the two-third requirement to override this rule since a two-thirds requirement was not used to pass it in the first place. That is to say, the Republicans could simply pass a bill that includes text that overrides that "non-rule-change rule change" with another, if they wanted to play the same game: I'd prefer, though, that they affirmed that the initial rule change itself was out of order and nonbinding, and would therefore be ignored.
Thanks for the link!
Oh. Just during the campaign.
Posted by: Gary on January 5, 2010 02:48 PMSecond issue - any bill which is not simple to read and discern does not belong in the federal government's senate or house. Don't forget the wise words of our founding fathers. I am paraphrasing but this is one of them.
Posted by: Duh on January 5, 2010 03:15 PMWhat I find interesting however is the discussion on the process as it relates to the "some" of the bill that people do like. My question to the peanut gallery here is: Did the Republicans make a mistake in total opposition to any bill vice putting forward a counter bill that did contain the popular revisions?
My opinion is they did make a tactical mistake in the process. They made the bill to be a Waterloo moment (e.g., Jim Demint's comment earlier in the year), instead of addressing Health Care reform. It seems to me their goal was to embarrass the president instead of even attempting the legislative process and addressing the public's desire for some changes with regards to Health Care. That is my opinion. I am sure the NW pundits here will provide a lively debate.
Posted by: tc on January 5, 2010 04:28 PMAlthought I can't site specific suggestions made by specific people, I know that at least a few republicans (ex. Newt Gingrich, Mitch McConnell) made suggestions to reform the existing system. Things like tort-reform, cutting out medicare / medicaid fraud would be a very nice start in the right direction. I think most Americans would be for that kind of change, and it wouldn't cost anyone anything while saving a considerable sum. Since one of the goals of this bill is supposed to be cutting cost- it only makes sense to actually do something to cut costs.
My problem with the republicans is that they didn't come up with a few things that most people could live with and "shout it from the roof tops" -take EVERY opportunity to share their ideas with as many people as would listen. It would have made it harder for the democrats to do everything without republican involvement, and we might have ended up with a bill that actually might have done some good.
Posted by: David on January 5, 2010 05:12 PMIf the GOP manages to catch lightning in a bottle in 2010 and sweep the board in the 36 2010 Senate elections and dump all 18 Democrats (including Patty Murray here in WA) the GOP can with a caucus majority of 52 (picking up Lieberweasel) to 48 in 2011 have enough votes to modify Senate rules to abolish the filibuster and send a repeal of the HCR to the Democratic president - who will veto it.
Tactical mistake? That's nicer than I'd put it.
But by all means.....
Death Panels! Waterloo!! Socialist Medicine!!! Unconstitutional!!!! Also too, unfair polling!!!!!
That's exactly what I said. They like SOME of it. They dislike the bill as a whole, though.
My question to the peanut gallery here is: Did the Republicans make a mistake in total opposition to any bill vice putting forward a counter bill that did contain the popular revisions?
Nope. First, the Democrats shut the Republicans out of the process, so any argument they make about the Republicans not working with them will be laughed at. Second, the Republicans had no chance of passing a bill of their own, so it would have been fruitless to bother. Third, the PEOPLE are against the bill, so why would they blame the Republicans for killing it?
They made the bill to be a Waterloo moment
Because the Democrats chose to put themselves in that position by shutting the Republicans out of the process (and trying to shut the American people out of the process ... remember the August deadline? and again, note the lack of lobbyists forced to lobby live on C-SPAN like Obama promised).
... instead of addressing Health Care reform.
Nonsense. The Republicans addressed reform all the time, constantly saying what they didn't like in the bill and what they would do instead.
It seems to me their goal was to embarrass the president instead of even attempting the legislative process and addressing the public's desire for some changes with regards to Health Care.
Again, the Democrats shut them out of the process, and have no room to complain.
David: My problem with the republicans is that they didn't come up with a few things that most people could live with and "shout it from the roof tops" -take EVERY opportunity to share their ideas with as many people as would listen.
There's plenty of time for that this year. Last year was about the bill, not about campaigning for what they would do instead. This year is about campaigning, and saying what they would do if elected (in large enough numbers).
It would have made it harder for the democrats to do everything without republican involvement, and we might have ended up with a bill that actually might have done some good.
There was no remote possibility of that.
MikeBS: If the GOP manages to catch lightning in a bottle in 2010 and sweep the board in the 36 2010 Senate elections and ... have enough votes to modify Senate rules to abolish the filibuster
That takes two-thirds. Oops.
and send a repeal of the HCR to the Democratic president - who will veto it.
I would love to see the Democrats filibuster. Or Obama veto. They pass a wildly unpopular bill, the people speak and elect people to repeal it ... and the Democrats filibuster and veto to push their will over the people.
That would be fantastic. Talk about political suicide. Passing it would be bad enough ... but that? Just awesome.
Tactical mistake? That's nicer than I'd put it.
You think it would be a MISTAKE to capitalize on the massive unpopularity of the Democrats' takeover of health care to win a majority ... ?
Really?
Death Panels! Waterloo!! Socialist Medicine!!! Unconstitutional!!!! Also too, unfair polling!!!!!
Shrug. It is socialist, of course. And no serious, honest person thinks it is constitutional. As to polling, I saw no one complaining about unfair polling; I was merely pointing out the fact that the Democrats were lying in their analysis of the polling. Please, by all means, defend their lies as justified somehow.
