Could anti-healthcare reform rhetoric backfire on the Republicans?

Republicans (or at least conservatives) seem to be riding high right now, with the popularity of the tea party, congress’s dismal approval numbers, Obama’s lower numbers, etc. They seem to be banking A LOT, though, on healthcare reform basically being a Nazi takeover of America.

Every day I see at least one anti-healthcare story from Fox News when I’m looking at Google News. All my conservative friends on Facebook are joining groups like “I bet we can find 1,000,000 people who oppose the government takeover of healthcare,” and “tell [your congressperson] to vote NO on government takeover of healthcare!” Etc.

The thing is, while I don’t think this bill is perfect by any means, I’ve got to believe it’s a step in the right direction. When it starts helping some of these same people who are shouting it down, surely some of them will have the integrity to change their minds, right? (Even though my wife’s conservative cousin is still vocally against any kind of “bailout” after taking government assistance on his mortage, :rolleyes:, they can’t all be that hypocritical, can they?)

And many will simply stop trying to pretend that Obama is going to be sentencing people to death wholesale when that doesn’t happen.

I mean, I know Rush and Glenn will keep pretending like it’s worse than 9/11 no matter what, but surely some of their fans will have the brains to calm down.

. . .


Some will, some won’t. Just like, if the bill passes, and health care costs continue to rise along with even further increases in the deficit, the more rabid partisans on the left will refuse to change their minds as well.

It depends on how one judges a political act - by its consequences, or its intention. I rather suspect that, if Obamacare passes and things continue to get worse, the lefties will revert at once to calling for a single-payer system, which is what they wanted all along. Unfortunately or otherwise, if Obamacare fails, the chance of gaining any of the advantages of a single-payer system will not be attainable. If the current plan is a step in the right direction but fails, it is that much harder to convince the electorate to take another step.
[ol][li]Obama and the Dems: “Here is a great plan that will do many great things for health care!”[/li][li]Bill passes[/li][li]No good things happen[/li][li]Obama and the Dems: “Let’s do it again, only more and harder this time!”[/ol]IYSWIM[/li]


Better yet, maybe all those mean old Republicans will just die or go away, and Obama can lead us all to the Land of Milk and Honey, where there are no conservatives and every child gets a puppy.

Depends. The primary tool for shaping public opinion is money. The insurance industries have spent a ton of money trying to stop this. Which is rather odd since they tell us they make just a modest profit. So, did they spend all the money that have at hand on this effort, or have they more in reserve to double down with come November?

I tell you, over the years, old style lefty stuff has become rather nostalgic and affectionate for me, I like to joke about the running dog jackals of Wall Street, corrupt and soulless businessmen,etc. When I see stuff like what I’ve Pitted about health insurance vampires, I feel myself becoming a born-again lefty.

Organized crime? The Mafia were a bunch of amateurs.

I don’t want a land with no conservatives. I just want a land without stupid people leading the conservatives.

Conservative leaders are as a unit lying about the bill. Every time they talk. It’s kid of disheartening to think that a third of the populace can be swayed by utter stupidity and drivel.

I’m not a Democrat, so I could give a shit if the Dems “succeed” or “fail.” What I want is a system that reflects A) We’re all going to get sick and/or injured at some point, B) We’re the richest country on earth, and can easily afford to take care of each other if we decide we want to. The Republicans are more opposed to this than the Democrats are, so I want them to fail, and I want their bullshit rhetoric to backfire on them. I don’t care if they “die or go away” or if anyone gets a puppy.

Look up the word hypocritical.

Your wife’s cousin may well believe that bailouts are poor social policy, and argue against them. At the same time, if they are the law, he would be foolish to not take advantage of it.

If you play Monopoly, think of the Free Parking rule. The actual rule, of course, is that nothing happens when you land on Free Parking; it’s merely a resting place. But many households have “house rules” that involve piling money in the center of the board, a lottery prize that’s won by the person to land on Free Parking.

You may argue, before beginning a game, that Free parking money is an idiotic practice. But if you’re overruled, and playing, you certainly should take the money – why place yourself at a disadvantage?

Yeah, but this is the basis of my objection. I don’t want to take care of you. I want to take care of me, and my family. And let you take care of you, and your family.

I think you are the one who should look it up. Honestly.

You might not want to be a hypocrite?

Is the left often idealistic and fuzzy? Yes. You prefer the cold, grasping cynicism on display from the corporadoes? OK, then, that’s your call. But ask yourself this: have you ever met an actual, honest-to-goodness cynic? Don’t they invariably think of themselves as hard-headed realists?

