By no means do I think it a slam dunk that passage of health care reform would be a boon to the Democrats in November. My arguments are really geared more toward the long term, both in terms of the Democrats reminding their voters that their party still stands for something, and in terms of passing a policy which, if the experience with RomneyCare is any guide, will eventually turn out to be quite popular. And of course, there's the whole matter of the 30-some million uninsured people that the bill would cover and the lives that it would save.
Still, in making the near-term political case against passing health care reform, Megan McArdle in fact makes a point that argues strongly for "getting it done".
There is nothing good you can say about an actual bill that you couldn't say about a bill that you voted for, but didn't pass. It's true that this is going to make campaigns hard next fall. But at least now Democrats can say that they thought the better of it. What's their excuse if they pass it?Thought better of it? Health care reform has been at the core of the Democratic agenda for literally the better part of a century. It has taken on different manifestation at different times, but it is really the one unbending constant.
So now you're going to say that in six months the Republicans -- who offered no serious alternative to health care reform and who (in some cases) helped deceive the public into believing that the bill does all sorts of things that it does not actually do -- have convinced you that this policy your party has been championing for decades was a bad idea? That one special election in Massachusetts changed your mind about a bill that you'd spent your whole life campaigning upon and probably in fact voted for for as recently as November or December?
Megan has a generally heterodox set of political viewpoints so perhaps this is more difficult for her to envision than for someone like me -- who votes for Democrats 90-95 percent of the time and whose views are fairly conventionally left-of-center on most issues. From my point of view, this is the equivalent of a Republican saying: "You know what, my opponent is right -- lower taxes are a bad idea on principle." It's a stake in the heart of the liberal/progressive value system.
But even for a voter who is less well-informed and is only picking up an impressionistic residue of each candidate's message, there's something to be said for Bill Clinton's statement that "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." If you've conceded that one of your ideas -- one of your most important ideas is a bad one -- why should the public trust any of the other ideas that you have? Instead, they're going to say: Well, thank you Mr. Blue Dog -- I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking on this. Now I'm going to vote for the guy who didn't have the bad idea in the first place.
The one thing that Democrats categorically don't want to do is concede that their ideas on health care reform were wrong. Blame Republican obstructionism, blame the recession, blame Ben Nelson and Joe Lieberman for gutting the bill of its core values. All of these arguments are ... unconvincing (particularly the bit about obstructionism -- Democrats still do have the votes to pass the bill on their own) ... but they're not actually dangerous to the future of the Democratic Party, as this argument will tend to be.
I'm picking on Megan a little bit here and perhaps using her as a bit of a strawwoman; she makes a number of good points in her article, which you should read in full. But the point is, if the Democrats don't pass health care reform will have to address the fundamental question that Megan brings up -- which is, why did you change your mind? And their potential answers to that question range from unpersuasive to suicidal.
85 comments
As I recall even most of those who voted for Brown were unhappy that real reform in a public option was not in place and had no other way to express it other than vote for Brown or stay home.
Obviously they could try "“I actually did vote for the health care reform bill before I voted against it.”
That should work, right?
I do not see how any particular Democrat cannot stand on their record. Except a few "Blue dog" Senators all the rest of the actually progressive Congress folk did vote for the bill.
A chance to vote on any kind of compromise has never come up. Very few would even have cause to be blamed for this, and any Democrat running against a Republican can and should loudly proclaim that they are the best chance for it to happen.
As a strong Republican, I agree with you that electorally, it will be very bad for Democrats (as a party) to give up on the health care bill. However, individual Democrats might be better off themselves voting against the bill. I think that the Democrat party is too diverse to get any of their agenda done (which, to me is a good thing lol).
Megan McArdle: There is nothing good you can say about an actual bill that you couldn't say about a bill that you voted for, but didn't pass. It's true that this is going to make campaigns hard next fall. But at least now Democrats can say that they thought the better of it. What's their excuse if they pass it?
From my point of view, this is the equivalent of a Republican saying: "You know what, my opponent is right -- lower taxes are a bad idea on principle."
No, it is the equivalent of a Republican saying: "You know what, I am not going to vote for this bill repealing Medicare because my constituents think its a really bad idea."
But even for a voter who is less well-informed and is only picking up an impressionistic residue of each candidate's message, there's something to be said for Bill Clinton's statement that "When people are insecure, they'd rather have somebody who is strong and wrong than someone who's weak and right." If you've conceded that one of your ideas -- one of your most important ideas is a bad one -- why should the public trust any of the other ideas that you have? Instead, they're going to say: Well, thank you Mr. Blue Dog -- I'm glad you've come around to my way of thinking on this. Now I'm going to vote for the guy who didn't have the bad idea in the first place.
:::chuckle:::
Quoting Bill Clinton on the need to be "strong and wrong" rather than "weak and right" for the proposition that Blue Dog Dems have a better chance of being reelected if they piss on their constituents by voting for Obamacare is ironic given that Clinton dropped Hillarycare as soon as it polled badly and won reelection by declaring that "the era of big government is over" and killing parts of the Dem welfare state as a born again Reagan revolutionary.
The Clinton lesson for a Blue Dog is that her only chance of being reelected is to tell her constituents that she heard them loud and clear, will vote against Obamacare and will go back to Washington and fight to cut the Obama deficit in half.