When Congress AND THEIR families AND THEIR elderly parents go on THIS plan, THEN and only THEN, I'll buy it...Until then...up your'n!..
and--ask yourselves why THEY (or we need) or have 2 systems--too good for YOU? the common serf- payor?...
dumb-shyt voters or lazy voter apathy?...either reason, we'll lose..
Posted by: jimmie howya-doin on January 5, 2010 07:32 PMReally? So all those group-of-6 meetings and talks with moderate Republicans were empty gestures? No one can prove this, but I'm confident that Obama would have loved to get a bipartisan bill and would have compromised even more than he already did in order to get an overwhelming mandate -- and not have to give special favors for Nebraska, etc. But the Republicans decided that it would be better to try to kill the bill, either because it would hurt Obama politically or because they preferred that to a compromise. And you never know; they could still prevail. But their strategy is looking pretty dumb at the moment.
"no serious, honest person thinks it is constitutional"
That's typical arrogant pudgecrap that doesn't need, let alone deserve, a response.
Posted by: Bruce on January 5, 2010 08:55 PMI concur with Pudge. That has been documented time and time again. the lamestream media has conveniently downplayed this fact. In addition, the GOP had alternative House and Senate Bills that were both voted down. They were not as comprehensive as the Democrat versions which was not necessary and could have easily been added to at a later date. What they did not do is put the desired infrastructure for government run health-care into place, which was the main reason they were voted down by the Democrats in congress.
Posted by: KDS on January 5, 2010 09:14 PMMerits aside, the reality is that the minority party -- let alone a subminority, if that's the opposite of supermajority -- is never going to pass its bill. I think the GOP could have had significant impact on the ultimate bill if they had agreed to support it in significant numbers. They chose not to, for both political and substantial reasons, and that was absolutely their right. But it's lame to then whine that they were shut out of the process.
Posted by: Bruce on January 5, 2010 10:25 PMYes, really.
So all those group-of-6 meetings and talks with moderate Republicans were empty gestures?
No, they were attempts to bypass actually working with the Republicans, by targetting a few on the left they hoped to swing to their side to get enough votes for cloture. Basically, they brought in a few Republicans on the left and tried to figure out if they could buy their votes, like they bought Nelson's and Landrieu's.
Thankfully, they could not.
Maybe they would have brought in a few Republicans even if they did have a solid 60 ... but even then it would have only been for appearances so they could lie and say it was bipartisan.
I'm confident that Obama would have loved to get a bipartisan bill
I don't care if that's true or not. It has nothing to do with my point.
and would have compromised even more than he already did in order to get an overwhelming mandate
It never would have happened. If he got a bill that most people could get behind, it would have angered the left -- a LOT more than it is angered by not having a public option -- because it wouldn't go far enough. So no, there was no overwhelming mandate to be found.
But the Republicans decided that it would be better to try to kill the bill
Again, no. The Republicans WERE SHUT OUT. Whether or not Obama would have wanted a bipartisan bill, the Democrats in Congress -- who actually make these decisions, not Obama -- refused to work that way.
This is actually quite simple. The Democratic leadership decided -- for many reasons -- to push for the furthest left bill they could get. They knew the Republicans would never go along, so they didn't bother working with them. They went so far left they risked losing some Democrats, so they pushed back to the center a little bit and tried to pull in a few Republicans from the left while they were at it.
And don't give me this crap about "the Republicans are just trying to make political gains out of it," because:
a. that is what the Democrats did for eight years under Bush (including intentionally sacrificing sound national security policy ... both Kerry and Obama attacked Bush security policies they supported before and after their campaigns), and
b. the Democrats are doing that NOW: they knew all along the Republicans would hate their bill and planned from the beginning (using Saul Alinsky's tactics) to exploit Republican opposition for political gain.
But their strategy is looking pretty dumb at the moment.
Riiiiiiiight. Having most of the country on your side and looking like you'll recapture the House is evidence of a "dumb" strategy. Do you really believe that?
NO massive program has ever passed Congress without a BIG majority of Congress backing it -- usually a majority of both parties -- let alone the PEOPLE not backing it. The Democrats are likely committing one of the biggest political blunders in U.S. history. And I, for one, am enjoying the show, despite the terrible consequences if the bill passes.
That's typical arrogant pudgecrap that doesn't need, let alone deserve, a response.
Yawn. No one -- neither here nor elsewhere -- has ever presented a rational argument that the federal government has any constitutional right to do most of what is in this bill, including, but not limited to, individual mandates, business mandates, forcing insurance companies into a national exchange, and so on.
You can call me, or my arguments, names, but it won't actually make the bill constitutional.
You can call the bill, or the Supreme Court's decisions, unconstitutional, but that won't actually have any effect on anything.
Tell that to the Democrats who keep attacking the Republicans for not working much on a bill.
I think the GOP could have had significant impact on the ultimate bill if they had agreed to support it in significant numbers.
Then you're a fool. There is no conceivable way the Democrats would have passed a bill that the Republicans could have supported. I absolutely defy you to describe such a bill. It does not exist, even in imagination. The Democrats wanted many things that make the bill unsupportable by Republicans: all manner of new mandates, tax increases, massive new restrictions on insurers, and so on.
Without those things that Republicans could not possibly support, the Democrats don't even have a bill left.
it's lame to then whine that they were shut out of the process.
