The Truth About Republicans (and Health-Care Reform)

Nothing, not Thorazine, not Propofol, nothing, will stem your hysteria if the Dems actually compromise.

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The Blue Dogs are just moderate to liberal Republicans who have been drummed out of the party. Negotiating with them IS bipartisian.

DLS When did the Repugs compromise other than SCHIPS and NCLB? In the case of these two bills it was pandering to try to buy a permanent W majority.

"When did the Repugs compromise other than SCHIPS and NCLB?"

That's not the issue. Compromise by the GOP is actually not an issue at all here; with health care they obviously(!) have been willing to offer all kinds of reforms, but they have been ignored and suppressed by the Democrats, notably in the House where the crazy lib-Dems are running rampant (the fact that has generated increasing public concern and opposition). It's no surprise that reality-and-morality-free Mikey naturally supports their stooping to new depths by deliberately -- and desperately -- bypassing the GOP intentionally in the Senate, too. Bi-partisanship and "compromise" mean do it the lib Dems' way, only.

While I've never anticipated another 1994 next year in response, the misconduct by the Dems is risky (hence some more wise and less crazy Dems, exposing the fracture among them now with this health care overreach to the point of failure and setback and the closest thing to their misused word "crisis").

"I've said it before and I'll say it again."

You're right again, too. The problem is that too many extremists don't care. It's similar to what I had heard on NPR yesterday, where people were actually misconstruing the situation, and were saying that the public option already is a remarkable, generous compromise of their implied expectation (removed from what the mainstream wants or conceives), "single-payer" created by current legislation promptly.

It’s with the Democrats now, the Democrats alone

So now you embrace and encourage that which you condemned in the past, proving yourself as base as those you hate and have vilified for doing the same.

Or have you had a change of heart, and now beleive the party of the majority has the right to run roughshod over all, following only the whims of its leaders and the moneyed interests that support their corruption?

And if the debacle of the Democratic majorities continues and leads to Republican majorities in the legislative branches, will you extend to them the concept and right that "It’s with the Republicans now, the Republicans alone."

Somehow, I can't see you doing that.

DLS

You really are unbelievable.

DLS 's distortion of the space/time continuum
"Compromise by the GOP is actually not an issue at all here; with health care they obviously(!) have been willing to offer all kinds of reforms, but they have been ignored"

What happened in the real world, specifically the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee:

"The panel has been in mark-up for weeks now, and along the way, has approved 160 Republican amendments--and for all that largesse, not a single member of the minority voted in its favor." via TPM


Stay tuned for more adventures of lost in DLS space

AustinRoth

Your underlying assumption is flawed by the simple fact that Repugs have voted lockstep in the negative for any legislation brought forth by the Dems. While you may point to a few examples in the 108th, I think you'll find that most every vote had a few Democratic supporters when it was a Republican administration.

Now you may not see a difference between "a few" and zero, I do.

Time to ditch the 160 Republican amendments and craft a bill that Obama and his supporters will like.

"What happened in the real world, specifically the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions Committee"

The action to date has been -- obvious, to the awake, at least -- in the House. "The bill" has meant "the House bill" and even "the Democrats" has meant "the House Democrats," notably the liberal Democrats that are most notorious in the House and have been increasingly so throughout the year.

NEXT!

Well, Green Dreams, many (such as on NPR) are calling for the dictatorial (Napoleanic) treatment (stooping to ever lower lows, that is) of this issue, but even some Democrats don't seem that low.

The follies will have at least two more acts:

1. The Senate and (the threat, to the lowly of) some measure of sanity (if not unethically bypassed);

2. Back to the House. If you thought the lib Dem tantrums in the House so far were bad...

"Compromise by the GOP is actually not an issue at all here; with health care they obviously(!) have been willing to offer all kinds of reforms, but they have been ignored and suppressed by the Democrats"

Care to expand on that one? To my knowledge, the GOP has established a (very vague) platform on health care reform but has no actual proposals floating around. But then I could have missed something.

"Care to expand on that one?"

Example: HR 2520.

It has no chance in today's lib Dem legislative environment.

I'm going to be curious what happens in the Senate and if the GOP is included, or excluded, or actually is bypassed. I'm also curious what will be in the legislation besides the public option (and details about this "plan").

DLS

You really must work on more complex ideas. It's good to strive beyond your limitations.

