# Could anti-healthcare reform rhetoric backfire on the Republicans? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 18, 2010, 4:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899 "2010-03-18T16:05:02Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/21 "2010-03-18T17:43:44Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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. But you can’t afford to take care of you and your family. I mean, maybe you can right this moment, but costs for emergency or chronic care can be prohibitive for all but the most wealthy. Even the poor can afford medical care when they’re not using any. So, like any sane American who can afford it, you buy health insurance, because you can’t afford to pay for unforeseen medical needs. You are not paying for your medical care. _I_ am (well, would be if I had insurance, and the same provider as you). Currently, nobody (a vanishingly small minority) can afford to pay for health care out of pocket for more than the most basic, occasional care. A large number of individuals cannot afford to pay for their health insurance either. Private, employer-based health insurance guarantees that only the wealthy and those fortunate enough to have a compensation package that includes health insurance will be able to afford medical care. All others _will_ go bankrupt or into crippling debt if any major needs arise. ---
**Author:** ![Lobohan](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lobohan/32/79_2.png) [@Lobohan](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lobohan)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/22 "2010-03-18T17:46:47Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? In the tofu case the person has the option of going to a store. But rather than have mild inconvenience would rather break their moral position. As for the person who hates bailouts thinks they are bad policy, they should have no part in them or they should change their position to _bailouts, do in fact sometimes help_. Otherwise they are hypocrites. Sometimes being practical involves hypocrisy. The bail-out dude is just being practical. He however, hasn’t amended his stance that bailouts are bad, so he’s a steaming hypocrite. Sorry, but your attempt at splitting hairs here is really bereft of any substance. ---
**Author:** ![Eonwe](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/eonwe/32/240_2.png) [@Eonwe](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Eonwe)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 5:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/23 "2010-03-18T17:54:21Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > 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. I’m kind of torn on this hypocrite concept. I think part of the issue is that there are all sorts of things I might disagree with in a mild way, but if they are the state of things, I go along with. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite, I don’t think, if I don’t ascribe a moral judgment to it. If I think government bailouts are poor fiscal policy, I can still utilize them, believing they’re poor fiscal policy. So, I’ve used a policy I disagree with to further my own needs, but I haven’t done anything that I have said a person shouldn’t do. On the other hand, there are many instances where people argue against systems that they take advantage of, and the hypocrisy is clear. “I am against government take over of health care because having the government run a service or industry like that is **socalist**!” “ **Socialism** is bad, anti-democratic, and anti-American!” “Yes, please, give me my medicare, public roads, police, prisons, military, and school systems.” That to me is blind and willful hypocrisy. Taking bailouts while being against them may or may not be hypocrisy depending on the reasoning behind the opinion. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/24 "2010-03-18T20:13:27Z")
> [@Eonwe](#): > > I’m kind of torn on this hypocrite concept. I think part of the issue is that there are all sorts of things I might disagree with in a mild way, but if they are the state of things, I go along with. It doesn’t make me a hypocrite, I don’t think, if I don’t ascribe a moral judgment to it. If I think government bailouts are poor fiscal policy, I can still utilize them, believing they’re poor fiscal policy. So, I’ve used a policy I disagree with to further my own needs, but I haven’t done anything that I have said a person shouldn’t do. But if you take the bailout, you’re proving that it is a GOOD fiscal policy. If you eat the hotdog you’re proving that it isn’t that unhealthy. So either, the hotdog is unhealthy and you shouldn’t eat it. Or the hotdog is healthy enough to eat and you’re full of shit. > [@Bricker](#): > > 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? You’ve used this example too many times before. Yes, you are being hypocritical BY PLAYING. If you don’t like the rule, don’t play. I used to play a lot of co-ed volleyball, then I moved to a new city where all the co-ed leagues had a “girl must touch the ball” rule. The rule was the dumbest fucking thing I had ever experienced, a point I was extremely vocal about. To continue to play in those leagues would make me a hypocrite. Instead, I stopped playing in those leagues, encouraged everyone I know to stop playing in those leagues, and started my own group that didn’t use the rule. But what really drives me nuts about this debate is having to wait for all these morons to get sick/injured/pregnant before they are able to realize what the fuck is going on. Health care in the US is really fucking cheap when you’re healthy. I’m glad you want to take care of your family, but there is going to be a day when you can’t. At that point, just like the free parking money, you’re going to take the assistance available and be a hypocrite, because I seriously doubt you’ll follow through with your opinion that “poor people should die if they can’t afford health care.” “Gee, sorry dad, I know a new heart valve would add 15 years to your life, but I have this reputation on an internet message board. And I kind of used your life story a lot about having nothing and working really hard. If I gave you money or let Medicare pay for it it would kind of make me look like an idiot.” To answer the OP: no, there is no way this can possibly backfire on the Republicans, for the simple reason that US health care is totally fucked. All of the reasons conservatives use for rejecting UHC currently exist in the US. Which means that in a year from now, when things are slightly better, they will still be fucked. But the beauty of working for Fox News that context doesn’t matter. If there is any rationing at all in a year it won’t matter to them that there is rationing now. If there are wait times in a year, it won’t matter that there are wait times now. Stupidity knows no boundaries. In the Republican world, any Democrat involvement in healthcare can AND MUST fail. And if you want that put into context, it’s the same way that The Serge had to fail. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/25 "2010-03-18T20:25:00Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > At that point, just like the free parking money, you’re going to take the assistance available and be a hypocrite, because I seriously doubt you’ll follow through with your opinion that “poor people should die if they can’t afford health care.” I’d like a cite for **Bricker** saying that. I don’t remember seeing him post anything close to “poor people should die if they can’t afford health care”. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/26 "2010-03-18T20:35:45Z")