It was tc who brought it up (and then you denied it happened!). And I was not complaining, at all, that the GOP was shut out. I didn't whine in the slightest; in fact, I am glad it happened, as it makes it that much easier to oppose it, and I want it opposed, because it's a terrible bill, and it could not have been made non-terrible by any number of Republican amendments (that would have a chance of passing). I was just pointing out the fact that it was not a "strategy" or "tactic" to oppose the bill: it was necessary based on their principles.
I hope most Democrats think like you do, Bruce. It will make winning in 2010 and 2012 that much easier. You actually seem to think that being on the side of the people is a bad thing. Granted, democracy is not always good -- such as when it violates individual rights -- but in this case, we have individual rights AND the majority of people on our side.
Which is, of course, what this post was about: that the Democrats chose to not solely do the things they claim people wanted, and instead did a massive bill the people don't want.
Yes, typical liberal: whether or not something is constitutional doesn't even matter to you. It's only what you can get away with that matters to you. Since you think the Supreme Court will back it, the fact that it's unconstitutional is irrelevant. You CAN do it, so you WILL do it.
I, however, am not a sociopath. I believe in the rule of law.
If, one the other hand, this belief of yours and other Republican leaders is wrong only at the margins, then wantonly choosing not to effectively and constructively participate in the legislative process on a bill of such well understood magnitude shall have been wrong.
We won't agree on this, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
a. There's nothing remotely inevitable about it. Sorry.
b. It's a belief grounded in overwhelming DATA. ALL the data out there backs up this belief. All of it. There's not a single data point that disagrees.
... it brings an unprecedented number of senate party seat changes in 2010
I never said anything about that. This is a red herring you keep going to.
... here in WA Murray will win ...
That depends entirely on who her opponent is. For example, if Dino Rossi or Rob McKenna ran, there's an excellent chance Murray would lose. I doubt either would run, so that's merely an example.
... the GOP is still one more election away from being able to repeal what every Republican leader claims to be a disastrous law.
So what? Are you making the argument that winning the Congress back isn't a good thing?
If, one the other hand, this belief of yours and other Republican leaders is wrong ...
It's not a belief of mine and other Republicans. It's a belief of EVERYONE except for the Democrats.
wantonly choosing not to effectively and constructively participate in the legislative process
Trying to kill a terrible bill IS constructive. It is the most important thing a legislator can do.
on a bill of such well understood magnitude shall have been wrong.
Yes, again, typical liberal: you define right and wrong principles based on whether you win or lose. Again, I am not a sociopath, so I do not believe that.
We won't agree on this, but a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Yes, you won't agree because you are objectively wrong: you keep assuming that either a. the Republicans should ignore their principles and support a bill for political reasons, or b. that this bill could possibly be supported by Republicans while still adhering to their principles.
It's -- obviously -- telling that you refused to give us an example of a bill that the Democrats would possibly pass, that the Republicans could possibly support. You cannot do it, and you won't even attempt it, because the fact that you cannot do it undermines your entire argument.
Of course, that you won't even attempt it is a tacit admission that you cannot do it, which also undermines your entire argument.
pudge, MikeBoyScout does not want the GOP to win back Congress ever.
G Jiggy, Obama's had some big lies. Bringing in the Republicans to help write the bill, lie. Public lobbying, lie. Get to keep your own insurance, lie.
Lies all around, and with overwhelmingly most people liking their own insurance, just disliking the cost, and this bill not decreasing our costs at all ...
Posted by: pudge on January 6, 2010 08:32 AMThese people are un-believable. She and Harry and Obama are gonna meet privately at the WH today and decide how best to shaft us. No conference hearings. No public involvement. Obama has completely lied about this being an open process.
Democrat governor, Ritter of Colorado will also not seek re-election this year.
Posted by: Gary on January 6, 2010 08:42 AMThe GOP hasn't been resisting health care reform, just this pork laden, special interest pay-off, cost increasing, Socialist version. The GOP has sponsored quite a few free market based versions that cure the problems while leaving the good parts intact. Like freedom of choice. The Old Media has been complicit in spreading the lie of the GOP "resisting" heath care and without their help, the Demorats wouldn't have a chance in hell to pass this lash-up.
This just in: Senator Dorgan is retiring this year after three terms. The GOP is now looking to take his district which in the past, wasn't a reality.
Have you noticed how many Demorats are all of a sudden retiring this year? And the list will grow. Better to vote for this crap and then retire than have to fight and lose.
Posted by: G Jiggy on January 6, 2010 08:46 AMThe lefties don't know how to not lie, or even lie in a remotely believable way. So even when they have a congressional majority, they can't present a bill with enough integrity to get it to stick. No one takes them seriously.
Posted by: Jeff B. on January 6, 2010 09:18 AMWhat will be really interesting if, like on the Stimulus, these same Republicans who were all against the bill go back and promote its benefits (e.g., things people do like) to their constituents. If they do, then expect the TV Ads to hit them over the head of not supporting the things people do like in the bill. Also, expect the Republicans to be hit over the head for not supporting Defense, since they held up the defense funding bill in order to delay the health bill. Another "stupid" tactical mistake by the minority party.
Posted by: tc on January 6, 2010 10:09 AMThey were. It's a fact. The Democrats initially developed their bills without inviting any Republican legislators to participate.
My belief is that the Republicans early Waterloo stance (e.g., DeMint is one of the leaders) led to them being shut out
Your dishonesty is so clear: you said they were not shut out, and then you say that they were shut out because they deserved it.
Why work with someone whose stance is that they are not interested in any reform
That is, of course, a bald-faced lie: there isn't a single congressperson who isn't interested in reform. However, the Republicans -- thankfully -- do not believe that what Obama and the Democrats want IS reform. It's a big step backward.
