An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

« Sometimes Satire Is More True Than What’s Reported In The “News”

Finding Humor In Serious Work »

Jon Kyl Comes Right Out and Says It

Posted by KATHY KATTENBURG in Health, Politics, Society.
Aug 18th, 2009 | Comments

Republicans in Congress will not support health care reform, even if the public option is dropped. According to Kyl, there is no conceivable set of circumstances under which the GOP will vote for any health care reform package the Democrats come up with:

The Senate Republican whip, speaking to reporters on a conference call from his home state of Arizona, said that even if the Democrats do away with a government-run insurance option, the GOP most likely won’t support the bill that’s being written in the Senate.

“I think it’s safe to say that there are a huge number of big issues that people have,” Kyl said, referring to Republican senators. “There is no way that Republicans are going to support a trillion-dollar-plus bill.”

Liberals say the White House is conceding some of the most important aspects of health care reform — such as the public plan — simply to try to win over a handful of Republicans who are unlikely to support the bill anyway. Sen. Chuck Grassley, a key Republican negotiator, has suggested that a bill that fails to win over most of his colleagues probably won’t win his support either.

President Barack Obama has vowed to veto any bill that would increase the deficit over the long term, but Kyl said that a revenue-neutral bill probably won’t get much GOP support either.

“I have no doubt that they can make it revenue neutral to find enough ways to tax the American people, but that doesn’t mean the Republicans will support it,” Kyl said.

Kyl also called nonprofit co-ops “a Trojan Horse for government-run health care.”

A key member of Republican leadership in the Senate declared on Tuesday that a cooperative approach to health insurance was merely a “Trojan horse” for a government-run system.

In a conference call with reporters, Senate Minority Whip Jon Kyl (R-Ariz.) said that while some progressives view the co-op proposal as an unacceptably watered-down alternative to a public insurance option, Republicans think it’s still too similar. He indicated that both he and the party would oppose them.

“On the co-op… as Democrats have said, it doesn’t matter what you call it, they want it to accomplish something that Republicans are opposed to,” Kyl told reporters. “That is the step towards government-run health care in the country. The president himself said you can imagine a cooperative meeting that definition of a public option.”

“It is [a public plan] by another name. It is a Trojan horse. And therefore no, I don’t believe Republicans will be inclined to support a bill,” he said.

I don’t know what else the White House needs in the way of proof that making concessions — any concessions — to the GOP is a fool’s game. There is no good faith there — no desire to support even the concept of health care reform.

Bottom line: Jon Kyl has given Barack Obama a gift, beautifully wrapped and tied with a red satin bow. I’m a bit surprised that he’s been so open in communicating Republican intentions, but I suppose he’s feeling cocky and overconfident right now. The question now becomes: Will Pres. Obama be able to show some integrity and fortitude, and make it clear that all compromises are off the table?

Ads by Project Wonderful! Your ad here, right now: $0

elrod

I completely agree with you here. Simply put, there is no consensus on this issue and the search for one is futile. But a democracy does not require 100% consensus to operate. It requires a majority. And while there may not be 60 Senators who support the public option there is almost certainly over 50. That begs the question: will the Democrats opposed to, or skeptical of, a public option use the minority veto of the 39-member GOP caucus as an impediment to an up-or-down vote? Will Nelson, Baucus or Conrad actually support a GOP filibuster of health care reform?

SteveK

Well said Kathy and elrod.

Crooksandliars.com has a Rachael Maddow interview with Matt Taibbi on what we (progressive Democrats) expect from the President and Democrat led Congress that we put into a solid position of majority:

Matt Taibbi: No Public Option Will Mean a Revolt Among Progressives
Rachel Maddow talks to Matt Taibbi about what is going to happen to the Democratic Party if the White House settles for a bill with no public option. Taibbi feels that this is the moment the progressive wing of the party draws a line in the sand.

[...]

Taibbi thinks a deal was cut from the beginning between the White House and the insurance and pharmaceutical industries and that they never intended to have a public option. As both Taibbi and Maddow note it doesn't matter what the Democrats do, they're not going to get any Republican support for the health care bill, so wooing Republicans doesn't make any sense.
Every progressive I know (myself included) believe that this is what HAS to be done.

vey9

I said before the brou-ha-ha began that over 50% of the people would have to either lose their insurance or be excluded from getting insurance before, suddenly health care would become a right. My left-wing friends disagreed and said that most people "would understand."

Sadly, I am being proven right. I say sadly because it scares me that people are more afraid of terrorists than they are of becoming ill. It explains how "risk assessment" has gotten to be so wrong.

StockBoySF

vey9, "I say sadly because it scares me that people are more afraid of terrorists than they are of becoming ill."

Haha. Yes, true. I guess that's because Republicans have people believing that Obama's plan will kill people, as do terrorists. The Republicans portrayed Obama's plan as an attack on Americans and their strategy is winning. Even if it took lies to do so.

daveinboca

So Please Bring it On and there are elections in 2010-----the Dems are not so stupid as to repeat their blunders during the Carter and Clinton fiascos, when they lost majorities rapidly ['78 & '94] by overplaying their hand. Nancy Pelosi may have a botox-blown brain, but enough sane and sober Dems are aware of the past so as not to be eager to repeat it.

