This week’s National Journal poll of political bloggers asked left-leaning political bloggers “If Congress enacts something close to President Obama’s latest health care reform plan, how would that affect the Democratic Party in the midterm elections?” The right-leaning bloggers were asked the same question about the effect on Republicans. On the Left, 40% said that enactment would help Democrats a lot, and 27% said it would help a little. On the Right, 77% said it would help Republicans a lot, and 18% thought it would help a little. I thought it would help Republicans a lot, and wrote, “This is yet another example in which the best thing that Democrats can do to harm the Republicans in the next election is also the best thing that they can do for the country: namely, defeat Obamacare.”
The second question asked: “Would the Obama administration be better off if these individuals [David Axelrod and Rahm Emmanuel] had more influence, or less influence?” On the Left, 64% favored more influence for Axelrod, and 100% wanted less influence for Emmanuel. On the Right, 93% wanted less influence for Axelrod, and 50% wanted more influence for Emmanuel. I wrote: “Rahm is politically brilliant, and has a sense of the possible. Imagine how much stronger Obama might be right now if he had followed Rahm’s advice to pass a variety of discrete fixes for health care rather than investing his entire presidency in a huge omnibus bill.” In contrast, “Axelrod’s recent interview in the N.Y. Times indicates that he is among the Obama devotees who have wrongly convinced themselves that the only problem with Obamacare is messaging, rather than substance.
orca says:
This is yet another example in which the best thing that Democrats can do to harm the Republicans in the next election is also the best thing that they can do for the country: namely, defeat Obamacare.
Wishful thinking?
The Democrats and Obamacare are staging quite a comeback in the polls.
March 12, 2010, 1:09 amzuch says:
Prof. Kopel:
Ummmm … like Congress had nothing to do with how it played out….
It is true that Obama could have taken a more “hands-on” approach rather than leaving it to Congress (and I think he ought to have done that). Obama has shown (like at the Republican luncheon) that he has the balls, stamina, and ability to stand up to the Republicans at times (rather than the 90% wussy Congressional Democrats), but unfortunately that’s not his first instinct. Someone (and perhaps Obama himself) was under the delusion that co-operation with Republicans was possible in today’s political milieu. They weren’t paying attention.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 1:12 amBruce Hayden says:
Again pushing the falsehood that the Democrats were ever interested in real bi-partisanship and including the Republicans in the decision making. Rather, what we have seen repeatedly, including this latest meeting between the President, the Democrats, and the Republicans, is that neither the President, nor his Congressional allies have ever had any real interest in listening to or working with the Republicans in Congress on this issue.
The reality is that the Democrats figured that with both the Presidency and such large majorities in both houses of Congress, they didn’t have to work with the Republicans on this issue. And so they didn’t, and still, despite all the promises made at that summit, still won’t.
March 12, 2010, 2:17 amBruce Hayden says:
I still don’t see how passing Health Care “Reform”, as it has passed either house of Congress, could benefit the Democrats. Starting it with four years of pain (i.e. taxes, etc.) before providing any real benefits isn’t going to engender good feelings from those who will be feeling the hurt and paying the taxes.
But in order to pass it now, it appears that it will take an amazing amount of legislative slight of hand. The idea of the House passing the Senate bill (apparently now, potentially without even having to actually vote yeh or nay on it), and then fixing it with reconciliation (in order to prevent filibusters in the Senate) is just going to make them look all that much worse.
In the end, I think that all these legislative tricks and slights of hand needed to pass the legislation now are just going to reinforce the perception that the Democrats are willing to cheat to win, as they have tried to do any number of times, going back to Bush v. Gore, filing multitudes of bogus ethics charges against Republican politicians, massive fraudulent voter registrations, maybe even President Obama breaking his campaign finance promise, etc. Winning is apparently everything, regardless of the means to get there. This is not a perception that is going to help Democrats get elected in the future.
March 12, 2010, 2:31 amMahan Atma says:
I’d love to know what a Republican thinks “working with Republicans” on health care means.
For example, can anybody identify one, single compromise the Republicans have been willing to make?
March 12, 2010, 2:33 amMahan Atma says:
You mean the same “tricks and slights of hand” (aka reconciliation) the Republicans used to pass the Bush tax cuts?