... are interested only in embarrassing the President.
The only way you could prove that would be to have the Democrats put forth a bill the Republicans COULD POSSIBLY support, and see if they support it. Instead, the Democrats put forth a bill the Republicans COULD NOT POSSIBLY support, and then insanely attack them for having ulterior motives in not supporting it.
I do think that the Senate Finance committee did try to include the key Republicans ...
Not "at the beginning," no, since Finance doesn't get the bill until after it's been introduced. Obviously.
like Grassely up to the point where he stated that no matter the bill he would not support it
Which is the only sane position for him to take, since -- no matter what -- the bill would be something he COULD NOT POSSIBLY support. It is about the CONTENT of the bill. This is obvious fact. We've gone over, many times, the offensive and unconstitutional and liberty-destroying provisions of this bill. How do you think Grassley could possibly support it?
I say to you what I say to MikeBS, and what I ask anyone who thinks the Republicans should have worked toward supporting this bill: I absolutely defy you to describe a bill the Democrats WOULD pass, that the Republicans COULD support. It's not possible. The Republicans will not support massive new govt programs and powers, and the Democrats won't pass a bill that doesn't contain those things.
It's very simple. Your arguments about the Republicans merely trying to hurt Obama, when the evidence is clear that there is no way they could support this bill or any other bill the Democrats would pass on the subject, are not the least bit credible.
What will be really interesting if, like on the Stimulus, these same Republicans who were all against the bill go back and promote its benefits (e.g., things people do like) to their constituents
That's idiotic, tc. The stimulus bill is two components: first, passing the bill; second, how to distribute the money to the states. Every Republican SHOULD be against the passage of the bill, but every congressperson SHOULD try to get what they can of their own constituents' money sent back to their home states and districts. There's nothing the least bit wrong or hypocritical about that: the Republicans lost the fight to SPEND the money, so they work to at least get the money spent for the good of their constituents.
Health insurance "reform" is nothing like this ... well, except in the case of the legislators who sold their votes, like Nelson and Landrieu. Apart from those thefts, there's not a big pool of money to hand out like in the stimulus bill. What you think will be "really interesting" doesn't even remotely apply.
Also, expect the Republicans to be hit over the head for not supporting Defense, since they held up the defense funding bill in order to delay the health bill.
Yawn. The Democrats did the same thing, first of all; and second, there's no way that the military would have gone unfunded, and everyone knows that, so good luck trying to win that argument.
One additional point, the Republicans need to heed the "Rope-a-dope" method that Obama uses.
No, he doesn't. He has never used that. Ever. It's fun to pretend that his comebacks were part of a grand scheme, but it's fantasy.
The Republicans can blaim DeMint when their hope of failure of the Health Bill does not come to fruition.
That makes no sense. If the bill passes, it's only because the Democrats had enough votes to do it, not because the Republicans failed (except in their failure to elect more Republicans ... which will be rectified soon, large part in thanks to the health insurance bill).
Not only did they not stop it, Obama ends up getting pretty much what he wanted from the start ...
... which will help Republicans take back the entire federal government.
Again, this is very simple: this is a terrible bill. It's going to cost trillions, it's not going to improve the health care of the huge majority of Americans, most of whom already have insurance, it's going to force many people to change their insurance that they currently like (despite Obama's promise to the contrary), and it's going to create huge new government powers and controls across the board.
Republicans could never support this. And BECAUSE they could never support this, there's no point in trying to support it. That makes sense to most people; I don't know why you have a problem getting it. But if it passes, the Republicans -- of course -- will use that to their full advantage for the elections, because that is what elections are SUPPOSED TO BE FOR.
Why do you hate democracy?
... which was the FEHB like option and not a public options, and especially not a single payer option, like you and many others here were saying back in August was his end-plan.
It IS his end plan. Obviously. He has said so himself: he said many times -- and never denied, not even now! -- that he wants to get to single payer incrementally. This is an incremental step.
I would like the Washington State congressional delegation explain why Nebraska will get a lifetime grant from the government for new Medicaid enrollees while our state will not.
Posted by: Gary on January 6, 2010 10:52 AMOn your second sentence, the Cornhusker deal will go one of two ways in conference, which Ben Nelson has already indicated. It will either be dropped, or it will be expanded to include all states, which was Nelson's original goal. He has stated on the record and it has been confirmed separately that he doesn't want the deal to stand as is after the conference bill.
Posted by: tc on January 6, 2010 11:19 AMSo when you say he is misleading by saying Medicare will be cut, you really mean he is being accurate by saying Medicare will be cut.
Oh. Medicare isn't being cut?
Okay. My bad.
I've not time to deal with all of the points you have made, but I'll focus just a minute on one.
"It's a belief of EVERYONE except for the Democrats."
Sounds scary. All CAPS even. :-D
How does your Venn diagram of party affiliation look? No chance you'll show us?
And we can just ignore any facts which appear to get in the way of your unsupported "EVERYONE" supposition, because reality has a well known LIBERAL bias.
see, my all caps key works too. :-p
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant in the echo chamber.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 6, 2010 11:58 AMYou stated:
"They were. It's a fact. The Democrats initially developed their bills without inviting any Republican legislators to participate."
