Reminder: Democrats control both houses
The health care reform discussion has been filled with misinformation on both sides, but one key important fact needs to be remembered – Democrats control the House and the Senate of the 111th Congress. If the President was able to garner the support of his entire party, he could ram through any legislation he wanted (for now) and no one would even have to read it. The hold-up on ObamaCare is Blue Dog Democrats who have to face a voting public who is not in favor of the current plan.
Obama and David Axelrod can blame the GOP and the "mobs" all they want (I'm sure they will continue to do so), but if they want it to pass, all they have to do is get every Democrat to vote for it.
Liberals, if you are mad that you aren't getting your universal health care, you can vent your frustration on those formerly Republican districts that went Democratic. Of course, if you cut them off or try to oust them with a true liberal believer in a primary race, you may lose the seat back to the Republicans. That won't help you out any.
You keep reminding us that "we lost," so we should shut up about policy ideas. The tell us that we are not offering any solutions. Then blame us when the whole thing blows up. But remember – you won.
"Obama and David Axelrod can blame the GOP and the "mobs" all they want (I'm sure they will continue to do so), but if they want it to pass, all they have to do is get every Democrat to vote for it."
That won't happen. The democratic party is not a philosophically monolithic party like the republican party is now. Unfortunately, the liberal majority must work with the blue dogs. And, unfortunately, republicans and their hired mobs are doing everything they can to stop reform and sew dissent.
"The tell us that we are not offering any solutions."
If republicans wanted to reform health care they could have done so under Reagan Bush, or W. But let's face it, they don't.
"Then blame us when the whole thing blows up."
Wouldn't that be a shame if it does blow up? I think that if republicans actually cared about Americans with no health care instead of their corporate interests and political ideology they'd work with the democrats in passing universal health care. I think that a lot of conservatives are just clueless. I often hear them saying, "I don't want the government to touch my Medicare." Ummmm, you're retards! If health care reform fails, republicans and the blue dogs certainly do deserve the blame.
On a side note, I a bit bummed about Sotomayor. I don't think she is a liberal and that's another area where Obama is trying to appease republicans who can't be appeased.
Actually, there were no 'mobs' and no violence until (1) obama sent out an email to liberals to start pushing back, (2) pro-Obama union types started attending, and (3) liberal Town Hall organizers started selecting the people they let into the events by letting them in the back door while keeping the citizens who waited in line for hours outside of the events.
The only 'mob' is the Obamacare cadre trying to shut down Democratic debate on the Obamacare disaster – one that I hope we can avoid.
>> CIN: If republicans wanted to reform health care they could have done so under Reagan Bush, or W. But let's face it, they don't.
They didn't because (1) it is not a crisis, it's just a manufactured one – this is what liberals due to push their agenda, and (2) the GOP was in the pockets of industry the way that the Dems are in the pockets of the lawyers and Unions.
>> CIN: Wouldn't that be a shame if it does blow up?
Yes it would, because this terrible plan could be avoided if we would listen to reason, experience, and wisdom instead of the socialist, tax and spend economic and social plan of liberals.
Let's hope it blows up BEFORE it becomes law instead of after.
The democratic party is not a philosophically monolithic party like the republican party is now.
Wait, you mean the GOP that has members voting for Sotomayor, cap-and-trade, cash-for-clunkers and various other Obama policies?
You mean the same party that has Senators like DeMint and Coburn along with Collins and Snowe? They seem “monolithic” to you?
I often hear them saying, “I don’t want the government to touch my Medicare.” Ummmm, you’re retards!
That’s like the Yankee fan with an anti-David Ortiz steroid sign. They forgot whose playing 3rd base for NY.
I agree that the one who says that is ignorant of what Medicare is all about. However, there are legitimate complaints that Medicare would suffer under a government expansion of health care services.
I think that if republicans actually cared about Americans with no health care instead of their corporate interests and political ideology they’d work with the democrats in passing universal health care.
Cin, are you honestly that politically jaded against those who disagree with you that you truly believe that conservatives and Republicans (and Democrats) who disagree with the President over health care don’t care about Americans with no health care. Can you not entertain the idea that they have different ideas and different solutions?