BTW, both the House and Senate have already passed legislation. The Dems got 60 votes in the Senate for it. Hardly what I would call “cheating”.
March 12, 2010, 2:46 amBrett Bellmore says:
Passing the bill would, I think, help Republicans in the short term, because it would piss off so many voters. It would, however, help Democrats in the long term, because they are THE party of big government, while Republicans are only “a” party of big government, and anything which gives the government power over more of the economy gives the Democratic party an advantage.
The Democratic leadership, being in safe seats, rationally believe they can ride out the storm after the bill is passed. Republicans will never get enough of a majority to repeal the bill over Democratic objections, indeed, like the “assault weapon’ ban, will probably never even try. And a few election cycles down the road, the Democratic party will be back, stronger than ever.
That’s not much consolation to Democrats in marginal seats, which is the only reason the bill isn’t already law.
March 12, 2010, 3:23 amShag from Brookline says:
Rahm, because of his misuse of a knife in his youth, can respond to his critics by merely clenching his right hand to deliver the phantom finger.
(Category: speechless speech.)
March 12, 2010, 4:02 amDennis Nicholls says:
Isn’t the old saw “politics is the art of the possible”?
March 12, 2010, 4:16 amMichael P says:
Here’s the key part about that: They didn’t pass the same thing. What was popular with one set of people (the House) didn’t fly with another (the Senate), and vice versa. Shockingly enough, this is why many individual parts of the bill poll well but Americans reject the whole that is less than the sum of its parts.
When Democrats have to sort out major policy differences (like which procedures are covered by subsidized insurance or eligibility rules for insurance exchanges) through a process conceived as a way to resolve budget disagreements, that’s cheating. When they want to “deem” a bill as having passed rather than voting on the bill itself, that’s cheating.
Also, the suggestion that the only way for a Republican to work with Democrats on a bill is for the Republican to compromise is unreasonable. The Republicans have proposed a wide array of cost-cutting alternatives to the health care plan (wider availability of high-deductible plans, for instance). The Democrats used their majorities to vote down every one of those. If you want to mourn the partisanship of this bill, look to the Congress members who voted those amendments down.
March 12, 2010, 6:33 amChrisHo says:
Republicans offered up 768 amendments, of which 161 were accepted.
Let alone, why should only Republicans be required to compromise. If anything the blame rests squarely on the Democratic leadership would cannot even with a super majority pass a bill. Simply put, blaming the Republicans is far easier than accepting the fact that the Democratic party is not all of one mind.
March 12, 2010, 6:57 amAlexia says:
I think that there are several bones, like malpractice caps, that the Dems could have easily thrown into the bill to gain a GOP vote or two.
March 12, 2010, 7:59 amAlexia says:
At least the tax cuts directly affected budgets, which is what reconciliation was intended to do, after all.
Regardless, you don’t get it both ways. If it was wrong then, it’s wrong now.
March 12, 2010, 8:03 amChicago Lawyer says:
I love it when someone argues that the Democrats already got 60 votes. What they always fail to mention is that they got the 60 votes through what many would call “bribes” (Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Kickback, etc.). If those “inducements”, which virtually everyone now agrees should not have been made, they would never have gotten the 60 votes.
March 12, 2010, 8:54 amWidmerpool says:
Well, the one good thing about abolishing reconciliation is that it will then be used in 2012 to reverse healthcare and, with a new Republican President (which, by that point, could be a paper cup), it will also be available to force through that President’s judicial picks since the “nuclear option” argument would by then seem laughably archaic.
There’s a reason one does not force through big legislation on a partisan basis that’s unpopular with a majority of the public (including more than a whopping 60% of indepedent voters). And that reason will become painfully clear (to Democrats) in November.
March 12, 2010, 9:04 amBlue says:
Giving someone a bill and telling them they MAY be able to add a provision or two is not negotiations.