This is not correct. Since it is an absolute statement, one counter proof is sufficient to debunk, but I will provide a few, nonetheless. One, Olympia Snowe was invited to the WhiteHouse meetings with other Democrats crafting the bill on more than one occasion. This debunks your absolute statement. Two, Snowe, Grassely, and a third GOP senator was involved in the Finance Committee's discussion on the bill. Finally, if you look at the overall Finance Committee debate on their bill, several Republicans, like Hatch, introduced Amendments that were discussed and voted on.
You stated:
"Your dishonesty is so clear: you said they were not shut out, and then you say that they were shut out because they deserved it."
This is not what I stated. You are twisting my words. The "thought" that I stated was that Republicans made the opening salvo's that shut themselves out. There was not an initial action by the Democrats to close off Republican participation. This can be demonstrated, again, by the Senate Finance Committee's Gang of Six discussions. Grassely was involved, but then effectively took himself out of the debate in the end. Yet, you will also notice that the final Senate Finance version did give some weight to Grassely and Snowe's arguments. It did not include a public option, and it took heed of the not adding to the deficit (e.g., paying for itself). You are being dishonest to discount the actual facts of what took place.
You state:
"That is, of course, a bald-faced lie: there isn't a single congressperson who isn't interested in reform...."
Again an absolute statement that can be easily disproven. I will give you a few names: Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann, and Roy Blunt.
You state:
"Not "at the beginning," no, since Finance doesn't get the bill until after it's been introduced. Obviously."
Bills are introduced to committees. Did any of the Republicans on the Finance Committee try to introduce a bill for consideration and were rejected?
You state:
"...I absolutely defy you to describe a bill the Democrats WOULD pass, that the Republicans COULD support. It's not possible. The Republicans will not support massive new govt programs and powers, and the Democrats won't pass a bill that doesn't contain those things."
Three rebuttals: One the Republican leadership laid the groundwork prior to the bills being introduced that Health Care Reform in any format was not acceptable. Go back to the spring and check what the leadership stated. Second, there were versions of the Finance Bill that a few (at least Snowe) was considering to support, which negates your argument. Three, in the House final version of the bill, it did receive one Republican vote. Pudge, you can't keep making these absolute arguments. These are slow-pitch softballs that can be easily knocked out of the park. Absolute statements need one counter fact to disprove the statement.
You state:
"Health insurance "reform" is nothing like this ..."
This one can not be proved or disproven yet because the bill's final state hasn't been passed. Already, however, there are ads up by the Democratic Congressional Committee, using the old Rove trick of using votes against candidates, highlighting Republican congressmen not for some of the things people like in the bill (because they voted no). It is an offensive play that puts the opposition on defense to defend their vote. Therefore, the opposition (Republican candidate) will have to weasel word out of a no vote and state well they are for item A (that people like), but that it was item B they were against. Just like Rove so aptly used this technique to hammer the competition when it came to defense votes (protecting the country), it will come back to bite the Republican candidates. The success will be who gets out front first (on the offense) and who is stuck playing defense. The bill will be a major debate point in the 2010 elections. The Democrats may fumble the ball away, but they have the opportunity to go on the offense with it and hammer the good points (just like you stated in your post). This is especially true, given the implementation timeframe in the bill (e.g., the more controversial parts are not the immediate items being implemented).
I can continue, but hopefully, you get my points, which are: (1) your absolute statements can be easily knocked down, (2) it was a tactical decision that the Republican leadership made to oppose Health Care Reform in the manner they did, and (3) this may have made a mistake, since in the end there was no Waterloo and as you stated there are parts people do like. If the Democrats continue to hit the popular points, and the Republicans continue their Party of No, then they won't make the gains they need. Of course, as James Carville so aptly puts it, the election in 2010 may not be about Health Care Reform, but the economy stupid, which means it is a toss-up right now with some indicators point to the recovery happening, but others point to a very slow recovery, which may not help 2010 candidates.
This statement makes the same fallacy that Dan (Shanghai Dan) made in another SP post. It assumes that the majority opposition is because of what is in the bill, which is false. The opposition includes two camps (neither of which is a majority). There is the camp that doesn't like what is in the bill, but there is also the far left which doesn't like the bill for what it DOESN"T have in it (e.g., the public option and/or single payer option). You fail to count the far left's fantasy that they are going to get their Nirvana in the Health Care bill. It won't happen and it will never happen (contrary to your mistaken belief of what Obama's end-game is--you need to read what he actually campaigned on, instead of minor points in his literature, but that he didn't campaign on -- e.g., look at the debates and his actual campaign event speeches, look at his campaign ads -- none of which mentioned the NIRVANA the left was hoping for).
Posted by: tc on January 6, 2010 12:14 PMThat link is irrelevant to my point. I am talking about THIS particular bill, not "a" bill. That question has nothing directly to do with the bill in the House or the Senate, obviously. When asked about the actual bills, support is even lower.
Please try to think. Thanks in advance.
Really? Will people in Dade County, FL experience the same impact as people in Whatcom County, WA?
False. Medicare itself IS being cut. Medicare Part D -- as the name implies -- is a part of Medicare. If it is cut, then, therefore ... Medicare is being cut.
tc: This statement makes [a] fallacy
False.
It assumes that the majority opposition is because of what is in the bill, which is false.
False.
The opposition includes two camps (neither of which is a majority). There is the camp that doesn't like what is in the bill, but there is also the far left which doesn't like the bill for what it DOESN"T have in it
The former camp constitutes a clear majority. The number of liberals who oppose the bill is insignificantly small. The average poll shows the Democrats' plans down over 12 points: there is no way that this many on the left oppose the bill. I'd be extraordinarily generous to give that group three points. Probably about one point. Almost all the liberals I know are in favor of the bill, even if they dislike it.