I don't recall the last election which I skipped (except for a local school board election that I forgot about) since I turned 18 35 years ago. And I don't think I've ever voted Republican, though I may have when I was going to college in Chicago. In recent years, I've given money to local and national candidates, stood outside the polls holding candidate signs, etc., etc.
If the Democrats don't pass at least the Senate bill before the election, I cannot be bothered to vote for them anymore. While there is a point -- the GOP is stupid and dangerous -- I can't be motivated to take the time and energy to support such a group of feckless putzes.
I trust and respect Pelosi
(I hit return prematurely). I trust and respect Pelosi, and if she cannot get it done, the party is far beyond any help that I can give it.
I would disagree with the notion that a health care bill achieved by ANY MEANS NECESSARY is too essential a base value to Democratic party to abandon. Voting for a trillion dollar giveaway to a corrupt insurance industry could be considered just as destructive to the progressive/liberal ethos. The house voted for the public option and can very well run against the senate bill, and against Obama also if they're smart (if he's smart he'll take his lumps here for the good of the party). It is their only hope for getting the base to show up, which is what the midterms are all about, after all.
Oh, brother, are we back to the meme about how Obamacare would be really popular if those nasty opponents would stop being critical of our plans for a government takeover of health care? That is so 1994.
The selective information blinders are on Nate again, perhaps because the The low-information voters are those that think there's something for nothing in such a plan. The high-information voters are those that learn how such a plan increases costs for most people, reduces innovation, and destroys the world's finest system from within. Once people learn the facts of life, popular support craters, as every poll has shown.
But if that's the game the Dems want, have at it. Be prepared for the consequences, because the naysayers will not be silenced.
The "Government is going to take over health care" meme is so ridiculous. I really wish they would, but there is not a ghost of a chance.
Even if they made a Medicare buy in available to everyone at the cost that it currently is either:
1) All that "not efficient" government" (to say nothing of the generally sicker population it has now)will make the price unaffordable for anyone. or
2) all that Lard and Bureaucratic mess that is regular insurance would wither and die of its own bloat, leaving only government left, in which case good riddance.
More likely both will exist and the insurance companies will have to make sure they are not a lot worse than Medicare. That is still possible if the Democratic Senators can manage to find 50 of their number to do it.
To cap off a really, really bad month for the President, Obamagirl has just dished on Hannity that she is leaving The One for...Mike Huckabee?
Michelle Obama could not be reached for comment.
I do think the only viable electoral strategy for the Democrats is to get something close to the Senate bill passed (i.e., get the House to vote on the Senate bill unamended and get the Senate to implement some key elements of revision via reconciliation). The reason for the Scott Brown victory in Mass was mostly a matter of the Mass Dems being unmotivated (I happen to think that this is largely because the Democratic left has been behaving like a bunch of tantrum-throwing two year olds since the election but that's another argument). For the Dems to give up on Healthcare Reform now would be to go forward as the party of nothing--you give the party faithful nothing at all to get excited about. Sure you can do a jobs bill, but even if people agree that it's necessary it's disaster-relief, not a step forward.
Healthcare Reform would be the first major victory in the progressive agenda in decades. Yes, there'd be some bad press about reconciliation because the Republicans will spin it as some sort of "trick" ("OMG, how dare a majority party enact its platform via a majority vote!!!")--but that's a two-edged sword for the Republicans. That'll be red-meat for the base, but the more they bang that drum the more muted will grow the "The Dems are spineless pushovers who won't stand up for anything" mantra which is currently destroying them on the left. The Dem left and center-left will actually *like* the idea of the Dems finally playing some kind of hardball in the legislative process.
And, of course, all political jockeying aside, the real reason to do it is to get those 30 million people insured, and get the rest of us protection from arbitrarily losing our coverage (or having it suddenly balloon in price) at the whim of the insurance companies.
The US was ahead of the world on the 1950's in nearly any measure you want to ask, but 50 years of "Government can't and shouldn't do anything positive" meme has had us lag behind even former third world countries that were generations behind us then.
Health care is no different. Now by any measure our system is barely adequate, and even some of those who spend a tenth as much per person as we do have better actual health.
Stupid Jingoism is like standing with your fingers in your ears and eyes jammed shut yelling you are the tallest person around when anyone else can see you stopped growing at 12, and everyone else shot past you.
The Democrats are in power and should act on their core values, particularly health care.
Who knows if you are going to win the next election -- all kinds of factors come into play. But what's the point of ever winning if you don't do anything when you get there?
@Freedem:
Well said. The "best health-care system in the world" is one of the most annoying talking points that the Teabaggers keep trotting out at every opportunity.
They can't quantify it, they can't prove it, they can't support it.
All they can do is say it. So they say it a lot. And they think they've said something meaningful.
Are we back with this healthcare crap again?
It reminds me of a certain Monty Python sketch that involved a parrot.
Admitting to bad process is not the same as admitting it was a bad idea.
By killing the bill, Blue dogs and centrist Dems could very easily run on the meme that they're the only ones trying to do something, but that they heard the people and will go work on jobs first, BUT that you need them back if they EVER want HCR.
Many Dems could (and should) even run against Pelosi, Reid and others. Pelosi and the lib reps are so safe due to redistricting that it won't matter.
@Matt
Thankyou, We had enough of "Government can't and shouldn't do anything positive" and managed to elect Alan Grayson here. He has shown that folk who play by their values can win even in districts Gerrymandered for the other side.