Bills are formed in BOTH house and senate. You must have missed that day in 7th grade. The Bill in the House and the Bill in the Senate will be reconciled when both are passed.

Your original spiel was that "Republicans have been ignored and suppressed." If you knew that compromise is a process that takes place across both legislatures, perhaps that dim bulb would brighten just a smidgin. Nah.

160 amendments, and then they vote NO. Those poor Repubs are so suppressed.

If the Republicans had truly been willing to come up with something more constructive than "NO!!!", "Death panels", "Killing Grandma", "Show me your Birth Certificate!!!!", or Tea bagging then we would of had a real bi-partisan bill.

Example: HR 2520. It has no chance in today's lib Dem legislative environment.

It has no chance because HR2520 makes no sense.

Paul Ryan Challenged On Health Care Opposition

H.R. 2520 is based upon a discredited economic ideology from the last century - the belief that market forces always, automatically create the best solutions.

It was this same belief that led Republicans to block increases in fuel efficiency standards for a generation, based upon the idea that regulations would ruin the thriving automotive manufacturers and play havoc with energy markets. What we actually saw was that, with a lack of regulation, the automotive manufacturers crumbled and the cost of energy skyrocketed.

It was this same belief in the infallible wisdom of markets that led Republicans to suppress wages for years, denying increases of the minimum wage to match the cost of living. The Republicans claimed that this would protect jobs. What actually happened is that huge numbers of jobs were lost.

It was the same belief in the genius of unregulated markets that led Republicans to remove regulations on financial markets. The Republicans said that this loosening of the rules would lead to unprecedented wealth. Instead, it has led us to the deepest economic crisis since the Great Depression.

[...]

And the whole bipartisanship angle has been, from the start, a charade, a farce

Yup the Dems talked the talk but will not walk the bi-partisan walk.

As David Brooks writes, it is past time for the President to stop pander to the far-left and turn to the middle:

The Obama Slide
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/09/01/opinion/01bro...
<snip>

Driven by this general anxiety, and by specific concerns, public opposition to health care reform is now steady and stable. Independents once solidly supported reform. Now they have swung against it. As the veteran pollster Bill McInturff has pointed out, public attitudes toward Obamacare exactly match public attitudes toward Clintoncare when that reform effort collapsed in 1994.

Amazingly, some liberals are now lashing out at Obama because the entire country doesn’t agree with The Huffington Post. Some now argue that the administration should just ignore the ignorant masses and ram health care through using reconciliation, the legislative maneuver that would reduce the need for moderate votes.

This would be suicidal. You can’t pass the most important domestic reform in a generation when the majority of voters think you are on the wrong path. To do so would be a sign of unmitigated arrogance. If Obama agrees to use reconciliation, he will permanently affix himself to the liberal wing of his party and permanently alienate independents. He will be president of 35 percent of the country — and good luck getting anything done after that.

The second liberal response has been to attack the budget director, Peter Orszag. It was a mistake to put cost control at the center of the health reform sales job, many now argue. The president shouldn’t worry about the deficit. Just pass the spending parts.

But fiscal restraint is now the animating issue for moderate Americans. To take the looming $9 trillion in debt and balloon it further would be to enrage a giant part of the electorate.

H.R. 2520 is based upon a discredited economic ideology from the last century - the belief that market forces always, automatically create the best solutions.

Steve, you're citing a belief that no person on the planet would agree they hold. If you can't manage a reasonable summary, who's going to be swayed by your critique?

HemmD -

I doubt you will take the time, but these two links show that the indeed the difference between 'a few' and zero is there on both side, for most votes, and not at all for some others, but that is true for both parties.

Facts are SO inconvenient sometimes.

U.S. House of Representatives Roll Call Votes, 111th Congress - 1st Session (2009)

U.S. Senate Roll Call Votes 111th Congress - 1st Session (2009)

I think when TMV authors create provocative titles for their articles including such words as "Republicans", "Democrats", "Conservatives", or "Liberals", they are setting themselves up for criticism because they are casting the debate in terms of overly broad labels.

Even before getting to the body of this article, the title of the article itself preconditions the reader to make certain assumptions: 1) that the criticism directed in this article is directed towards all Republicans without regards to the differences in opinions between Republicans on the issue of Health Care Reform, or 2) that Independents and other non-Republicans who do not support current Health Care Reform legislation either don't matter in this debate or else might as well be Republicans in the partisan tradition of "You're either with us or against us."