…you mean the GOP that has members voting for Sotomayor
ROTFL! All 9 of them.
"…along with Collins and Snowe?"
…the last of the republican moderates. That's 2. How many blue dogs in the senate? I say again, your party is philosophically monolithic.
"…don't care about Americans with no health care."
Republicans don't give a sh|t about Americans without health care. What reason do they have to care? It's not profitable. The health insurance industry, however, is much richer than uninsured people are.
"Can you not entertain the idea that they have different ideas and different solutions?"
The democrats may have failed to reform health care in the 90's but at least they try. The republicans don't even try. When someone does try provide universal health care, conservatives try to kill it because it's not in the health insurance industry's fiscal interests and they are ideologically opposed. Republicans initially opposed Medicare on the same ideological grounds. Now, they won't vote against it. The health insurance industry has an incredibly powerful lobby and poor Americans lose because of it. It would be a real shame if the republicans kill this again, but hey, who cares about uninsured people?
Republicans think that insuring the uninsured is bad business.
>> CIN: Republicans don’t give a sh|t about Americans without health care. What reason do they have to care? It’s not profitable.
There’s the answer to your question about whether he’s jaded or not – and reasoned or fanatical
>> CIN: The democrats may have failed to reform health care in the 90′s but at least they try. The republicans don’t even try.
While reform may need to be done, the GOP didn’t prioritize it because (a) the number of uninsured, once you eliminate those who are willingly without or illegal, is a very small number – i.e. not a crisis worthy of a mutli trillion dollar solution funded by the rest of us, and (b) the vast majority of Americans rate their healthcare as good or excellent. Some crisis.
>> CIN: When someone does try provide universal health care, conservatives try to kill it because it’s not in the health insurance industry’s fiscal interests and they are ideologically opposed.
Partly, but also, they try to kill it because
1. they don’t believe that the government system employed in the european and Canadian welfare states actually improves healthcare, and it’s not economically sustainable, and
2. they don’t believe that Universal Healthcare should be accomplished ahead of other priorities
>> CIN: Republicans initially opposed Medicare on the same ideological grounds. Now, they won’t vote against it.
That’s because that system is just as non-sustainable. They don’t dare take it away for political reasons.
>> CIN: The health insurance industry has an incredibly powerful lobby and poor Americans lose because of it.
True, but the Obama cure is worse than the illness. Real healthcare reform has been proposed (a day late perhaps) by conservatives, but as I said in What is the conservative alternative for health care reform?, liberals and the general public don’t really know it, in part because the former don’t want to, and the latter are informed by the biased MSM.
>> CIN: It would be a real shame if the republicans kill this again, but hey, who cares about uninsured people?
It would be a worse shame if the current bills and Obama plan in general were passed, because that would make healthcare worse for all of us, and would just SHIFT who would be uncovered.
As one person said, it’s not that the government won’t pay for your healthcare, it will just pay for the minimum it deems necessary (rather than covering you for what you agree to) and expect you to go without the rest.
It would be NO shame at all if this gross misstep were avoided. The health care ‘crisis’ is only a little more real than the ‘global warming’ crisis.
Well, I see you skipped past my acknowledging one of your points and skipped straight to the ridicule and ddemagoguery, so be it.
Before I get to your points, I want to repeat the reminder of this post. If universal health care is so great and so popular … pass it.
You do not need one GOP vote. You can pass it an soak in the public praise for your achievement. There is little to nothing the GOP can do to stop you. You can’t blame them. If the Democrats wanted it bad enough, they could have already passed it.
Why do the Democrats hate uninsured people? ;)
ROTFL! All 9 of them.
I’m glad you think that is so funny and so partisan. So 9 of the 40 voted for her. Thats almost 25%.
So if that is monolithic what about 4 of 46? Wouldn’t that be more monolithic? That was the number of Democrats that voted for Alito.
Which one is more monolithic according to the actual votes? (Please do not pass over this question. You made the charge, now demonstrate how one is monolithic while the more partisan vote was not.)
How many blue dogs in the senate?
You tell me. How many would you classify as such, because I can find a “RINO” to match every Blue Dog.