(The only poll that shows less than a five-point gap is Gallup's, which -- as noted -- does not directly ask respondents about the existing bills, but -- explicitly -- "a" health care reform bill in general. The largest numbers against the bill -- CNN, Quinnipiac, NBC, Rasmussen -- all ask specifically about the existing bill/bills, and are all 10+ points in opposition over favoring.)
tc: you have slipped back into your combative, illogical mode
I said is remotely illogical, and you are incapable of showing otherwise. In fact, I defy you to show a logical flaw in a single thing I said. Just one. Go for it.
if you continue to twist my words and try to paint them as something they are not
You cannot demonstrate I did that. I didn't.
This is not correct.
Yes, it is. Every example you provided was after the Democrats "initially developed their bills." The second two examples were, by definition, after the bills were introduced: you can't have it go to the Finance Committee or be open to amendment BEFORE the bill is introduced. If Snowe was invited prior to the initial development, prove it. By not giving a date, you've given no one a reason to believe you.
This is not what I stated.
Yes, it is. You said they were not shut out, and then immediately afterward explained what you think "led to them being shut out." Your exact words.
Again an absolute statement that can be easily disproven. I will give you a few names: Jim DeMint, Michelle Bachmann, and Roy Blunt.
Every single one of them wants reform. You're lying. They are against "reform" of the type the Democrats want, but they are all, every one of them, in favor of reform.
"...I absolutely defy you to describe a bill the Democrats WOULD pass, that the Republicans COULD support."
Three rebuttals: One the Republican leadership laid the groundwork prior to the bills being introduced that Health Care Reform in any format was not acceptable.
You're lying. That never happened, and you cannot demonstrate that it did.
there were versions of the Finance Bill that a few (at least Snowe) was considering to support, which negates your argument
Obviously not, because I didn't say that "a Republican" could support, I said that "the Republicans" could support.
Three, in the House final version of the bill, it did receive one Republican vote.
Ibid.
These are slow-pitch softballs that can be easily knocked out of the park.
Perhaps, but YOU are obviously incapable of doing so. Every attempt has failed thus far. (Another absolute statement, but one I've proven true.)
And I note that you refused to do as I asked: "describe a bill the Democrats WOULD pass, that the Republicans COULD support."
If you cannot do this, you tacitly admit that it is nonsens to attack Republicans for not working with the Democrats to pass the Democrats' bill.
This one can not be proved or disproven yet because the bill's final state hasn't been passed.
And yet no one has proposed anything like it, and there's no sign it will be proposed. Unless you have some inside information showing some massive pool of money to arbitratily distribute to the states for the health bill?
there are ads up by the Democratic Congressional Committee, using the old Rove trick of using votes against candidates, highlighting Republican congressmen not for some of the things people like in the bill (because they voted no)
Yes, but voters aren't that stupid. This is too high-profile for that tactic to work. If there's a relatively obscure bill about building a bridge in Florida that has a provision for, say, ending dogfighting, and I vote against the bill, you might get away with saying I voted against ending dogfighting. But to say I am against ending rescission, because I voted against the very high-profile and wildly unpopular health care bill?
It is an offensive play that puts the opposition on defense to defend their vote.
You're grossly misinterpreting the ad here: it is not offensive at all, because, as noted above, it won't work to convince anyone to vote against the candidate. Rather, it's a fundraising tactic.
Therefore, the opposition (Republican candidate) will have to weasel word out of a no vote and state well they are for item A (that people like), but that it was item B they were against.
Again, that is only necessary when the voters are not already overwhelmingly opposed to the bill in question. You're being a fool. Voters don't say, "I wanted you to vote against that bill, but I am mad at you for voting against that bill!" That does not happen. You're not thinking.
This is especially true, given the implementation timeframe in the bill (e.g., the more controversial parts are not the immediate items being implemented).
That just opens the door for the GOP to have more opportunity to kill it.
your absolute statements can be easily knocked down
You didn't knock down a single one.
it was a tactical decision that the Republican leadership made to oppose Health Care Reform in the manner they did
Obviously false, as I've proven beyond reasonable doubt. And that you cannot describe a bill the Republicans could possibly support, that the Democrats would pass, is telling.
this may have made a mistake, since in the end there was no Waterloo and as you stated there are parts people do like
You missed the point of my post, which is that IT DOES NOT MATTER if people like parts, if they DISLIKE many other parts. And whether or not this is a Waterloo is obviously unknown. Have to wait for the elections.
If the Democrats continue to hit the popular points, and the Republicans continue their Party of No, then they won't make the gains they need.
Nope. You're completely wrong. Saying No is what is winning the day. For every good thing about the bill, the Republicans just need to bring up a half dozen bad things, and say No, we cannot do this terrible thing to our country.
Passing a bill to make everyone smell nice sounds like a good idea, until you find out the bill also would kill all puppies. You want us to focus on everyone smelling nice, and you're pretending it's a bad thing for us to say it's not worth killing puppies over.
Of course, as James Carville so aptly puts it, the election in 2010 may not be about Health Care Reform, but the economy stupid
Sigh. Did he really say that? He really said that a bill introducing massive new regulation and control over 15% of the economy isn't ... about the economy?
pudge, the reasonable: "You're lying. That never happened, and you cannot demonstrate that it did."
pudge is correct. tc won't be the first to demonstrate it did. I will. I have magical liberal socialist google machine at my disposal.