March 12, 2010, 9:27 amrarango says:
I find myself mostly in agreement with Zuch’s comments–by letting the Senate and House develop the bill, Mr Obama surrendered leadership to Senator Reid and Speaker Pelosi–
Not that I want the bill to pass–but as a matter of tactics, it seems to me to be a large mistake. I believe Mr Obama failed to understand the dynamics of both houses of Congress–in part because of his advisors, and in part because of his limited experience as a Senator. Just my .02
March 12, 2010, 9:43 amSarcastro says:
The best thing the democrats could do is fail! They should be very worried about success.
Because healthcare reform is very unpopular, despite any polls you might hear to the contrary. Furthermore, unpopular things never later become popular, especially entitlements.
March 12, 2010, 10:02 ampc says:
One of the main complaints is that HCR would affect the budget. So reconciliation to hash out budgetary issues is fine, until it isn’t?
I don’t remember a lot of handwringing and rending of shirts back when the Republicans used reconciliation to pass tax cuts. I assume you were one of the people that was pointing out how terrible reconciliation was those times. Right?
March 12, 2010, 10:15 amMatt says:
Aren’t you a law professor, David? Shouldn’t you be a little more precise in your use of language? What is “Obamacare”? The Senate passed a bill and the House passed a bill. Obama proposed a way to reconcile them. Is that “Obamacare”? What are the tenets of “Obamacare”? Lazy conservative analysis sickens me.
March 12, 2010, 10:34 amB.D. says:
I think, short-term, ObamaCare might hurt Democrats politically if it passes. But long-term, it’s going to help them because it expands entitlements. Getting rid of ObamaCare will be nearly impossible once it’s enacted. More dependency on the government means more political strength for the party of government.
Republicans likely won’t win majorities in either the House or the Senate in 2010, and even if they did they’d be stuck with Obama’s veto until January 2013. Best case scenario would be reversing it 3 years from now.
March 12, 2010, 10:51 amMahan Atma says:
How is this “compromise” by Republicans?
Well first of all, they’re in the MINORITY. Second, the Dems have compromised plenty. They gave up the public option, for example, and put the Stupak amendment in the House bill. Not to mention that single payer was compromised from the beginning.
March 12, 2010, 11:26 ammooglar says:
Just about everything the Republicans have demanded be in the healthcare bill over the past year are actually in the bills. That’s why they are all about “starting over” now, because they got what they asked for.
What Boehner and McConnell and the rest didn’t want, and didn’t expect (neither did I), was that the Democrats would actually put all the stuff they’ve been on about in the bills. They really don’t want a healthcare bill to pass at all because they (unlike the bloggers polled in the OP) fear that it will be a big political win for Obama and the Democrats.
But they also are unwilling to come out and just say they’re opposed to reforming healthcare. So now that they’ve gotten what they asked for, the Republicans are reduced to trying to make a case for “starting over.” They don’t want healthcare reform and never did. Which is a valid political position, but unfortunately the Republicans don’t have the courage of their convictions to actually say so and argue that position.
In regards to reconciliation, it’s fairly clear that those opposing it as dirty pool now simply want to portray it as beyond the pale to stop it being used to pass healthcare. I don’t believe that there was this enormous group of critics who have long opposed reconciliation on principle who somehow weren’t heard until now. I suspect most opposing it now weren’t aware of it or didn’t have a problem with it until now. I know I didn’t. I’d never heard anyone criticize it like they are now and frankly, though I strongly disliked the Bush and Reagan administrations, I never thought it was somehow dirty or underhanded when they passed stuff through reconciliation, and I don’t know anyone who was making that argument. Not even Al Franken!
So, either I somehow missed this movement of anti-reconciliationistas the past twenty years or it has only come into existence as a bad faith argument to try to stop healthcare reform. And I don’t think the former very likely.
March 12, 2010, 11:29 amMahan Atma says:
I said what compromise are Republicans willing to make??
This is what I’m saying. The phrase “work with the Republicans” apparently means “adopt the Republican plan 100%”.
There’s no “working” with you. “Working” together means both sides compromise. The fact that you call cannot mention ONE SINGLE COMPROMISE that Republicans are willing to make is obvious proof that they are not negotiating in good faith.
March 12, 2010, 11:32 amzuch says:
Arrant nonsense. Even the few Republicans who showed some ‘interest’ in bipartisanship and demanded some concessions joined the rest in voting against the resulting HCR en bloc when push came to shove. Democrats have repeatedly held out a hand, only to be repeatedly bitten by the Republicans.