I don't want a GOP running my government any more than I want an Amish auto mechanic fixing my car. If they believe "Government can't and shouldn't do anything positive", who in their right mind would vote for them to do so!
@Freedem
The phenomenon you describe is the heart of American Exceptionalism. It's not about "ahead" or "behind" but just "different" than the rest of the World. This isn't ideology, but history. America is a nation of 100% immigrants and their descendants. We rejected the world by choice, or learned from those who did.
Alluding to what the rest of the world does is a great way to drive down it's popularity.
Oh, brother, are we back to the meme about how Obamacare would be really popular if those nasty opponents would stop being critical of our plans for a government takeover of health care?
How is it a government takeover? How? This isn't even remotely like the British or even the Canadian system. Private insurance is still in place, doctors and hospitals still work on their own.
I know you've heard that phrase "government takeover" thrown around -- and you're apparently dumb enough to believe it -- but point to the aspects of the Senate bill and show me how it amounts to "government takeover" of health care.
You can't, can you?
Here's a tip. Next time you're tempted to write the phrase "government takeover" just write "I am a fucking idiot" because that's what the rest of us think when you say it.
"...and in terms of passing a policy which, if the experience with RomneyCare is any guide, will eventually turn out to be quite popular."
Writing from the only state with 97% of its population insured, let me second that. Most folks here are pleased with what we have, which is virtually indistinguishable from the current bill in Congress.
If the Democrats pass some version of this, it will be a while (maybe by 2012) before people realize that there are no Death Panels, that Medicare is not gutted, that the government is not between you and your doctor after all, and that Republicans have no real credibility for contending all of that. In the meantime, they will get killed at the polls in 2010.
But if they DON'T pass a bill, no one will ever know that the bill that almost passed was fairly innocuous, and Republicans will beat the Democrats over the head with it forever.
@Vern
Perhaps you are right about some. I can't help but think that the Neanderthals must have thought the same about those immigrants and their crazy ways. Perhaps that is why there is so much fear.
I would prefer American Exceptionalism to be a good thing as well, but you get there by doing it, not just throwing a tantrum and insisting it to be true despite evidence to the contrary.
The health care bill is dead. It was beaten up, shot, set on fire, drowned, and then stuffed into the same grave as Ted Kennedy. Why is anybody pretending otherwise?
At this point the "should/shouldn't" arguments are missing the point. IT WILL NOT HAPPEN, and I am willing to bet money on it.
I tend to agree with you on this, Nate, even though I'm not a Democrat and share more of the Republicans' views on health care. In fact, I would rather see something substantive get done than absolutely nothing; I am very frustrated with the Democrats' lackluster performance despite their huge majorities.
The first government that passed healthcare in Canada (Saskatchewan ndp,socialist) put up with a doctor strike, objects pelted at the politicians etc. Medicare passed, they lost the next 2elections and the new government didn't repeal it. It went nationwide in less than 10 years. Your job is to lead! If you lose an election, so what! The ndp has been elected for the vast majority of the time since medicare and the losing is ok, if you know what you are doing is right.
Rudy said...
"...if those nasty opponents would stop being critical of our plans for a government takeover of health care?"
"The high-information voters are those that..."
Rudy, if you believe that "gummint takeover" meme, there's no way you can have any knowledge of what "high-information voters" think.
WV: rewimp--What the Democrats will do the next time they have an opportunity to pass a health care bill
charles said...
"...and the losing is ok, if you know what you are doing is right."
Damn right! That needs to be repeated more often. It's better to have spent one term doing some good than two doing nothing.
I find it amazing that Obama is still playing the bipartisan card...having read your game theory post regarding political payoffs, I find any suggestion that the Republicans will cooperate on anything incredible.
The best defense is a strong offense. The Senate Bill has strong cost control measures and would serve notice that Democrats are not rolling over. To say that it would discombobulate the Republicans is an understatement!
I am a non-partisan conservative (We exist! OK, I'm actually from Canada, but that's not the point) and even if I disagree with the health care bill I'm not particular to the 'arguments' put forward by many of the GOP's loudest voices (note: loudness does not equal prominence) which has consisted more of buzzwords (like 'socialism') than substantive points (like, the argument that 'Obamacare' perpetuates the grip of large health insurance companies on the market, or the argument that it won't help consumers choose the kind of they plan, or /something/ like that). Most of you probably disagree with these arguments, but they are still arguments and unfortunately they are not being made, which lowers the threshold of the discussion.
Nevertheless many people, rightly or wrongly, believe that health care reform as currently proposed is a bad idea, and thus many representatives (well, mostly Republicans) have used this as a reason to vote 'no'. Is this a correct assessment? I don't know. Maybe Nate is right and the Republicans really are being obstructionist. Maybe Nate is wrong is being coloured by his political views. I wouldn't know; I'm just an outside observer. Still, I do agree than politics would be much less unpleasant if politicians stood for something and stood by it more often...whether they support or oppose the current health care bill.
"I find it amazing that Obama is still playing the bipartisan card...having read your game theory post regarding political payoffs, I find any suggestion that the Republicans will cooperate on anything incredible."
So you find the Credit Card Act incredible? And the Helping Families Save Their Homes Act? The Children Health Insurance Program Reauthorization?
