I’m not sure if you’re saying the Democrats will be unable to enact a universal health care plan or if you’re saying that the plan they enact will not work well.
If it’s the former, I agree it’s a possibility and that if there is no universal health care enacted, the Republicans can claim they saved us from disaster (true or not).
But if the Democrats succeed in enacting universal health care over Republican opposition, I think there’s no way the the Republicans will be able to spin it into votes. The fact if that universal health care generally works. If it was the disaster in reality that the Republicans are claiming it will be in theory, then why haven’t the countries that have universal health care noticed? If universal health care is as terrible as the Republicans claim, then why aren’t political parties in Europe, Canada, Japan, India, Israel, Brazil, Australia, New Zealand, and Taiwan running on the promise of abolishing their country’s universal health care program?
Well, we do this all the time in GD: Assuming X, what will happen. The OP explicitly said:
Now, if you want to start a thread where we assume these arguments can’t be correct, go ahead. I’m simply asking the OP why the apparent non sequitur. He says that we may assume the anti-reform arguments are correct and then says that support will increase anyway. Makes no sense to me. Only makes sense if the reform arguments are incorrect.
At any rate, I’m only interested in what the OP has to say about this since it was his post I don’t understand.
You’re with a group and they all decide to go out to eat but you say you don’t want to and then you make a fuss about how much you don’t want to and you go pout in your room.
The others decide where they want to go. You don’t get more input because you had already left the conversation, so someone brings you a soggy fish sandwich from a fast food place and an empty fry box and when you think about complaining they tell you that you chose not to compromise so you got what they chose to give you.
The Republicans are currently pouting in their rooms.
Of course, the Democrats seem to be acting like some of the Republicans are still in there helping to choose a restaurant, so the soggy fish sandwich might not be covered in ten pounds of tartar sauce and there might be a few fries left, too, but they’ll be cold!
Thing is, if this all proves to be a disastrously bad decision, it won’t be right away, health care reform won’t burn up, fall down and sink into the swamp on day one. It will be years before the gangrene of compounded interest takes hold.
But the benefit to individual persons will be immediate, the moment they realize that they can afford to take themselves or their loved ones to the doctor. As pleasant experiences go, relief from fear is very high on the list. I expect that the Dems will bend every effort to make sure such people know who to thank. Quite.
Now, if the Dems were the scoundrels they are made out to be, and I about half wish they were, then they could leverage this enormously. By the time the bill comes due, the only people who will be in a position to react to that will be Dems, or Dem friendly, and the Pubbies will be fighting it out for second place with the Greens.
Say the Republicans’ goal is prevent the kind of health care reform that’s currently on the table. Furthermore, the more “liberal” said health care reform is, the worse a defeat they’ll consider it. (That is, if the bill that just got through the Senate Finance Committee were to pass, that would be bad, but if single-payer full-on UHC were to pass, that would be worse.)
They could compromise now, join Olympia Snowe, and end up with reform that makes them unhappy, but isn’t a tragedy. And they could do this with reasonable support from the voting public, given current polling.
Or, they could succeed today and kill the current round of reform, allowing the country to roll along under the status quo. But given current trends, that status quo could lead us to a place 5 or 10 or 15 years from now where costs have clearly gotten way out of hand, millions of middle-class voters have had to drop coverage due to that expense, and medical-related bankruptcies have skyrocketed. At that point, it seems likely that voters would be much more open to more drastic reform measures, possibly including stuff like single-payer.
At which point, Republicans might look back at 2009 as the year they could have ended up with a modestly-objectionable compromise, and are instead facing down a populist UHC disaster.
I’m not really saying either, actually. What I’m saying is that it all depends on how this all plays out as to whether the Pubs are shooting themselves in the foot or not.
Again, it will all depend on HOW it fails (if it fails) as to whether the Pubs look good or come out of this with egg on their faces, politically speaking. Perception from the public is going to be key.
My guess is that UHC is not going to happen regardless, so what we are really looking at is a compromise. So, it will all depend on what, if anything, the Dems finally get passed, and how the public associates the fall out with one party or the other. If whatever gets passed actually works out fairly well, and if the Pubs are seen to have been obstructing it, then they will look bad, and so the answer to the OP would be ‘yeah, they are shooting themselves in the foot’. It could very well work out the other way though, and the Pubs will come out smelling like roses while the Dems take all the shit.