You may think that recent acts of the Democrats, in recognising this and saying, “we’ll just have to go it alone”, are partisan, but the reality is quite the opposite. I said ‘way back when’ that the Democrats shouldn’t bother courting Republicans, but they did give it a try (with the quite expected results). You folks don’t want HCR, period (as evidenced by the complete disinterest in any kind of “HCR” in the years you had all three branches of government excepting attempts to axe the ‘socialist’ Medicare).
Not to mention, the Republicans have been quite open and honest in their desire to “stop Obama” in any way possible, and to make such a defeat into his “Waterloo”. Thanks at least for that honesty.
We’re not stoopid … and not blind. So stop p*ssing on us and trying to tell us it’s raining.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:33 amMahan Atma says:
Awesome.
March 12, 2010, 11:34 amzuch says:
We’re not interested in your thoughts on this. I note that all the Republicans are ‘helpfully’ telling the Democrats that it will be to their detriment to pass HCR. Good enough for me: Pass it!!!
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:37 amzuch says:
If this is so important, you’d think the Republicans would be open to actually voting up-or-down on a good bill in the Senate. They used to be all in favour of such “up-or-down” voting….
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:45 amzuch says:
Shorter Michael P: “When Democrats do something, it’s cheating.”
When Republicans use reconciliation for any number of big policy measures or threaten the “Nuclear Option”, it’s just good ol’ politics….
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:50 amzuch says:
Pardon me, but how do “high-deductible plans” cut costs? By making the consumers pay a larger share?!?!? That’s a winner…. Admittedly, if you make it more expensive for some people to use medical care, it might lessen “demand”. But then, why not go all out and have the individuals pay for all their medical expenses. Surely a rational individual will smartly then decide what care (s)he can or cannot afford, eh? Boost the incentives for cost-reduction to the max, and you’ll really see results….
But I’d note that there’s nothing preventing insurance companies from offering such plans right now. This is typical of suggested Republican “reform”….
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:55 amzuch says:
Compare:
“Say no more, say no more….”
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:58 amzuch says:
You assume facts not in evidence. The moderate Republicans were courted with some concessions, and still voted en masse against the final bills.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 11:59 amzuch says:
Once it passes, people will see that they’re not being herded into death camps and the sky is not falling….
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 12:03 pmgeokstr says:
Yes, we already know that you and the half dozen very vocal leftists here are not interested in anything anyone who disagrees with you has to say. Thank you for being direct enough to express it so explicitly though.
Speaking of very vocal, I’m so glad that you seem to be feeling better. For a while there, I was very concerned about your well-being, because you were only making 15% of all the comments on posts, but I see you’re back up to your normal 25-30% (9 out of 35) including the last 8 in a row. We so enjoy your evident love for shouting down your opponents with repetitive comments ridiculing one phrase or clause at a time from every comment of each of those on the right.
March 12, 2010, 12:51 pmrarango says:
Re “passing the bill now.” First point, if the dems had the votes they would, so I am asuming the votes arent there. With respect to implementing another entitlement program, as I understand it costs kick in immediately but benefits dont start kicking in for a couple of years.
I have no doubt any misapprehension of mine will be corrected in short order, but the idea front loading costs and deferring benefits may not be a wise strategy. Caddell and Rouse have a good WAPO piece on the potential electoral consequences damage passing the bill by whatever mechanism is used.
March 12, 2010, 1:13 pmbyomtov says:
Mooglar said what needed saying. The Republicans have made defeating the bill a political priority, regardless of the fact that it contains many of their ideas. It’s absolutely plain.
And the talk about “ramming it through” is pretty scummy too. Gee, a majority vote! I think Gregg even said the other day that it violated the Constitution or something.
March 12, 2010, 1:20 pmJMA says:
I love how everyone understands instinctively what “Obamacare” means–unless they have some kind of point to make about how meaningless “Obamacare” is.
March 12, 2010, 1:28 pmBruce Hayden says:
Here is a possible link to the WaPo Caddell piece: If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly. It starts:
And, remember that they were pollsters for Democratic Presidents.