What about the small but significant number of Republicans who voted for the Fair Pay Act?
What's ridiculous is to assert that if they reach out, they won't get ANY Republican votes. They're bound to get at least a few, and a few is all they need.
Pass it now, fix it later.
A health care reform bill is like a wartime strategy that can only succeed overall if its inevitable failures are recognized and dealt with as they happen. In this case insurance companies, drug companies, doctors, nurses, patients, and lawmakers all have interests that conflict in some ways, so if it's not exactly a war, it's at least a very complicated game.
D's should do what they believe might work now and deal with whatever happens later. The R's have amply demonstrated their inability to predict anything at all, whether in war or economics. Why trust their analysis now?
I think the bipartisan outreach is win-win for Obama.
Voters, especially independents, want to see some effort at bipartisanship in Washington. No matter how many times the GOP smacks his hand away, Obama keeps reaching out.
If he gets votes, then great. If not, then they've earned the "party of no" label and deserve to be held accountable for it.
What's really amazing here is how much the House Republicans really seem not to get the fact that they are the Party of No. Some of them seemed sincerely puzzled by it.
Only one GOP vote for the stimulus, despite all the tax cuts? Maybe you can explain that away, but ... just ten Republicans voting to let rape victims sue? Really?
I do agree than politics would be much less unpleasant if politicians stood for something and stood by it more often...whether they support or oppose the current health care bill.
Agreed. I'm a liberal, but I think my end of the spectrum and the country as a whole needs a sane, principled conservatism in place.
We used to have that here. Now all we have are crazy people who live in a fact-free environment.
As John Rogers said in a classic post, I Miss Republicans
Ah yes, Republicans suddenly care about the deficit again! There must be a Democratic president. All kidding aside, though, no modern Republican president has EVER trimmed the deficit in office.
Obama should just say that all the money in his budget is for killing people halfway around the world, spying on our own citizens, and paying for the largest prison population in the world. He'd lose a couple Dems, sure, but if historical trends hold, he'll pick up 35 or so Republicans.
Also, as far as healthcare, I love the Republican talking points. Hilarious! Especially considering this bill is far to the right of the one proposed by that liberal lion, Richard Nixon.
The point's well taken. If Dems scuttle health care reform now for fear of short term electoral consequences, the long term may be devastating. I, for one, think its a sad and maddening commentary that this country has an easier time rushing off to war with little or no real deliberation and yet we are utterly ham strung when confronted with decision whether or not to care for our fellow citizens. I'd add that the tea party crowd has no credibility whatsoever- where were they when the Republicans pissed away a budget surplus and created this unholy fiscal mess??
"What's really amazing here is how much the House Republicans really seem not to get the fact that they are the Party of No. Some of them seemed sincerely puzzled by it."
Makes sense. They're in a chamber led by the ultimate divisive hyperpartisan who makes no effort to consult them for crafting any of their legislation, then puts forward things which they all simply disagree with, and when they vote against it they're given the label "party of no". I'm sincerely puzzled by it myself. Good thing most Americans haven't bought into it.
Keep in mind, I don't think the Republicans would generally be any different if they were in charge. I hate partisans on both sides; this site just happens to be full of ones on one particular side.
I am a strong progressive, and I've voted a straight Democratic ticket in every election since I've been able to vote. And if the Democrats pass the Senate bill, or any bill that has a mandate with no public option, I will never vote for another Democrat as long as I live. I simply can't be motivated to take the time and energy to support a political party that would force Americans to give money to a bunch of greedy bastards who will murder them the second there's a profit to be made in it. That's really where it begins and ends for me.
I really don't understand this post. The Democrat wouldn't have to say that he realizes that health care reform is bad. He would say that he has come to realize that any bill they could pass right now is really bad, and that this isn't the time, and that most of his constituents feel that way too. Which is all true, even if you're a Democrat.
If someone wants to have "universal" health care, just move to Mass or Oregon, problem solved.
Otto and Jacob, why do you insist on trying to perpetuate the fiction that a government takeover of healthcare is not the objective? It's a trojan horse strategy and everyone knows it.
It's a crappy plan, and it's obvious that the only hope for passage is to try to convince every single democrat representative that it's not a suicide leap. Rotsaruck.
It's d-e-d, dead.
What's up with the "Democrat" thing? Basic grammar tells us that it's a "Democratic" representative. Those Republics are just crazy.
Burt, you miss the point. Yes the bill is an imperfect, infuriating giveaway to insurers. However, the goal here is not to achieve perfection in the first round but to jam a foot in the door no matter how much it hurts. Once you've created an opening, there's ground to be gained. However, once the door is closed again, you have no leverage for opening it further.
The dems should pass the senate bill for one simple reason: It WILL produce a single payer system. Oh not right away of course, but within 40-50 years it's inevitable.
We've seen this pattern before.
Initially the public will love the lack of pre-existing condition and lifetime payout clauses. That's good politics. Over time though the costs will go up and loopholes will be found to let insurers screw their victims...er...clients. After all, corporations simply can't resist gouging the system even when they know it will hurt them in the end (just not THIS quarter). Eventually the public, who by now will be used to universal coverage, will demand that the costs and rules be fixed rather than the program eliminated. The solution will be the same then as now, a government health care option. Once this is in place, everyone will be as pleased with it as they are with Medicare and Social Security today. Game over.