Republicans don’t give a sh|t about Americans without health care. What reason do they have to care? It’s not profitable.
Further demonstration how it is the GOP who is turning up the rhetoric.
What about the millions of lower and middle class Americans that do not support universal health care because we believe it will hurt America and our health care? I’m not getting any profit from either policy – do I just hate people?
Don’t claim you actually want to have a discussion about the issue when you accuse those with whom you disagree as not caring about people and only caring about money. Might as well go full throttle and drop a Nazi insinuation in there to complete the circle.
The democrats may have failed to reform health care in the 90′s but at least they try. The republicans don’t even try.
So attempting to reform an policy means you care?
Where was that logic during the GOP suggesting reforming Social Security because it is going bankrupt?
Where was that logic when the GOP suggests reforming welfare or any other government program?
Because from what I remember any time that happens, I hear the same thing I’m hearing now about us for supposedly not wanting to reform health care – you hate children, you hate old people, you hate the uninsured, etc.
It seems like whatever position the Republicans take, reform or no reform, they are just doing it for profit and because they hate some voting group or sympathetic figure.
When someone does try provide universal health care, conservatives try to kill it because it’s not in the health insurance industry’s fiscal interests and they are ideologically opposed.
You at least got it half right. Conservatives do try to kill universal health care because they are ideologically opposed to it. Just like Democrats try to kill most tax cuts.
Conservatives are not opposed to health care reform, they have repeatedly made their own suggestions, but they are opposed to universal health care and putting the government in charge of yet another private sector.
For a group that complains so loudly about government taking away rights, liberals are so ready to hand over more and more control to the government. It amazes me.
Republicans initially opposed Medicare on the same ideological grounds. Now, they won’t vote against it.
Very true, but what would you be saying about Republicans if they did vote against it? They hate old people right?
That’s why Republicans oppose government expansion on the front end. Once it gets enacted, it is virtually impossible to reform it or even slow down its growth, much less eliminate it.
The health insurance industry has an incredibly powerful lobby and poor Americans lose because of it.
Is there a handbook somewhere that lets me know which lobby groups are “incredibly powerful” and “richer than” average Americans? Does SEIU and other union groups count?
Again, this is an issue of consistency. If one lobbying group is bad, then so are all of them. We can’t cherry-pick.
Republicans think that insuring the uninsured is bad business.
Republicans think that adding billions upon billions of more dollars to deficit is a bad idea.
Republicans think that having the government in control of yet another sector of our lives is a bad idea.
Republicans think that universal health care will stifle medical and technological advances.
Republicans think that health care for every American, including the poor, will suffer if the government runs it.
Republicans think that duplicating the poorly run debacle that is Veterans health care is a bad idea.
Cin, why can you not allow that people can disagree over a policy for principled reasons? Is it not possible that those who oppose universal health care actually do care just as much about the citizens of our country, they just disagree with you about the best course of action?
>> AARON: You do not need one GOP vote. You can pass it an soak in the public praise for your achievement.
That's right. All of this 'manufactured anger' will just pass anyway. Except it's not manufactured. No amount of stirring the pot can create this type of groundswell if the fodder were not already in place. People are genuinely pissed and afraid of the LACK of change, the dishonesty, the spin, and the expenditures of this administration.
>> AARON: So if that is monolithic what about 4 of 46? Wouldn't that be more monolithic? That was the number of Democrats that voted for Alito.
OW! Nice comeback.
>> AARON: It seems like whatever position the Republicans take, reform or no reform, they are just doing it for profit and because they hate some voting group or sympathetic figure.
Exactly. But maybe we should just ignore people who make the ‘hate’ argument. They aren’t being reasonable anyway ;). See Don’t agree with liberal politics? Hateful!
>> AARON: For a group that complains so loudly about government taking away rights, liberals are so ready to hand over more and more control to the government. It amazes me.
Me too, it’s a strange type of illogical doublethink.
But I already know that such ideologies as liberal economics, atheism, and Darwinism are internally inconsistent. Such illogical positions are often maintained for emotional, not logical reasons. Even many Christians, like theistic evolutionists, plenary inspirationalists, or pacifists hold incongruent positions for emotional reasons. Man is a strange creature.