> [@Cisco](#): > > 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. > > . . . > > Right? It absolutely will. This plan is not perfect, but it will be improved. And once it’s in place, people will see the benefit. Right now, it’s all theoretical. Once they actually get the benefits, and see they were lied to, the republicans will be done. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/27 "2010-03-18T20:36:50Z")
If the Republicans had let the Dems stumble into saying that health care reform would make everything wonderful overnight, there could be a problem. However I suspect those swayed by the Fox News bull shit think that the minute HCR passes granny will be killed, taxes will double, and you will be yanked away from your doctor. When none of this happens perhaps the more sane of the population will realize that Palin and crew are a bunch of liars. They will also probably know at least some people who will be able to get reasonably priced healthcare where they couldn’t before. Except for those few who think that poor people getting to go to a doctor on our dime is a social evil, most people will think this is okay. I fully expect for Republicans to switch to the “it passed and death has not been eliminated, so there” track, but they have already tried to blame Obama for Bush unemployment, so this is nothing new. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/28 "2010-03-18T20:37:03Z")
> [@Lobohan](#): > > I don’t want a land with no conservatives. I sure as hell do. Don’t pussy out. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/29 "2010-03-18T20:41:12Z")
> [@The\_Facts](#): > > It absolutely will. This plan is not perfect, but it will be improved. And once it’s in place, people will see the benefit. Right now, it’s all theoretical. Once they actually get the benefits, and see they were lied to, the republicans will be done. :rolleyes: And then Aslan Obama will lead us all into heaven. Or, it will not pass, and the loony left will try to blame it on the Republicans, despite the fact that they control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate–and held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate until recently. Republicans will then chuckle with amusement at the silly liberals, and gleefully vote them out of office in November, retaking the House of Representatives and dismaying many of the usual suspects on this very board. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/30 "2010-03-18T20:41:44Z")
To get back to the OP, enough with talk of hotdogs and boardgames and such… So, assuming it passes, I think that it will backfire against the GOP but probably not for many years. And by backfire I mean we will have moved the coversation and the country to the left, pretty significantly (if the claims of healthcare being 1/6 of the economy is to be believed). And then… This bill will crush the deficit. I don’t believe the estimate from CBO and the left saying it will help the situation; that’s only based against the status quo, which nobody wants, and makes huge assumptions about what we’ll do later. ($500b out of Medicare, and $200b out of DocFix, when both issues have been dodged by Congress consistently, especially the Sustained Growth Rate). I think of it this way: how can we cover 30m more patients through a huge new entitlement and somehow save money? [Most](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/04/AR2010030404040.html) people are in favor of many of the things in this bill. Who would be against covering those who have no coverage? Who would be in favor of denying poor schmucks coverage with a pre-existing condition? But those are emotional responses. The problem is, we’re broke. We’ll borrow the money from China and force our kids’ (and their kids’) generation to pay it back. As Charles points out in the piece: > [@](#): > > Imagine a bill granting every American a free federally delivered ice cream every Sunday morning. Provision 2: steak on Monday, also home delivered. Provision 3: a dozen red roses every Tuesday. You get the idea. Would each individual provision be popular in the polls? Of course. > > However (life is a vale of howevers) suppose these provisions were bundled into a bill that also spelled out how the goodies are to be paid for and managed – say, half a trillion dollars in new taxes, half a trillion in Medicare cuts (cuts not to keep Medicare solvent but to pay for the ice cream, steak and flowers), 118 new boards and commissions to administer the bounty-giving, and government regulation dictating, for example, how your steak is to be cooked. How do you think this would poll? So, this will work for the GOP in the short term. But once people get used to the entitlement, as some pointed out about Medicare, it will be nearly impossible to save the country’s finances, and our kids will have highly confiscatory tax rates to cover the bill, stifling economic growth. Not enough people will remember, or at least vote based on, who was in favor of it and who was againt. The Short Attention Span theatre that is the American electorate will be talking about something else by then (e.g., how to get Iran to pay reparations to Israel for nuking Tel Aviv, etc). ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/31 "2010-03-18T20:46:24Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > And then Aslan Obama will lead us all into heaven. Why so dismissive? That’s been the case in similar major legislation in the past, virtually every time. > [@](#): > > Or, it will not pass Oh, it will, it’s just a matter of how much armtwisting and dealmaking is left to do. > [@](#): > > and the loony left Who’s that? > [@](#): > > and held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate until recently. No, they did not, not in reality. > [@](#): > > Republicans will then chuckle with amusement at the silly liberals :shrug: They do now. > [@](#): > > and gleefully vote them out of office in November, retaking the House of Representatives and dismaying many of the usual suspects on this very board. What was that about Aslan? :dubious: ---