It wasn't that long ago that throughout the blogosphere and even here at TMV, authors used a similar tactic with regards to the Iraq War. Opposition to the war was characterized as "Democrats" or "Liberals" without regards to the many Libertarians, Paleoconservatives, and Independents who opposed the war every bit as much as liberals and Democrats. And as one of those people who opposed the war, even when it was supported by 70-75% of the American people, I didn't much appreciate being compared to the Democratic Party, left-liberals, socialists, or whatever other labels supporters of the war threw at those who disagreed with them.

I can also tell you that pointing out that the majority of the American people disagreed with my position and supported the war didn't do much to change my position. If we've learned anything from the Iraq War and the propaganda that preceded it, it is that the American people are woefully misinformed about political issues--even the ones they purport to be most passionate about--and the fact that a majority supports a certain policy doesn't make that policy right.

We hear a lot about "bias" throughout the traditional media and the blogosphere, and it is almost always labeled as "liberal" or "conservative" or "pro-Democrat" or "pro-Republican." But one of the most overwhelming biases in the media is the unwritten rule that when it comes to any problem, the federal government is always expected to solve the problem, and the government "doing something about it" always preferable than doing nothing at all, even if in doing something, the government has the potential to make things worse. As such, people who oppose government action are always being accused of having some evil, ulterior motive...

....whether its opposing the Iraq War because you sympathize with Saddam Hussein or hate America...

... or its opposing the Health Care Reform legislation because you support the insurance companies or have no compasion for those without health care.

Different issue...Same arguments and tactics.

There can be no doubt that some of the most disturbing misinformation is coming from certain groups that oppose the current Health Care Reform legislation. The "Death Panel" accusations are among the most vile and dishonest pieces of propaganda that has emerged from this entire debate, and opponents of current Health Care Reform legislation do themselves and their credibility no favors by failing to distance themselves from such over-the-top rhetoric.

But lets not pretend that the opposition to current Health Care Reform legislation is some monolithic block that can be chalked up to Republican partisans or right-wing ideologues. To be sure, the Glenn Becks and the Sarah Palins of the world have gained quite an audience stoking fear and anger with regards to this issue, but it has not been lost upon the rest of us that these supposed "freedom fighters" weren't all that interested in urging restraint and railing against the government back when it was their "team" that was in power. These people are pretenders, and while they may be taken seriously by their audiences, they certainly aren't taken seriously by those who have principled objections to current Health Care Reform legislation.

This issue should be debated upon the merits of the issue itself and not on partisanship or personalities on either side of the aisle. There are many principled Libertarians, conservative Democrats, and Independents who oppose the current Health Care Reform legislation on basic principle. Maybe it's a question of the Constitution or Federalism. Or maybe it's a question of cost to taxpayers or concerns about the effects of this legislation on the growing federal deficit. Or maybe it's a general belief that subjecting Health Care Coverage to more governmental regulation is bound to make the situation worse. Whatever it is, you have to remember that the most sane explanations against current Health Care Reform legislation probably aren't coming from politicians (whose true political philsophy is obscured by their tendency to speak out of both sides of their mouth) or from cable/radio talk show hosts (whose objective of having a thoughtful debate over the issues is compromised by their goal of driving up their ratings). More likely, you'll find more reasonable debate coming from modest websites and blogs who don't have a large microphone and a multi-million-dollar media empire from which to speak.

Personally, I'd recommend going to non-partisan websites such as Downsize DC and Concord Coalition to get more information regarding fiscal matters. These organizations have their own biases, but their biases tend to be philosophical instead of partisan, and their rhetoric is bit more even-keeled than say Glenn Beck or Keith Olbermann. Even if you don't agree with the positions advocated by these organizations (and I'm sure many of you will not), it's good to at least see that political issues don't have to be a polarized us-versus-them debate.

Kind of related to health care. Massively addicting and fascinating. From Carnegie Mellon

Death Risk Rankings

ht: Instapundit

Rambie wrote: "If the Republicans had truly been willing to come up with something more constructive than "NO!!!", "Death panels", "Killing Grandma", "Show me your Birth Certificate!!!!", or Tea bagging then we would of had a real bi-partisan bill."