"If universal health care is so great and so popular … pass it."
Once again, and hopefully this will sink in this time, there are these politicians known as blue dogs and republicans. Republicans don't want universal healthcare and blue dogs are waffling. So, it's not that simple. I wish it was. Got it?
"That was the number of Democrats that voted for Alito."
And how many for Stevens? Don't cherry pick an example and pretend it's the norm. You know very well there are only 2 moderate republicans in the senate.
"Don't claim you actually want to have a discussion about the issue when you accuse those with whom you disagree as not caring about people and only caring about money."
Do you mean you actually want universal health care? If you do, then I was mistaken. But I think the truth of the matter is that republicans don't want universal health care period. That's why they never try to pass it, they only want to kill it. Actions speak louder than words.
"Might as well go full throttle and drop a Nazi insinuation in there to complete the circle."
Now you are being an ass for pretending that I insinuated you're a Nazi. I did not such thing. That's all you, buddy.
<b"I hear the same thing I'm hearing now about us for supposedly not wanting to reform health care – you hate children, you hate old people, you hate the uninsured, etc."
Another lie from Aaron. I never said that republicans hate old people etc. That's your BS perspective. I said that republicans don't give a sh|t about uninsured Americans. How do I know this? Because they haven't done anything to get them healthcare. They try to kill universal health care whenever liberals try to help these people. They side with the insurance companies and lobbyists instead of those in need.
"Very true, but what would you be saying about Republicans if they did vote against it? They hate old people right?"
You are so dishonest! Republicans are the ones saying that Obama will send government workers to old people's homes to euthanise them. The real reason that republicans will not vote against medicare is because it's popular. I think they fear that universal healthcare will also be popular and that would be an advantage to the democrates. Another reason to kill it.
"Republicans think that adding billions upon billions of more dollars to deficit is a bad idea."
So do democrats. That's one of the reasons Bush and his republican administration was very unpopular. Thats exactly why universal health care needs to be passed. Because if we keep going on as we are the debt just gets bigger and bigger. That's a god business argument republicans should be able to accept but their ideology of government is bad, prevents that.
"Republicans think that universal health care will stifle medical and technological advances."
How ignorant of them. It seems to me that many countries with universal health care are faring MUCH better than we are. In terms of health care we are pathetic compared with France, England, Canada, etc.
"…they just disagree with you about the best course of action?"
See, I don't think that's true at all. I think that right wing Republicans are against universal healthcare no matter what. They don't like that word, "universal." It scares them.
Let me try this for a 3rd time. I keep writing out responses that accidentally get deleted. Sorry about the delay. I’m sure you were waiting on pins and needles for my response. ;)
Before I start the response, I do want to say that I’m not angry about the issue. I’m not trying to be mocking or rude in the discussion. It may come across that way, but it’s not my intent. My wife says I get a “tone” sometimes. I don’t mean it, but it comes out that way. I can be sarcastic and snarky. I’m working on it, but it’s there.
Republicans don’t want universal health care and blue dogs are waffling.
Again, lets ignore Republicans. I’m sure you won’t mind doing that. ;) The GOP does not matter in terms of passing the bill. The Democrats could have already rammed it through Congress. The question becomes why haven’t they?
Well, for one reason, as you say the blue dogs are “waffling.” But that raises another question: why would they waffle? If reforming health care by enacting government run universal health care is so popular and so demanded by the public, why would they be hesitant to pass the bill? If its popular and all the opposition is just ginned up by conservative activists and paid for mobs, pass it and soak in the public glory.
But that’s not going to happen because the Democrats in Congress know something – the bill’s not popular. Polls don’t support it. If they did, it would have already passed. If there is no public out cry for it, then shouldn’t that tell you something?
And how many for Stevens? Don’t cherry pick an example and pretend it’s the norm. You know very well there are only 2 moderate republicans in the senate.
You want me to go pull the vote records for the oldest member of the Supreme Court? You want the roll count from 1975? Besides Robert Byrd how many Senators would be the same from then?