Prior to S.1796, America's Healthy Future Act of 2009, being reported out of the Senate Finance Committee on October 19, 2009, the ranking Senate Republican behind the Minority Leader, Senate Minority Whip, Jon Kyl said on August 18, 2009 "There is no way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-dollar-plus bill."
From the referenced Politio article:
Grassley has been under pressure from top Republicans to not give the Democrats bipartisan support if most GOP senators can't support a bill.
"I think his concern about having almost all Republicans opposing that kind of approach is a valid one," Kyl said.
Have a good night pudge.
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant in the echo chamber.
OK. I'm waiting.
Oh ... do you think you already did? Well no, you didn't. What you demonstrated is that the Republicans would not support a "trillion-dollar-plus bill."
tc said that Republicans said they would not accept health care reform "in any format." But your quote from Kyl was only about a specific "format": that of a hugely expensive bill.
Weak attempt. Is that the best you can do?
Yes, pudge, it is. You and the cognitively impaired win.
Congratulations!!!
Yippee!!
:-D
We now return you to your regularly scheduled rant in the echo chamber.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on January 6, 2010 04:36 PMNow that's funny right there! I never get tired of reading that over and over and over and over and over.
Funny how when you are left with no argument, you resort to attacks.
Yawn.
As pudge said, this is done through incremental steps,tc. As with any government program, the first step is to put your foot in the door so there is room for encroaching further upon the freedoms of Americans. Canadian citizen Mark Steyn has an excellent article here outlining why we Americans shouldn't follow Canada down the path of a failed public health care system and gives an excellent insight into the stages taken by the "incrementalists" like Obama, Reed, Pelosi to achieve these goals to undertake even further violations of personal freedoms.
I highly encourage anyone, regardless of political bent, to read Steyn's article. It's quite lengthy, but well worth the time if you're truly interested in stopping this take over of our country by people who aren't interested in helping you, but controlling you. Wake the hell up, folks.
Some historical polling on the health care bills should show your conjecture is wrong; please see the historical polling results and you'll find that Democratic support has been consistently between 72 and 76 percent; Republican opposition has been consistently between 79 and 87 percent. Where the changes has occurred is with the independents, that have - over the last 3 months - solidly sided with the Republicans.
It's not "Democrat disapproval that the bill doesn't go far enough" that is sinking the polling; it is dissatisfaction with the bill - especially the costs (a vast majority believe costs will skyrocket, and coverage will shrink) - that are killing it, especially with moderates and independents.
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on January 7, 2010 08:17 AMI assume by your responses, you are defining the term differently than me. I am defining it as if a few Republicans support it, then it meets the definition. You appear to be defining the argument as a bill where the majority of Republicans support the bill. Do you see the difference?
Given your basis (i.e., majority of Republicans), you set up an impossible question strawman. I will flip the question around for you to see your argument fallacy. Please provide an example of a bill that the majority of Republicans would support and could pass the Senate (i.e., the 60 vote threshhold). See, when you state it that way, then you are setting up an impossible scenario in regards to Health Care. Your strawman is a charade meant to point out that Health care reform can not be attempted since it will never get enough votes to pass.
OBTW, there are past sessions (year's) examples of bipartisan bills introduced, for example the Wyden-Bennett (sp?). This bill even had health exchanges in it, yet given this sessions Senate and Congress's leadership stance regarding Health Care, this bill would even not be acceptable. Point to me Pudge, where the congressional leadership of the Republicans (this year), stated that they would support a bipartisan introduced bill, like Wyden-Bennet. What you have instead, is a cowardly leadership being driven by the Tea-Party folks and media pundits into a corner where any Health Care Reform is to be abandoned. You find plenty of quotes about killing health care reform (in any format). You don't find any significant quantity of quotes from the Republicans, outside of Snowe (possibly Collins, and a few other moderates) supporting Health Care Reform (just not the version du joir on the table).
2. Regarding Polling: You are incorrect. The don't like what is in the bill crowd is not a majority, and the don't like what isn't in the bill is a lot larger than a few out on the extreme. I would agree that the former is a lot larger than the latter, but it doesn't make it a majority (e.g., above 50%).
Posted by: tc on January 7, 2010 08:31 AMAs usual, your interpretation makes no sense. By this standard, "Republicans support" full abortion rights, tax increases, and so on. So, no, you're wrong. Again.
Given your basis (i.e., majority of Republicans), you set up an impossible question strawman.
It IS impossible -- that is my explicit point -- but it is absolutely not a strawman. The first time I used this construction to Bruce, I wrote, "Without those things that Republicans could not possibly support, the Democrats don't even have a bill left." This was in response to Bruce saying, "I think the GOP could have had significant impact on the ultimate bill if they had agreed to support it in significant numbers."
So obviously, the context was more than just "a few." And then you went on to say "the Republicans" were making a tactical mistake, and that they should have worked with the Democrats: again, this implies more than just "a few," especially since you blamed the leadership for this "tactic."
Not a strawman at all.
I will flip the question around for you to see your argument fallacy. Please provide an example of a bill that the majority of Republicans would support and could pass the Senate (i.e., the 60 vote threshhold). See, when you state it that way, then you are setting up an impossible scenario in regards to Health Care.
Ummmmm. That is not flipping the question around, that is EXACTLY WHAT I SAID. And it's not a fallacy: you (finally) agree with me that you were wrong to say Republicans should have worked with the Democrats on passing a bill, because you (finally) agree that it is not possible for a bill to have existed that the Republicans could have supported, that the Democrats would have passed.