**Author:** ![ElvisL1ves](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/5daacb/32.png) [@ElvisL1ves](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/ElvisL1ves)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/32 "2010-03-18T20:50:01Z")
> [@Mr\_Smashy](#): > > This bill will crush the deficit. I don’t believe the estimate from CBO and the left saying it will help the situation; that’s only based against the status quo, which nobody wants, and makes huge assumptions about what we’ll do later. As distinct from what you’re doing, that is? > [@](#): > > highly confiscatory tax rates Ah, there’s an old chestnut, brought back off the shelf. 'Minds me of the Eighties, it does. > [@](#): > > Not enough people will remember, or at least vote based on, who was in favor of it and who was againt. The Short Attention Span theatre that is the American electorate will be talking about something else by then (e.g., how to get Iran to pay reparations to Israel for nuking Tel Aviv, etc). It will be just like the Republicans claiming credit for the results of Clinton’s 1993 budget and tax hikes, despite the fact that every single one of them voted against it, won’t it? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Facts](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bb73d2/32.png) [@The\_Facts](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Facts)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:53pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/33 "2010-03-18T20:53:36Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > :rolleyes: > > And then Aslan Obama will lead us all into heaven. > > Or, it will not pass, and the loony left will try to blame it on the Republicans, despite the fact that they control the White House, the House of Representatives, and the Senate–and held a filibuster proof majority in the Senate until recently. Republicans will then chuckle with amusement at the silly liberals, and gleefully vote them out of office in November, retaking the House of Representatives and dismaying many of the usual suspects on this very board. Dream on. It’ll be passed on Sunday. You gave it your best shot, and you lost. There is no heaven BTW … but we won’t let you make this country into hell either. ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 8:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/34 "2010-03-18T20:54:52Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > Why so dismissive? Because of the person I quoted’s “the republicans will be done” bit. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/35 "2010-03-18T21:00:48Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I’d like a cite for **Bricker** saying that. I don’t remember seeing him post anything close to “poor people should die if they can’t afford health care”. You’ll have to give me a few minutes, it’s in one of my health care treads on page 2 or 3. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:07pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/36 "2010-03-18T21:07:15Z")
> [@Bricker](#): > > 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? But the vegetarian who does consider it a moral wrong to eat meat would be hypocritical, right? There is a big moral difference between health reasons and not killing animal reasons. One hot dog makes you just a bit less healthy - causing even one animal to be killed for your food is closer to lots being killed than none being killed. If you think bailouts are bad because they increase the deficit, accepting the money would increase the deficit by just a little bit. If you think they are bad because they are socialism, accepting it is endorsing socialism, much worse. ---
**Author:** ![Voyager](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/voyager/32/133_2.png) [@Voyager](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Voyager)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:09pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/37 "2010-03-18T21:09:34Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > You’ll have to give me a few minutes, it’s in one of my health care treads on page 2 or 3. It was a direct response to a question from me. I wouldn’t knock him for it; I think a lot of conservatives think this way, but he was the only one honest enough to admit it. ---
**Author:** ![emacknight](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/3ec8ea/32.png) [@emacknight](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/emacknight)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/38 "2010-03-18T21:17:12Z")
> [@Oakminster](#): > > I’d like a cite for **Bricker** saying that. I don’t remember seeing him post anything close to “poor people should die if they can’t afford health care”. Here you go, I had to sift through a lot of crap to find this gem. [ > [@Dispelling US Health Care Myths: Part 1](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/dispelling-us-health-care-myths-part-1/525997/246): > > It is acceptable for people to die because they can’t afford the proper treatment. ]([http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246)) ---
**Author:** ![Oakminster](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/o/77aa72/32.png) [@Oakminster](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Oakminster)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/39 "2010-03-18T21:29:48Z")
> [@emacknight](#): > > Here you go, I had to sift through a lot of crap to find this gem. > > [url=[http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showpost.php?p=12041602&postcount=246)] Well I’ll be damned. It’s not an exact match, but it is reasonably close. Objection withdrawn. ---
**Author:** ![Mr\_Smashy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/2bfe46/32.png) [@Mr\_Smashy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Mr_Smashy)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 9:32pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899/40 "2010-03-18T21:32:44Z")
> [@ElvisL1ves](#): > > As distinct from what you’re doing, that is? Not sure what you mean by that, as I’m not currently in government, nor am I a Republican (or even all that conservative). Democrats are in charge of all three branches though. They have the power, the GOP does not… until Nov, when the previously mentioned backlash will probably put a whupass on Dems. PS It’s not the GOP that’s holding up the bill, it’s the Dems. In fact, the only thing bipartisan about this bill is the opposition against it. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/could-anti-healthcare-reform-rhetoric-backfire-on-the-republicans/532899.md?page=3)