March 12, 2010, 1:35 pmMahan Atma says:
Concern troll is concerned.
March 12, 2010, 1:38 pmrarango says:
Bruce Hayden–thanks for providing the link–I am clearly having a very bad day trying to type and correct via word press! I do manage to keep professional editors well employed!
March 12, 2010, 1:38 pmBruce Hayden says:
In other words, you are calling them hypocrites for voting against the 80% they found extreme, when, without those concessions, 85% of the bill would have been unacceptable. (Actually, for the Senators from Maine, I think that it was probably closer to 60% instead of my 80% above).
March 12, 2010, 1:40 pmluagha says:
The Republicans are not ‘compromising’ because at this point the bill is so big and so ugly that there is not one, or small number of ‘concessions’ that the Democrats and Obama can give to make it palatable.
“I’m going to kill you.”
March 12, 2010, 1:44 pm“I’d rather you didn’t. I vote against that.”
“Okay, how about I kill you, but I promise, in the future, not to kill your wife and kids? C’mon, work with me here! Don’t you know how to compromise?”
zuch says:
You can look forward to a welcome respite. We’ll be off the Baja coast most of the next three weeks.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 1:54 pmSteve says:
The most telling point on the health care bill was adduced by the Kaiser Foundation, which put the Democrats’ bill side-by-side with the Republican alternative to Hillarycare from 1993 (which was co-sponsored by 20 Republicans, including Bob Dole and 5 members of the current Republican caucus). The major features of the two bills were largely indistinguishable.
March 12, 2010, 1:58 pmorca says:
Haha, who, Jimmy Carter? They are right-wing shills now.
Even with right-wing Rasmussen, support for a health care plan is on the rise:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
March 12, 2010, 1:59 pmzuch says:
You gotta love that Republican idea of “compromise”. Why you think the (significantly) minority party deserves any concessions is beyond me. But this obscures the fundamental nature of the Republican opposition. They don’t want anything passed. They’re the “Party Of No”, determined to show in any way they can that they weren’t completely emasculated by the 2008 elections. Unfortunately, the Democrats have been assisting them.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 2:03 pmzuch says:
If the Republicans feel that way (that no Democratic bill is acceptable, period), they should just out and say it. To claim to be wanting to “negotiate” and asking for concesssions under such circumstances is negotiating in bad faith … maybe even fraud or deceptive business practise.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 2:08 pmMahan Atma says:
This is exactly what I’m talking about. Republicans will never vote for a bill that is a 100% Republican bill.
When you’re in the minority, and you refuse to compromise in any fashion whatsoever, don’t be afraid when the other side decides to ignore you completely. That’s a failure of your ability to negotiate, not the other side’s fault.
March 12, 2010, 2:32 pmWidmerpool says:
Zuch, doesn’t it give you pause that ALL (as in, every single one) of the polls shows large majorities opposed to the health care bills? Yes, there are majorities in favor of this or that element, but no majority in favor of the entire bills that are proposed to be enacted. Given this reality, Republicans can argue that they are merely following the will of their constituents by opposing the healthcare bills. In this sense, Republicans are indeed the party of NO because the American people are the people of NO. And come November, Zuch, you and yours will find out just how big a people of NO the American people are when it comes to the Democratic party.
But, please, feel free to keep drinking the kool-aid.
March 12, 2010, 2:33 pmSarcastro says:
I use polls as a heuristic for whether something is a good idea, or will garner support in later elections. That is why I was against the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Medicare, and the 1993 budget!
March 12, 2010, 2:42 pmMike P Wagner says:
I suspect that the Republicans have already accrued all the benefits of being opposed to the bill. A question that is far more interesting is whether not passing a bill similar to the Senate bill will help any Democrats.
My sense is that the Democrats would accrue no benefit from not passing a bill to the Senate bill – I don’t think a “no” vote on the bill will in fact provide any shelter for Democrats in vulnerable districts.
Since the Republicans have opted out the legislative process – as a process, then the real real question in front of the only votes that matter (the Democratic votes) is whether a “Yea” or a “Nay” is more injurious.
If in fact, there a Democrat is not protected by a “Nay” vote, then there’s no upside for a “Nay” vote. The only upside I see is would be for Democratic candidates who are in districts that are very anti-abortion. But I suspect the Dems will get that worked out in the next couple of days.