THIS is why the democrats are crazy to let this die and why the GOP and insurers are SO desperate to kill it. They know where it will go in time. Social security was not perfect in the beginning. Medicare was a buy-in program with legions of doubters. Both are now bedrock programs that no sane politician will target seriously.
Think about it. If this were such a terrible bill and a bad deal for the public, then why wouldn't the GOP let the dems have it? Fixing the 'disaster' would cement their majority for a generation. And if it's such a long term cash cow for insurers, then why aren't they using their money and influence to get it passed?
Answer? They don't want that foot in the door.
lulz @ cometboy proving Rudy's point.
Well put. The Democrats need to grow a pair on the health care issue.
Growing a pair is not that complicated. Put the "House pass Senate Bill"/"50 senators + Biden use reconciliation to get rid of unsavory Cornhusker Kickback and other House requirements" on the table. Then either the problematic "Centrist Dems" and the Maine Senators decide to cut a deal; or, if that ain't happening, force them to vote against repealing the Cornhusker Kickback, etc.
Richard, members of the democratic party are called democrats. If you're going to be so thin-skinned, you might as well be literate, eh?
David, it's more complicated than how Rudy puts it. In the end it's simple economics, not a takeover. If corporations want to out-compete the government, they are free to do so and completely capable of doing it. Think FedEx...
What I'm saying about the current plan is that the immediate goal is to put this all in play. A national, mandated system is the only way forward whether it is public or private. My belief is that it leads to national care and that this is a good thing. Aside from whiny anecdotes from malcontents, no one on the right has provided any evidence that this is anything but a positive for everyone. Polling in EVERY country with universal health care finds the population with a strong preference for their system over ours. Certainly there's not a single example of any country dumping such a plan once it's available.
With that said, I'd be happy to be proven wrong. The Swiss have a private payer nationalized health care system that works well. I'm not so ideological that I DEMAND government run care. I just don't have any faith in the ability of our corporations to act in the public (or their own) self interest. Our system is too geared to rewarding the current quarterly report without regard to future consequences. Hence my expectation that we will end up with government care. At a minimum it'll be regulated private care...sort of like the power companies. Is that SO scary?
I really don't understand why the Republicant "gummint takeover of health care" is supposed to be scary. Put aside the undeniable fact that was never on the table -- what the chit is wrong with the idea? Private interests -- especially the insurance companies -- have proven they positively suck at providing health care. They need to be spanked. Hard.
And the US government has proven it excels at health care. Ask anyone on Medicare if they want to give it up. Ask anyone who has used the VA system (when we have a Democratic Congress anyway -- the Republicants keep trying to underfund it).
The right wing has this insistence that gummint can't do anything right - so to prove it, whenever they're in office, they do their best to run things incompetently and for their own personal greed rather than for the good of the people who elected them. Why anyone would put someone in office who insists that gummint is bad is beyond me. If you don't like public service, then DON'T RUN FOR OFFICE you morons. If you don't like gummint then DON'T FRICKIN VOTE -- move to someplace like Rwanda that doesn't have much of a gummint anyway. Stop messing up our country,
Mr. Comet, competing with the government is a non-sequiter. The government can only win because of muscle; private companies can only win in spite of government muscle. Government does not do innovation or efficiency well. Ever.
The basic problem with all Obamacare proposals presently on the table is that any cost savings necessarily would be from either pinching providers further or reducing levels of care. That's a terrible approach.
What you need to remember about other health care systems is that they are in large part subsidized by us in terms of medical technology innovations and drugs. If all countries abused the providers the way that they're commonly abused in socialized medicine countries, the quality of innovation would stop dead in its tracks and regress as budget were gradually pinched. The latter is amply evident in such countries already, the former would rapidly evolve if the US stopped the world subsidy, which maybe we should anyway, via relaxed reimportation rules.
It is scary to envision teh destruction of the world's finest health care system by bureaucratic regulation and neglect. It's happening already slowly, and it must not be further memorialized.
I fear that Health Care reform may be dead, but the Democrats have no choice but to try and pass it. For two reasons (1) The country needs it so desperately. (2) In many ways, the Obama presidency has already been staked on moving this issue forward.
Put me down with bolsheviks Bob Dole and Howard Baker in favor of bringing the US into the 21st century (or at least the 20th) on Health Care.
By the way, what's up with Collins and Snowe? Both voting against such radical lefty concepts as the deficit commission they originally co-sponsored? Those two have worked with centrist Democrats for decades now. Why did they suddenly stop and start voting against their own proposals? (Voinovitch, McCain, & Gregg doing the same thing is not as much of a surprise, sadly.)
Shrinky, ask your second period english teacher for some spelling tips. The Wrigley people are going to be furious with you.
Nate,
You’re right about the politics of weakness, but it’s even worse than you let on: It’s not just the intellectual fallout from reversing course on one of the Democrats’ signature issues, it’s the emotional response it would create.
While Democrats (and this site in particular) tend to talk more about the rational aspect of politics, the emotional side often matters more.
Ever since Machiavelli, we’ve known that people despise weakness. It’s not just that voters will vote for “the guy who didn’t have the bad idea,” but they won’t even respect the Democrats.