In one of my previous attempts I went back and detailed all the votes for nominees. There have been 5 recent nominees that did not receive a majority of votes from the opposition party. One is Sotomayor, the other 4 were Democrats voting against a Republican nominee: Alito (42/4), Roberts (22/22), Thomas (46/11) and Bork (52/2).
But you really didn’t address my point. You laughed at 25% of the GOP voting for Sotomayor and said it was characteristic of a monolithic party. I pointed out that Democrats voted even more monolithically against the most recent Republican nomination, so you accuse me of cherry picking.
If the vote for Sotomayor is laughable and monolithic, then then Alito vote is even more so – going strictly off the numbers and the facts.
But maybe one vote or one issue (Supreme Court) doesn’t tell all the story. How about we look at the voting records and see which party has the most political diversity.
The American Conservative Union gives ratings based on votes. The lifetime range of current GOP senators is 98.4 to 47.0, that’s a 51.4 spread. For Democrats the lifetime range of 2.91 to 47.26, with a 44.35.
That’s throwing all the independents like Liebermann and Jeffords out. (BTW, they don’t really help the picture, unless you want to give us Libermann who campaigned for a Republican this year. His rating is 15.96)
Oh and if you want to do just this year, the GOP range is 100 to 12. The Democrat range is 0 to 42 (Guess who the 42 is? Specter who switched after these votes, but I’ll give him to you. Take him out and the highest is 32.)
But wait, maybe it’s just those outliers of the GOP and most Democrats are spread around in their range. Let’s look at those numbers for this past year:
100 – 1 R with perfect conservative score: Jim DeMint
90 – 7 R’s
80 – 12 R’s
70 – 13 R’s (most popular GOP spot)
60 – 6 R’s
50 – 5 R’s
40 – 1 R & 1 D (Specter, who was R at the time)
30 – 1 R & 1 D
20 – 1 R & 2 D’s
10 – 1 R & 9 D’s
1 – 25 D’s & 2 I’s (most popular Democrat spot)
0 – 12 D’s (perfect liberal score)
Of course, you say to yourself, that is a conservative list, which would be biased in some way. You can do the same with the ACLU, if you’d like. I did.
They used a much smaller vote sample (25 votes compared to 5).You find a gap between the GOP of 80 points (0 to 80). You find a gap between the Democrats of 40 points (100 to 60).
The average score of the Democrats was 90.8. The GOP was 5. That would give a slight advantage in terms of strict average to the Democrats, but do you want to argue 4.2% difference in only one indicator in only one of the rankings as proof positive that the Democrats are much more ideologically diverse than the Republicans?
Can you give me any facts to prove your point that the Republicans are more monolithic? I did tons of research for you on this. Care to do any for me? (And I don’t mean links to lefty blog articles. I mean actual facts like voting records, etc.)
More on the rest of your points in another comment. I don’t want this one to be too long.
Do you mean you actually want universal health care? If you do, then I was mistaken. But I think the truth of the matter is that republicans don’t want universal health care period.
Nice deck staking. In order to “care about people and not money,” I have to agree with you politically.
You are right that Republicans don’t want universal health care. They do want and have proposed some versions of reform that they think will improve it without expanded the federal government even farther, increasing the debt even more and decreasing the quality of care.
Now you are being an ass for pretending that I insinuated you’re a Nazi.
Read my quote. I didn’t say you insinuated I was a Nazi. Louis already did that in another thread. I said you might as well go full circle and call me one. :)
Republicans are the ones saying that Obama will send government workers to old people’s homes to euthanise them.
I haven’t seen that, but those that say that are wrong. I do not think the program being discussed now would make that happen.
It’s like Maddow talking about the GOP saying the plan would mandate abortions and sex change operations. I’ve never heard anyone say that either. I’ve heard people say it would pay for abortions, but not that it would mandate them.
But again, you’ll never find me blindly saying that all Republicans and conservatives are nice people who never do or say anything wrong. I fully admit that some people on our side unfortunately use misinformation to their political advantage. I also fully recognize that some people on your side do the same thing. Neither one is right, but I’m willing to condemn wrong on both sides. Care to do the same?