But the system we have now has made it impossible for some to take care of them and their family.

If you are against pre-existing conditions being removed you need a mandate.
If you have a mandate you need subsidies.

Why are you for allowing companies to deny insurance based on pre-existing conditions?

I really don’t think that the conservative leaders are stupid. I think they realize that the sensationalism (that not just Republicans sell) is what sells and gets people to listen.

1 of 2 things has happened to our democracy:

  1. It has gotten really watered down with no clear vision

  2. It has gotten so fucking large and convoluted that “the people” can no longer comprehend what really is the best solution.

You have two sides of the same coin telling you that X is the best solution to the nation’s Ills, and I personally don’t see much from either side that will benefit me (and I would construe myself as an average Joe)

Conclusion being: Stay the fuck out of my life?


Presumably you’re relying on definition number two, since there’s nothing religious or virtuous in play here.

The stated belief or feeling: “It is unwise and poor social policy for the U.S. to use government money to bail out individuals or companies.”


“It’s a bad rule to use Free Parking as a source of money, because it’s inflationary and causes the game to go on much longer.”

In what way is the individual acting in contradiction to his stated belief or feeling by either taking Free Parking money or government bailouts, once each policy has been enacted contrary to his recommendations?

Answer: in no way.

Because he takes the money. He’s being hypocritical. Don’t they have a class on this stuff in lawyer school?

“I think abortions are wrong.” “I’d like to get an abortion please.” <- hypocrite
“Eating animals is wrong.” “What, we only have hotdogs in the house? I’ll take two.” <-hypocrite
“Government bailouts are tyranny!!1” “I’d like the government to pay my mortgage, plz.” <- hypocrite

Honestly, dude. I know you think you’re good at arguing stuff, but looking at X and calling it Y isn’t exactly stellar debating.

Polls about support levels cover a very wide range, allowing an even wider range of interpretation. Plus, they’re fluid over time.

HCR will never have more opposition than it has right now. Once some semblance of universal coverage, without pre-existing condition denials, is in place, it will become as accepted and valued as Medicare or Social Security, both of which had the same kinds of problems getting passed (amid much the same rhetoric, too).

The GOP is reduced to fulminating about parliamentary procedure to try to score points, as if anybody off the Hill cared about that.

Yes, each of your examples are hypocrisy.

Because they all claim to identify a moral wrong, and then the speaker indulges in the very moral wrong he has decried.

But notice the difference between your statements and the examples I gave. In both of my examples, the objection is not to moral wrongness but to a poor policy, one that is rejected because it will supposedly produce poor results.

So instead of “Eating animals is wrong!” as a statement, perhaps we might envision: “Eating animals is unhealthy, and so you shouldn’t do it – we can get all the protein we need in more healthy fashion from non-animal sources!”

“There are only two hot dogs left in the house, and no tofu.”

“Then I’ll take them, because it’s more unhealthy still to not eat anything.”

Not hypocritical.

See the difference?

I used to feel pretty much the same way. Then I started really examining the alternative. The alternative to government having control over something in this country is not that individuals, or even “the people” have control over it; it’s that corporations have control over it. And corporations are abstract entities that are only answerable to their profits. At least government is made of real people who have to answer to their constituents.

Bricker, he is of the give a fish / teach to fish opinion that bailouts don’t really help anybody in the long run (among every other argument in the book pretty much.)

Not really. A substantial part of government is comprised of career civil service employees that are very difficult to fire. Those high enough in the organization to require political appointments come and go, but the grunts that actually do the bulk of the work stay in place regardless of which way the political wind happens to blow.

Do you have a health insurance policy today? I trust you do not, but just pay the full bill yourself when needed, right?

If you do have one, then the other members of your risk pool are *already *“taking care of you and your family” if you have a health problem. And you are already taking care of theirs. Do you have any concerns about the apparent contradiction there?

All UHC does, even in its most socialistic single-payer form that has so cruelly oppressed most of the rest of the industrial “democracies”, is expand the concept of a risk pool to the full nation (or, okay, province), while providing subsidies for those who can’t afford the full premium due to circumstances beyond their control (not “bad choices”, as you prefer to dismiss such matters). Even the Senate-plus-reconciliation bill that it now appears we’re going to get falls well short of that. Yet you find something to object to anyway.

So, if you do have a health insurance policy after all, please explain to us why.