Sure they could. You are assuming that UHC (not that this seems to be very likely atm) would work great if only the Pubs would get out of the way. Your assumption comes from your own world view and your own baseline internal assumptions. However, even if UHC as a concept is great (something that is debatable), it doesn’t mean it will be implemented well here in the US by the Dems. It could be a major (and expensive) flop…in which case the Pubs could very well turn it into votes.
That’s debatable…and beside the point. It could be the greatest thing since sliced bread, but if it’s poorly implemented here in the US then the party that is attempting to implement it is going to have egg on their collective faces, if the public perception is that the program is bad. Remember that whatever we finally end up with will be a compromise…the Dems can’t simply ram through whatever they want. And compromises are notoriously full of, well, compromises. If the compromise plan is so watered down that it doesn’t work, it’s more than possible that the public will associate that with the Dems, since they have expended so much effort on this. Even though it might be the Pubs who forced the compromise, it will all depend on how the public views the end results, and where they put the blame.
You are attempting to open a can of worms here that really isn’t part of this debate. The point is debatable as to how well it works in other countries, and more importantly, how well it would work in THIS country. The key point here is that any plan will be a compromise plan…not some idealized plan, or something that was implemented without our system of compromise in another country. Our system isn’t really like a lot of the other countries out there with UHC, and their implementation path to UHC was vastly different than our own. They didn’t start where we are wrt how we’ve done health care historically, and they don’t have our political system, so comparisons are tenuous at best. Besides, there have been tons of debates on this subject on this board, so no point in hijacking this one, since it doesn’t seem to be what the OP is asking.
None of those countries are attempting to implement UHC today…in most cases they have had it for years if not decades. Change is hard, and inertia tends to make such systems simply continue on, as the majority of the population is at least content with the health care they have. Pretty much the same as here…most people get adequate care and it’s what they are familiar with.
You worry me when you throw yourself headlong into such unequivocal certainty in your opinions. Don’t you think you might need to leave yourself a bit of wiggle room?
the op’s statement can be inferred that Republicans don’t want any change and have rejected the concept outright. Given that we are talking about a fraction of the population that needs help we would like to address that without reinventing the wheel. The original concept as proposed by the Democratic Party was to introduce a competing bureaucracy against an already regulated market. This is seen as a Trojan horse at best and has strong opposition in both houses.
I personally think both houses are pushing in the wrong direction and should steer companies toward health insurance and away from HMO’s. Front all the money currently spent back to the employee where it is taxed as full income. If the Federal Government can address pre-existing conditions then everybody wins. The employee gets a huge increase in pay (from an HMO) and can bank the difference in the cost of a health insurance policy in most cases.
Hm, I could have sworn that I read something which said that when polled on whether they would vote for the main bill (Baucas?) that only about 1/3rd polled as saying “yes”. I just scanned the threads I thought this information was in and I don’t see it anywhere, so maybe my brain made it up. Though, certainly, the Democratic party has not sought to simply use their majority position to blast the legislation through.
I doubt that. That may be what the Liberal pundits are saying, but I think I’ve read that all of the bills have lost the public option and of of all of them Baucus’ is meant to be the cheapest and increase the deficit by the least. Practical realities is hardly selling out.
And last I heard Baucus’s was the only one that lacked the public option. And the public option is what people want; health care reform loses much of its support without it. Giving the insurance companies what they want because they paid you lots of money, while defying the collective desires of the American people IS selling out.
The Baucus bill sucks. Its solution for the health insurance industry’s current problem of people not wanting to buy their shitty product is to force people to buy their shitty product, thus removing any incentive to actually improve.
Medicare and Medicaid spend approximately the same amount for health care as private insurance. The profit margin for private insurance is tiny and the only reason they have higher administration costs is because they’ve not been able to effectively merge with one another, meaning that they have to retain redundant overhead. This does not equate to a “sucky product”. It’s more or less an equal product that could very easily be made an equally equal product.
And government insurance -never- has any incentive to improve, I might point out. By setting the system up right, you can make it so that the best way for private insurance to compete is by having a track record of long-living clients. You can never get that out of a single payer.
But more than either of these points is that all products are sucky since, like I said, public insurance will cost exactly the same.
The bill that came out of the Senate Health Committee has a public option, and must be reconciled with the bill from the Finance Committee, which does not. Speaker Pelosi has promised the House bill will also have the public option. The public option is not dead, not by a long shot.