That leaves Democratic congressman facing the question of whether there is any upside to a “Yea” vote. I suspect that many will decided that there is a very small upside to a “Yea” vote.
March 12, 2010, 2:59 pmzuch says:
Right.
Of course, there are a number of Democrats opposed to the bill because it doesn’t go far enough!!!.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 3:08 pmzuch says:
Yes. I was mortified and humbled in November 2008 after so many people had similarly chided me.
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 3:10 pmmooglar says:
Bruce Hayden said:
Okay, but you don’t think it is hypocritical, or at least dishonest, to act as if you are willing to negotiate when you really aren’t? When you say, “I could support a bill if it included X” knowing that, when your opponents add X to the bill, you aren’t actually going to support it?
What the Republicans have done is the same as going up to a guy at a market and haggling with him over the price of an item you never intended to buy. When he spends an hour haggling with you, then agrees to your price and you say, “You know what? I don’t want it anyway,” and leave, you don’t think the guy would have the right to call you a hypocritical jerk? Because the healthcare bill was never going to be 60% or 70% or what-have-you Republican, so the Republicans, in truth, were haggling over a price for an item they knew they were never willing to buy. But they didn’t say that. They negotiated in bad faith instead.
luagha:
Yeah, but that’s not what happened, is it? It’s more like this:
Democrat: “I think we should go see a movie tonight.”
Republican: “Hmm. Maybe. I don’t have any money. Can you pay?”
D: “Well, I’m pretty broke.”
R: “Then I’m not going.”
D: “Okay, I can pay.”
R: “Can we go to the IMAX?”
D: “That costs more…”
R: “Then I’m not going.”
D: “Okay, we’ll go to the IMAX.”
R: “And see the new Vin Diesel movie?”
D: “But he’s so bad–”
R: “Then I’m not going.”
D: “Okay, I’ll pay for the new Vin Diesel movie at the IMAX. Can we go now?”
R: “No.”
D: “Why not?”
R: “You aren’t willing to compromise.” (under his breath): “And because I didn’t want to see the movie in the first place.”
That’s closer to the truth than what you wrote.
Widmerpool wrote:
Yes, but support for healthcare reform was pretty high last year, when the Republicans dug in their heels, started gumming up the works by stalling and delaying, and began a blitz of (mostly dishonest) negative messaging about healthcare reform, like how they claimed that the bill would create “death panels” that were going to kill your grandmother. That is to say, it’s not that the populace has spoken and the Republicans simply have no choice but to listen; their dramatic and dishonest fear-mongering sapped support for the reform.
And, in any case, if your point were at all valid, the Republicans would have been for healthcare reform back last year when polls said that the majority supported it, that is to say, they would have “merely follow[ed] the will of their constituents by” supporting “the healthcare bills.” But they didn’t. They attacked the bills with falsehoods to try to get their preferred outcome: no reform. I don’t think you can manufacture public dissatisfaction with a policy through deceit and then claim to only be following the will of the people. Well, you can, but it doesn’t speak well of you if you do.
March 12, 2010, 3:13 pmpc says:
That just shows you how extreme the leftists have become.
March 12, 2010, 4:50 pmRoger says:
This is simply not true. Almost all polls show people closely divided, and at least one recent poll shows a majority supporting the bill:
March 12, 2010, 4:55 pmrarango says:
When the dems have the votes they will pass it by whatever mechanism they can–they don’t have the votes now, for all of the “moist anticipation” sound bites notwithstanding. That these “we’re almost there” sound bites come out on a Friday afternoon seems to me to be significant. Lets see what happens on Monday after the talking heads take the stage on sunday news shows and the dems in vulnerable district access their polling data.
March 12, 2010, 6:26 pmFury says:
Speak for yourself. Difference on thoughts regarding a variety of issues is one of the things that makes VC on of the better blogs out there. I’m sorry if that apparently causes you some discomfort.