(1) Even voters who don’t vote for Republicans won’t fight for Democrats who won’t fight for them
(2) Voters also won’t believe in someone who doesn’t show that they actually believe in their own “beliefs”
And it gets worse:
(3) The Democrats wouldn’t be listening to their constituents or the will of the voters if they caved; they would be rolling over for the “death panel” liars. Sure, the bill is unpopular - but only because opponents have done a better job or getting people to believe insane falsehoods (“the bill will kill grandma”) than supporters have done getting them aware of what the bill will actually do (look at how few know that the bill prevents them from being denied insurance for a preexisting condition)
(4) If the con(servative) artists can bring massive Democratic majorities and a Democratic president to heel on policies that are reasonable, moral, and (when presented as they actually are) popular, this will only increase conservatives’ desire to use the same tactics again and again. (Sure, they might want to use the same tactics again anyway, but if it didn’t work and yet there was never a calamity, eventually crying “wolf” would be less effective)
(5)Seeing Democrats give up on what they said during the campaign was their #1 domestic priority would shake the beliefs of everyone who leaned Democratic - after all, if professional Democrats “admit” they’re wrong about something this important, what does that say to those who think Democrats are right but already aren’t positive?
(6) Those who have strong beliefs in Democratic ideals would be much more likely to support a third party in the future, which would cause electoral destruction for Democrats
(7) And voters would see Republicans as strong, determined, and effective - and Scott Brown wouldn’t be the only beneficiary of that being the image of the GOP
For the future - and for the present - we have to bring backbone back.
- Cal
Coffeeman, democrat It is incorrect usage only when referring to the party, which is properly the democratic party. Democrat is a noun for a person from the democratic party. Do a NYT word search and you'll see thousands and thousands of uses going back well before any of us were born.
Feigning outrage at such a silly perceived and manufactured slight is your problem, not mine. I'll stick with the long-established usage.
I think there's a very clear reason that the Senate health care plan can't sail untouched through the House, and I think it has little to do with the public option, internet obsession aside. The Senate bill
1. raises taxes/cuts services for Union members
2. gives them absolutely nothing in return because they already have great health insurance
The Senate can't or won't guarantee a reconciliation fix in which the Unions won't have to pay taxes, and I think the Scott Brown election (he won the Union vote, regardless of the AFL/CIO and SEIU endorsements) is telling the Democratic House representatives to stay far far away from the Senate bill. I'm guessing there a lot of representatives who didn't do damage to themselves with the original House bill, who would do a large amount of damage by voting for the Senate bill.
It just highlights the absurdity of a bunch of staunch Democratic voters who are willing to balloon the government, but aren't willing to pay a dime of extra taxes. Much like staunch Republican voters who want tax cuts, but don't want a dime of cuts to Medicare.
Eventually the public, who by now will be used to universal coverage, will demand that the costs and rules be fixed rather than the program eliminated. The solution will be the same then as now, a government health care option. Once this is in place, everyone will be as pleased with it as they are with Medicare and Social Security today. Game over.
This makes no sense. People want a public health care option now, but we didn't get it because the insurance companies proved to be too strong. So your solution is to make them even stronger by handing them 50 million new customers that they can gouge to their hearts' content? And somehow this will get us a public option?
The most common argument I hear in favor of this crappy bill is that we have to pass it so we can improve it later. But there is absolutely no evidence to support the argument that a godawful bill now will lead to a better bill later. People are just taking it on faith that the bill will be improved later and not left as is or made even worse. That's not politics, that's religion.
I agree with almost everything here, but...
"the Republicans who (...) (in some cases) helped deceive"...?
I believe it is actually correct to say "the Republicans deceived".
Don't feel sorry for Megan McArdle, the I-got-mine-f...-you is strong with her
Rudy: You did not use "democrat" as a noun, but as an adjective. In that form, you should use "democratic."
Openleft now saying Dems will lose the house (barring unforeseeable game changing political events).
@ Nate's tweet "Crist/Lieberman 2012"
How about "Crist/Snowe"?
Nate, here is the thing.
As long as the 60 vote filibuster rule in the Senate remains in place, nothing comprehensive will ever get done.
Unless its spending increases or tax cuts.
That seems to be our history in the most recent decades. At least since Reagan (and maybe even then as well).
60 votes in the Senate is a bridge too far for almost everything. And thinking we would have got something out of the Senate that was popular with 60 votes; well, that was obviously a mistake.
Its the corporate corruption that is stopping us from moving forward.
@Rudy
"Government does not do innovation or efficiency well. Ever."
Except that all the government run health services in the world are more efficient than the non-government based US system.
"Government does not do innovation or efficiency well. Ever."
You're exactly right. I remember it was private industry that put robotic vehicles on Mars that lasted over 20 times longer than originally planned. Man, that company's stock went way up! Although for the life of me I can't remember its name.
It's not a matter of being thin-skinned. I honestly don't understand why you Republic people insist on ignoring grammar to call someone a "Democrat representative." It doesn't make any sense. For the record, I'm not a Democrat, so I take no personal offense, I just am curious why the insistence on purposely doing it wrong to make some unknown point. And just because it's been used thousands of times is entirely irrelevant. It's probably just Republic representatives and Republic sympathizers who do that (see how stupid it sounds?)
I would imagine that the Democratic message will go something like: "We tried to pass it, and we got closer than ever before. MUCH closer than Bill Clinton did. But we didn't have the votes, because the Republicans are filibustering everything we try to do."