That’s one of the reasons Bush and his republican administration was very unpopular. Thats exactly why universal health care needs to be passed. Because if we keep going on as we are the debt just gets bigger and bigger.
Care to explain, contra the independent Congressional Budget Office, how passing a law putting the government in charge of health care and causing more tax dollars to be spent is going to reduce the debt and deficit?
I agree with you that one of the reasons Bush was unpopular was because of his spending – he lost conservatives like me over it. Go back and read the archives. I criticized him for it. You criticized him for it. Have you criticized Obama for his spending, which has dwarfed Bush’s?
It seems to me that many countries with universal health care are faring MUCH better than we are. In terms of health care we are pathetic compared with France, England, Canada, etc.
Based on what factors? You speak of Republicans being ignorant for believing that universal health care will stifle advances, on what do you base that? What evidence do you have that Republicans are wrong? Can you demonstrate a greater rate of medical technology and pharmaceutical advances in other nations?
I know you dismiss profit, but it runs businesses and drives advancement. If it is all run by the government and there is no area in which to earn money, why will the medical industry spend billions in R&D? How can they recoup their costs involved in that? What motivation would be there?
I mean I wish everyone was motivated by a desire to help others, but humanity is not there and simply having the government take over health care is not going to change that. What will motivate and encourage businesses to develop new drugs and technologies if not for the chance to profit in the market?
I’m not arguing that everything should be based on profit. I’m simply pointing out the realities of the human race. We need personal motivation to strive for new things. If there is no motivation, then we cease striving.
See, I don’t think that’s true at all. I think that right wing Republicans are against universal healthcare no matter what. They don’t like that word, “universal.” It scares them.
Speaking of being scared of the word “universal” … how many times have you heard Obama describe his plan as “universal health care” or “single payer health care?” Because I’ve never heard him use those phrases as President. I’ve seen a video where he says he supports it, but the White House says that video of him is misinformation and does not represent their position.
Why doesn’t Pres. Obama like the word universal?
But here’s the other thing. I say that people disagree with you about the best course of action. You say that’s not true because they are against universal health care no matter what. See that’s my point, they disagree that universal health care is the best course of action.
You can’t define the debate of whether we should have universal health care in terms of support for universal health care is a given to care about the issue. That’s the question we are discussing as a nation right now. You can’t decide it for the rest of the people and then judge everyone based on your decision. (And I’m using “your” collectively, not just you specifically.)
The question is – is universal health care the best course of action. That’s the question we, as a nation, are discussing. The question is not – we know universal health care is the best course of action, what should we do about it, adopt it or oppose it.
Cin, I know my replies were long and you may not feel like responding to every point raised. That's fine, I'll be glad to drop several of them, but I would like you to back up several claims you made. We can concentrate on just a few.
1. You called the GOP monolithic. I've given you several different factual, voting records that demonstrate that is not the case. In fact, it might be the reverse is actually true. But at best, the GOP is as monolithic, when evaluating voting records (which is the only real concrete, non subjective way to do it), as the Democratic party.
2. If it is simply Republicans scared of the word "universal," why has Obama disavowed the video of him earlier saying he supporting single-payer (universal) health care. Why will he never use the word "universal" health care and instead has shifted word usage from health care reform to health care insurance reform?
3. If all the outrage is simply manufactured by a few, angry, loud conservative groups with help from the GOP, why does the Democratic party, including the Blue Dogs, not pass the bill and enjoy the public adoration? As a party, they have all the votes they need. If it is so popular and will be so popular, why not pass it over the objections of the GOP and reap the political rewards of passing a popular, needed program?
Could it be that the Democrats know something about polling and want to either change the polls numbers first (which if it is the right thing to do, shouldn't you do it even if the polls say not to) or get some GOP votes on board so the negative kick-back can be spread across the aisle?
If you can only pick one of the three narrowed down topics, you can simply show me how you factually, through evidence, came to the conclusion that the GOP is more monolithic. I only ask because you have repeatedly said that you don't hold positions because of ideology, you hold them because of evidence, while I do the reverse. Here's your chance to demonstrate that.