Your strawman is a charade meant to point out that Health care reform can not be attempted since it will never get enough votes to pass.
You're a liar. What I was pointing out is that you were wrong to say the Republicans should have worked with the Democrats to pass a bill ... which you finally agree with me on.
OBTW, there are past sessions (year's) examples of bipartisan bills introduced
I am not talking about past sessions, I am talking about this one. Obviously. The Democrats' reach has gone much farther in this session; the point I made is that they would not pass a bill like Wyden-Bennett today.
Point to me Pudge, where the congressional leadership of the Republicans (this year), stated that they would support a bipartisan introduced bill, like Wyden-Bennet.
Irrelevant, of course, first because whether it is "bipartisan introduced" has nothing to do with anything, and second because the Democrats would never pass a bill like Wyden-Bennett today. It's really idiotic for you to attack the Republicans for not saying they would accept a compromise that the Democrats wouldn't pass in the first place.
What you have instead, is a cowardly leadership ...
You have not demonstrated a single act or attitude of "cowardice." Instead, you've lied about motives, and even admitted you were wrong that there's any bill the Republicans could support that the Democrats would pass.
... any Health Care Reform is to be abandoned.
You're a liar. This is unfounded and untrue.
You find plenty of quotes about killing health care reform (in any format).
You're a liar. You already TRIED AND FAILED to provide such a quote.
Now, tc, you will either admit no such quotes exist; provide a quote; or be banned. You made this claim before, you tried to back it up with a quote that I proved did not actually back it up, and then you repeated your claim.
This is unacceptable behavior, and you will do one of those two things or be banned for it.
Regarding Polling: You are incorrect.
And this. Give some evidence that I am incorrect, admit you are wrong, or be banned. Those are your choices. You have provided not a shred of evidence to back up this claim, despite the fact that I and Dan both have provided evidence that it's incorrect.
It's telling: you know they are lies, else you'd back them up.
No one believes you when you say that confronting you on your lies is "childish," and no one cares about my "tone" in the face of your lies.
You're gone.
BTW -Thanks for doing us that favor. It is because he obfuscated and did not answer the charges, but rather attacks and makes it personal like a typical progressive or neo-com. The same goes for Mike BS, Bruce and Demo Kid. They are like seminar callers on talk shows and are not interested in conveying the truth, but rather presenting lies followed by attacking the messenger. That is right out of Alinsky's "Rules for Radicals". Even though this blog tries to present a forum for debating these issues, it still gets polluted with the "Seminar posters" or trolls. Disagreements are OK, but there is a systemic problem with them when they can't or refuse to admit it when they are wrong after it is demonstrated that they are and then lie to defend it.
Posted by: KDS on January 7, 2010 08:19 PMAnd therefore the Republicans should be all for it since it was put in by then Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
Unless you are just made that it's a black man who is doing it nationally. It was okay when it was a white guy of your own party doing it. But no can't let a black man take credit.
Posted by: Allan T on January 9, 2010 08:36 PMOn some points, it is very different. On others, it is very similar.
And therefore the Republicans should be all for it since it was put in by then Republican Governor Mitt Romney.
First, I lived in Massachusetts for most of my life. I was a delegate to the convention where Romney was nominated for governor, and I voted for him. I know a little something about how things work there. He had no power to stop it. I don't know what his views actually were, but the MA plan was a Democratic plan from beginning to end.
Second, I was against it all along, regardless of who backed it.
Unless you are just [mad] that it's a black man who is doing it nationally. It was okay when it was a white guy of your own party doing it. But no can't let a black man take credit.
You're an utter and complete moron, Allan T, first, because you could not find a single person here who is mad about the Democrats' plan who also favored the Massachusetts plan; and second, because you bring race into it.
I have to think you're not that stupid, because it's hard to imagine anyone being that stupid.
Go troll somewhere else.
After all it took Nixon to go to China...
Posted by: hank on January 10, 2010 08:08 AMBush I pasted the expensive Disabilities act.
Please don't tell me that Republicans aren't MORE LIKELY to be successful to pass the elements of Obamacare (probably piecemeal) such as the requirement that people purchase health care coverage (which was in Romney's bill).
After all it took Nixon to go to China. People would be more trusting of a Romney heath care bill than one of the obviously socialist Obama.
And also you wouldn't have the opposition from the Republicans. The only opposition you would have would be from Democrats for "not going far enough". Most republicans only are against this because of partisanship anyway. They would support the same elements of this bill if it came from a Republican.
Posted by: Hank on January 10, 2010 10:31 AMI will tell you what every thinking person knows: the Republicans oppose many of the elements of Obamacare -- such as mandates, a health insurance exchange, and, of course, a public option -- and owuld never pass them.
They would not pass mandates. You're wrong. You're making no sense whatsoever. And Romney and Nixon have nothing to do with it at all (unless Romney becomes President, which isn't likely, especially if he doesn't promise to oppose federal mandates during his campaign).
Most republicans only are against this because of partisanship anyway. They would support the same elements of this bill if it came from a Republican
That's completely wrong and you have no idea what you're talking about.
And Bush gave us the first bailout.
Republicans are often MORE successful in passing socialist policies though as no one expects it to come from them.
Posted by: Hank on January 10, 2010 12:54 PMIt doesn't change the fact that Republicans would never support gun control in Congress.
And Republicans opposed the first bailout in Congress, remember?
You don't know what you're talking about.