There are verious Republican responses to this regarding the use of filibuster, but I think the strongest one is simply: "That's right. We filibustered a bad, expensive bill."
And then let the electorate decide. Only, infuse both arguments with a lot more vitriol.
As a Democrat, I feel they need to pass something. Why? Because they CAN!
The Democrats have argued for months that action is absolutely necessary, that the status quo is the worst option available and disastrous. They have also argued that it is a moral imperative.
If now, when they can do something, flawed perhaps but something, they give up just because slightly more than half the voters in Mass disliked it, I have to conclude that they never wanted to do it in the first place.
Their willingness to give up makes me think that in reality they are no different than the Republicans and only claimed to be different to get my vote. This feeling is terrible for them, because it leads to poor turnout, poor contributions, and lost elections.
@ BDP:
From my point of view, this is the equivalent of a Republican saying: "You know what, my opponent is right -- lower taxes are a bad idea on principle."
No, it is the equivalent of a Republican saying: "You know what, I am not going to vote for this bill repealing Medicare because my constituents think its a really bad idea."
You are correct in that both of these are equally unlikely. Since when have Republicans appealed to their constituency for debate support apart from times when they actually agree? They simply get enough support from live-in-die-angry rightists that get set of on a predefined list of buzzwords(homosexuality, military spending, racism, Nation under God, etc & etc & etc). Furthermore, because they are -- they have since the beginning -- intentionally falsely portraying the bill to their constituency, I can hardly take you as anything more than a head in the sand of the Fox News Beach.
The Blanche Lincoln polling numbers out today (brief recap: she's getting killed) are actually great news for Democrats. There is now early proof for all Democrats of exactly what Nate is saying: If you do not pass this bill, you will lose, and badly. There is zero upside in walking away from it now. No independents are going to change their mind because you did - and you'll lose democrats too. So it is the worst of both worlds. In this way, Republicans have overplayed their hand a bit. By winning the message wars on health care by so much, they've now ensured that Democrats have no way out. So, if they are going to go out, they might as well go out with a big f u to the Republicans, and pass the bill Republicans hate most.
"In the end it's simple economics..." - comet
Yes, it is, and simple economics says that the government is only better than the private sector at providing two things: public goods and natural monopolies. Health care fits neither category.
It blows my mind that so many people argue for government-run health care using the same logic that would mean the government should run everything.
"No independents are going to change their mind because you did..." - workmonkey
If they pass the current bill, independents will come out in hordes to vote for the Republican statewide. It would be a total massacre, the likes of which hasn't been seen since 1854 - the last time such a huge, unpopular bill was passed on an entirely partisan basis. Republicans would gain supermajorities in both houses.
ABC's Jake Trapper tells President to man up:
“But isn’t the whole point of being President and controlling the House and Senate to ‘man up’ and make these tough decisions whether or not it costs you at the ballot box in November?”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M_rJYOwA19g&feature=player_embedded
^Jake Trapper's obviously an idiot if he thinks the President is supposed to "control the House and Senate".
@Brian -
The independents are already going to come out to vote Republican. Technically, Democrats already have passed the bill, and Republicans will act like they did whether or not it ever actually passes. The outcome will be the same regardless. The only hope Democrats have is if Dem voters turn out in droves, which will only happen if this bill passes. If you have any evidence to suggest an independent is going to vote Democrat as of now if this bill doesn't pass, but if it passes they will vote Republican, please provide it. As I said, Republicans overplayed their hand: Dems have nothing to lose.
David said...Jake Trapper's obviously an idiot if he thinks the President is supposed to "control the House and Senate".
Calling on the Dems to "man up" and commit political hari kari would have been more accurate.
Rudy said...
Government does not do innovation or efficiency well. Ever.
Except for that small U.S. government organization called the "military" which the right holds in almost religious awe (perhaps I should drop the "almost"?). Interestingly the 1.5 million active duty personnel and 1.5 million reserve personnel together outnumber the 2 million civilian employees of the U.S. government.
Oh, and there is that little bit of innovation developed under the funding and auspices of DARPA, called the "Internet" which you may have heard of.
Private enterprise only ever came up with closed proprietary systems networks that could not compete.
"In the end it's simple economics..." - comet
Yes, it is, and simple economics says that the government is only better than the private sector at providing two things: public goods and natural monopolies. Health care fits neither category.
And so, you have proven by appeal to economic theory that the U.S. private sector health insurance system is more efficient than all government run programs?
Interesting... given that actual data from all of the world's industrialized nations shows that the one privately run system (ours) is inferior in efficiency to all of the government managed systems.
Yet another example of right wing's belief that its ideology trumps reality.
"My arguments are really geared more toward the long term, both in terms of the Democrats reminding their voters that their party still stands for something"
I suppose ignoring your base and enriching the insurance companies is standing for someTHING, I just though more people would be ashamed of standing for that thing. I've been sorely disappointed by the number of moderate dem commenters willing to sell out completely on HCR.
"And so, you have proven by appeal to economic theory that the U.S. private sector health insurance system is more efficient than all government run programs?
Interesting... given that actual data from all of the world's industrialized nations shows that the one privately run system (ours) is inferior in efficiency to all of the government managed systems.
Yet another example of right wing's belief that its ideology trumps reality."