SteveK seems to be a religious type with "Every progressive I know (myself included) believe..."

Grammar rules make that nugget ungrammatical, but the really sad part is that this simpleton believes rather than thinks.

Tyranny of a majority historically has worked for about one session of Congress in the USA. Even with rent-a-mob ACORN and SEIU thugs wandering about the marketplace of ideas, the independents are going against ObamaCare at a three to one rate.

adelinesdad

Kathy, I agree.

I would say, however, that the public plan was never the only thing wrong with the proposals, and I tried to document a few others on my blog. So there are certainly still reasons for Republicans to be skeptical, even without a public option.

However, Kyl's remarks go too far. If Obama and the Democrats can make the bill revenue neutral, it's worth our consideration without dismissing it before we know anything about it. Kyl's preemptive attack seems more political grandstanding than serious policy making. Also, I think painting the co-op idea as a trojan horse is a talking point stretched too far. The public option was a trojan horse to implement single payer (that one was actually supportable since several progressives said so), but a co-op is a trojan horse because it might lead to a public option, which might lead to single payer? Come on.

Ryan

Dave, if they can pass any kind of public-option reform, at the very least it will survive any Democratic defeat in 2010/12 and in 10 years the GOP will be defending it. (Hi, Medicare!) I can think of worse ways to spend a majority.

SteveK

daveinboca wrote: "Grammar rules make that nugget ungrammatical, but the really sad part is that this simpleton believes rather than thinks."
Poor old daveinboca, always spouting those republican talking points... saying that because I'm in favor of MAJOR Health Care Reform that I want to kill "grammar". It's "Grannie" NOT "Grammar" dave... what a simpleton.

adesnik

Just weighing in here to remind everyone that TMV favors civil debate in which people don't call each other "simpletons" or the like.

Zzzzz

I said before the brou-ha-ha began that over 50% of the people would have to either lose their insurance or be excluded from getting insurance before, suddenly health care would become a right.

I think you are right. I think the only way that is going to happen is if Medicare was revoked. After all, in poll after poll, the biggest opponents of healthcare reform are seniors. They already have their government healthcare and don't want to have to share. They think they 'earned' it.

adelinesdad

"They already have their government healthcare and don't want to have to share. They think they 'earned' it."

They have, at least partially. It's part of the FICA tax.

I don't get the accusations pointed out the elderly on this issue. Yes, the cry to "keep your government hands off my Medicare" is not the best way to put it, but the underlying concern that Medicare benefits could be cut is valid. Each individual person may or may not have supported Medicare when it was put into place, but regardless of whether they supported it, the money for it was taken out of their pay check. So, who can blame them if they feel entitled to get the benefit that they paid for?

They are also called selfish because some of them don't want to extend benefits to others at the cost of putting their own care at risk (whether that is true or not is debatable, since there is no solid bill on the table, a fact the left reminds us of anytime there is a criticism, but doesn't remember whenever they want to tout reform. But when the president talks about paying for reform by finding efficiencies in medicare and creating a panel to decide what changes might be made to save money, it is understandable why some might be concerned about that, regardless of how many times the president says that it won't affect their care).

So yes, some of them are self-interested. But yet, the left apparently has no problem with the uninsured supporting the reform proposals out of self-interest. In fact, when presented with the fact that apparently some of the uninsured don't support the current reform plans, some on the left are perplexed (EDIT: I removed a reference to a post that was clarified in the comments of a subsequent post, but I believe the point remains).

So which is it? Is self-interest a valid reason to support or oppose a bill, or are principles more important? If we should stick with principles, is compassion the only valid principle, and self-reliance not a valid principle?

StockBoySF

adelinesdad, "...is compassion the only valid principle, and self-reliance not a valid principle?"

(I guess it's a rhetorical question, but I'll answer anyway.) For me... both are valid principles. My parents taught me to be self-reliant and do my best. They also taught me that some people aren't as "lucky" as others in life and to help those in need.

There are millions of people without health insurance and millions with inadequate health insurance. I hope we as a nation are compassionate enough and civilized enough to take care of those less fortunate than ourselves.

Besides people are foolish if they think they're safe with their health insurance. They could pay into a plan for decades and never use it. If they lose their job and can't afford health insurance, then they'll lose their coverage. God forbid should they have an accident without health insurance.

adelinesdad

Would it be fair to say that you apply the principle of self-reliance to yourself, but also want a government that is based on compassion for those less fortunate than you? If so, that's fine. But there are also those (including, based on my reading, the founding fathers) that have the view that the government ought to be based on the principle of self-reliance, and that compassion is a principle that should be exercised at the individual level.

I'm not arguing for or against either side of that equation. I just have a problem with those who are harshly critical of the elderly on this issue, to the point where they would suggest denying them the benefit that they paid for and planned for, in order to coerce them into supporting a particular bill. As if once a person gets any benefit from the government (whether they wanted it or not), he becomes a servant of the government and should not oppose anything the government wants to do. If that's the liberal view of how citizens under a welfare state should act, then count me out.

blog comments powered by Disqus