March 12, 2010, 6:53 pmzuch says:
Nice of you to ignore what I was saying. I don’t mind discussion (as should be obvious to those that read my posts). What I don’t need is ‘unsolicited but “helpful” advice’. Asking a Republican hyper-partisan (or listening to him) as to what would be “best” for the Democrats is like Mark Sanchez asking Bill Belichick what play he ought to run next. Informative perhaps, but not particularly helpful. Capece?
Cheers,
March 12, 2010, 7:48 pmFury says:
Say what you mean and mean what you say, please. If you don’t want unsolicited advice, blogs can be a very stressful place. I’d suggest using Grease Monkey with Firefox if you want to screen out unsolicited comments from folks. Or, just don’t read their comments ;)
March 12, 2010, 8:39 pmBruce Hayden says:
Please, again, being excluded from the legislative process is very different from opting out of it. The Democrats in the House never really listened to any Republicans, and in the Senate, they quit listening to, or including any Republicans in the discussion after the bill came out of committee. That is why they lost the sole Republican vote they had earlier. Please quit spinning this. We all watched it go down, and few here are going to buy into your revisionism.
March 13, 2010, 1:52 amricky says:
I’ve never understood this whole “we never should have tried to reach out to the Republicans!” meme. It just seems unbelievably naive to me. How could any political observer actually believe that either party would put some abstract moralistic ideal of “bipartisanship” over tangibly advancing their agendas and furthering their political careers? If the legislation was good (in their minds) and popular with the public, the Democrats would have loved to pass it all by themselves… which they could have done a long time ago! Blaming the Republicans for “obstructing” a bill which they had no actual power to obstruct for most of the past year just seems absurd.
March 13, 2010, 2:18 amthorleywinston says:
I don’t think that’s correct. On the Kaiser Family Foundation’s website they do allow you to compare the features of different proposals but they don’t include any past legislation from 1993. The only proposal attributed to Bob Dole on their website is a recent one from the Bipartisan Policy Center which is supported by Dole, Baker and Daschle and AFAIK has nothing to do with any past legislation.
March 13, 2010, 5:15 amthorleywinston says:
BTW: even assuming arguendo that the 1993 Dole-Chaffee Bill was similar* to what came out of the Senate – so what? Only 5 of the 41 current GOP Senators were co-sponsors and neither of the two major sponsors are Senators any longer. The Dole-Chaffee bill BTW was one of about three GOP proposals offered in 1993 (I was more partial to the Gramm proposal).
Besides which, if President Obama can now come out in favor of both an individual mandate and taxing health insurance plans after he just got elected several months before while campaigning against both proposals, that pretty much gives the five remaining GOP Senators (or anyone else in Congress) a pass for changing their mind on an issue they’ve worked on for seventeen years.
March 13, 2010, 5:33 ampc says:
It would just point out the fact that Republicans were socialists back in ’92.
March 13, 2010, 10:15 amzuch says:
Oh, I do. I’d have thought you’d have noticed.
I can handle it just fine, thank you. I was just pointing out for Bruce’s sake and for the sake of any others the pointlessness of such ‘advice’. As I said, it’s Sanchez listening to Belichick … late in the fourth quarter (albeit I may be paying Bruce too much of a compliment in describing him as a “Belichick”).
Cheers,
March 13, 2010, 12:24 pmtherut says:
Will the bill make it illegal for a physician to totally opt out of beng involved in any .gov plan. Or is this in the future. Cause my plan to to open a cash up front clinic and bypass this whole mess as well as medicare and medicaid. I will make more, have less stress and my patients will have a much smaller bill. This may end up being a good thing in that it finally pushes me to take the leap to true freedom.
March 13, 2010, 1:20 pmBenP says:
The article being referenced was This
and although there are certain differences, it does pretty clearly show that the “opposition bill” proposed in 1993 by Chafee and co-sponsored by 19 Republicans and 2 democrats is very similar to the present democratic bill.
March 13, 2010, 5:26 pmBlogging Heroes: Interviews with 30 of the World’s Top Bloggers (Hardcover) | AutoBlogAffiliate says:
[...] The Volokh Conspiracy » Blog Archive » Bloggers foresee big political benefits in health… [...]
March 13, 2010, 5:44 pmOwen H. says:
If they never really listened, how did all of those Republican-proposed amendments get in there?
March 14, 2010, 11:04 pm