What data? Average lifespan, which has more to do with murder rates and infant mortality than health care? Infant mortality, which has more to do with teen pregnancy rates than health care?
Or cancer survival rates, which we excel at? Or underweight infant survival rate, which we excel at? Or average lifespan when murder isn't accounted for, which we top the charts at?
I'm not saying our system is perfect, but the fact is, I have yet to hear a good argument for government-run health care that wouldn't also apply to government-run everything. Hence, IMO, people who support a single-payer system are either socialists or economically confused people.
"I have yet to hear a good argument for government-run health care that wouldn't also apply to government-run everything."
Oy vey. It never ends, does it? So David may I ask, do you support abolishing public schools, public fired departments, public police forces, public parks, public transportation systems?
As to an argument, how about, everyone fundamentally needs access to health care, and the best system would be one that can provide the best overall health outcomes to everyone at the lowest cost.
You can wrangle and spin about how the US is OK at some health metrics and downright great at a few, but it would take great logical leaps to assert Americans on average have significantly better health care outcomes than other industrialized countries.
So a charitable assessment would be that our private clusterf**k patchwork system might get somewhat equivalent outcomes to better-regulated or nationalized systems at only two or three times the cost.
@Jacob
Public schools - partial natural monopoly, since the closest ones to home have a significant advantage. Still support vouchers/charter schools though.
Public fired departments - mostly volunteer, so irrelevant
Public police forces - public good
public parks - Little is actually being provided, except by nature.
public transportation systems - Natural monopoly
Health care - not even close to being either a natural monopoly or a public good
"As to an argument, how about, everyone fundamentally needs access to health care" - Same with food, and housing, and clothing, and anything else people generally need. Yet nobody's proposing a single-payer system for those.
"You can wrangle and spin about how the US is OK at some health metrics and downright great at a few, but it would take great logical leaps to assert Americans on average have significantly better health care outcomes than other industrialized countries."
Why? The only metric where I see the U.S. being worse than other nations is in cost.
David opined:
...
What data? Average lifespan, which has more to do with murder rates and infant mortality than health care?
...
Or average lifespan when murder isn't accounted for, which we top the charts at?
Really? If we remove the life lost from homicide the U.S. ranks number one?
I'll do you one better. I'll remove the effects of both murder and infant mortality by adding back in the years of life lost to both using the latest data set for the OECD (http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx). Assuming 82 years (Japan's lifespan) lost per infant and 60 years lost per murder we find the U.S. ranking jumps from 22nd to (wait for it): 22nd!
You should know better than posting such nonsense on a blog where the readers are interested in (and good at) statistics.
The total of these two things only account for 8% of the difference (4.2 years of life) between the U.S. and top ranked Japan. Switzerland ranks almost as high as Japan so the difference is not genetic either. Maybe its... health care?
Oh, and since the point at issue was efficiency of the health care system the fact that this atrocious result in lifespan came at the cost of twice what the OECD pays might be a bit relevant.
You dropped that ball entirely David (I know - to embarrassing to fess up to).
Nate is great on election polling, but he is very biased in any policy discussions. He blindly resisted the Brown victory until the polls forced him to concede the night before the election.
Now, he is so much in favor of health insurance "reform," he cannot accept the proposition that democrats would be better off not passing it. The obviously answer for democrats if the bill does not pass, which Nate just cannot see, is that they listened to the people and want to do health care reform better.
Sure, why not. If losing the bluest senate seat in the bluest state in the union didn’t teach the politicians anything, I say go for it. While we’re at it, let’s try to throw in “cap and trade” before the November elections. Everybody knows that the policies haven’t been “explained” to the American public. After it’s done, they’ll understand.
reputation management
I read Megan McArdle's article. I get where she's coming from, and it's obvious she thinks health care reform is through and through terrible. But I have some serious problems with her article. What it comes down to is whether you think the outrage over the bill is a completely grassroots phenomena. If it is, she's right, and I think she believes it is because...she hates the bill, too.
The driving force behind the push against this bill is really coming from the health care industry and the Republican party. When the bill passes, you're going to see a lot of the anger dry up, except for the Teabaggers, but they're always pissed off, and they'll get sick of talking about health care and move on to the next outrage.
Because Ms. McArdle is more of a right leaner, she's not thinking of the effect giving up would have on Democrats and liberals. They've gone through a real roller coaster ride over the last decade. In the 2000 election, conventional wisdom said that you have to close ranks around the establishment candidate, and they have done just that. Throughout the last year, they accepted a lot of the compromises on the health care with the idea that it was important to pass it, one way or another. So if the Democrats choke on this, Democrats and liberals are going to ask themselves why they are bothering to help elect these people.
@ David
Public fired departments - mostly volunteer, so irrelevant
Public police forces - public good
public parks - Little is actually being provided, except by nature.
public transportation systems - Natural monopoly
I regret to inform you that these are neither self funded nor self regulated. Whether they are volunteer driven or not, they are still required to meet govt set standards. I don't see what more you did than further the point Jacob is trying to make.
Rasmussen has been polling the health care bill since June 2009. The polling began June 27-28 50% favor 45% opposed
on Jan 20-21 40% favor 58% opposed. Just 18% of voters Strongly Favor the plan while 50% are Strongly Opposed.
Most thinking people believe some health care reform is needed. So why the unfavorable numbers? People think it is a bad bill
it is that simple.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform
Post a Comment