Actually, now it's "President Obama and Congressional Democrats are promoting a government-run health care experiment that will cut over $500 billion from Medicare..."

It appears that since that (and $1,666,666 / day from the Health Care Industry) is their plan Michael Steele, "Chairman of the Republican Party", is in a highly polished ad, seemingly based on Newt G's "Contract with America". The only problem I can see is it's a total lie... complete BS.

Crooks and Liars has both the Republican Ad and a line by line rebuttal that requires only minimal checking to verify.

Are Americans Dumb Enough to Believe Republicans Are Defending Medicare?

Here's what Michael Steele claims the Democrats are trying to do to seniors:

President Obama and Congressional Democrats are promoting a government-run health care experiment that will cut over $500 billion from Medicare to be used to pay for their plan. Medicare should not be raided to pay for another entitlement.

Even though, oddly enough, it's not true:

On the contrary, the bill includes several key provisions that improve Medicare benefits for seniors, including the following:

Phases in completely filling in the “donut hole” in the Medicare prescription drug benefit (where drug costs are not reimbursed at certain levels), potentially savings seniors thousands of dollars a year.

Eliminates co-payments and deductibles for preventive services under Medicare.

Limits cost-sharing requirements in Medicare Advantage plans to the amount charged for the same services in traditional Medicare coverage.

Improves the low-income subsidy programs in Medicare, such as by increasing asset limits for programs that help Medicare beneficiaries pay premiums and cost-sharing.

[...]

Once you get past your Republican/Democratic nonsense, it is simply a disgrace that the wealthiest nation on earth can accept the type of healthcare offered in the 39th highest country and have a better health care system.

Your "representatives" are with 2 or 3 exceptions whores, not good whores but bad whores that will not only steal your wallet, but give you syphilis and gonorrhea. Expecting a bad whore to perform is simply not dealing with reality.

I have "Cadillac" care when I am in the usa. I have a dog in this fight. I live in a third world part of a second world country and I get much better medical care here than I have ever had in the usa. The cost in five years, including a 7 week hospital stay, is less than an overnight stay in an american hospital and all 6 of my doctors do HOUSE CALLS. My problem is that I left my soul in Vietnam but I am still human. I am paying for an american to be treated for cancer in a latin american country because the usa can't provide that quality of care.

I sincerely wish that anyone who does not totally support "single payer only" stop referring to him/herself as a christian but as a devil worshiper who worships money as the all mighty.

Everyone that is worried about whether taxing Bill Gates' 40 billion dollars might mean that one of his descendants might have to actually "work" in 20,000 years rather than provide a service that everyone should have by right is insane.

"Steve, you're citing a belief..."

comment read

Joe, Bill Gates seems to be having rather more impact on human welfare spending his fortune on his own. From gatesfoundation.org:

For each opportunity, a program area considers its cost, the risk associated with it, its long-term viability, and, most important, its potential impact on people’s lives.

Contrast with Democrats' health care plans. They've done none of one, none of two, none of three, and half of four. If you genuinely care about people's welfare, you will find this a matter of some concern.

Today, another innovative, fundamental change in payment system, or patient's outcome based payment reform that is able to turn the profit-oriented malpractices and volume into the patient-oriented value and quality is waiting for a final decision.

Now that Minnesota spends "20 percent" less per patient than the national average and 31 percent less than in the highest cost state, under a pay for patient's outcome pack, this promising reform could be successful along the way, I believe.

Aside from the already allocated $583 billion and the savings of this reform package, "20%" of $923.5bn (the combined Medicare and Medicaid cost per year, as of July) is around $184.7bn per year and 1.847trillion over the next decade, and this patient-oriented value alone could be sufficient to meet the goal.

"as well as with the public, much of which lacks the capacity to be able to make an informed decision"

Have you ever considered how negative you, and the democrats act towards the general public? This attitude you have is deplorable. One thing I know for sure, each of these "too dumb to make a decision people" each get one vote. And I'll lay money that won't be voting for people who talk about them with such disdain.

RandallM-Unless of course the choice is between voting for those guys or the guys that smile big at you while they rob you and your kids blind. Sorry but the last eight years will not be quickly forgotten. Both sides treat the populace like idiots, one tries to "save them from themselves" and the other tries to ensure that no regulation gets in the way of a really big profit no matter the price to the nation.