Honest Question: Why are the republicans so pissed about this health care thing?

Great Debates
21

There’s two sides to the Republican opposition to HCR, one of which is naked political calculation: Obama wanted a comprehensive, bipartisan bill that would, politically, lift him into the realm of good-to-great presidents and buoy the Democrats along the way; Republicans had little to gain, in their opinion, by co-operating, while defeating anything the Democrats proposed had a lot to offer, starting with hobbling a Democratic president’s showpiece legislation and continuing with making a heavily Democratic Congress look totally ineffectual.

On top of that, they had the example of 1994, when their defeat of Clinton’s attempt to do comprehensive health care reform lead to Republican control of both houses of Congress. Without the benefit of hindsight, the political strategy was pretty reasonable, with one drawback: It was all-or-nothing, and if they lost, they lost big.

Ideologically, a lot of Republicans probably weren’t that troubled by the bill–Chuck Grassley is already trying to take credit for parts of it.

22

The sad part is it hasn’t damaged the GOP. Their image is shit, but 538 predicts that in the 2010 election they will pick up 4-5 net senate seats and have about a 20-40%ish chance of taking over the house.

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/03/democrats-now-project-to-hold-average.html

The extremism is bad for the country and bad for politics, but it isn’t hurting them electorally. David Frum was lamenting that in the past both parties wanted to solve serious problems, they just had different methods. The democrats preferred government solutions while the GOP preferred private solutions. Now it seems the GOP has no interest in even solving issues. They have no realistic/meaningful health care plan. In fact the Obama plan was supposedly heavily based on the GOP plan from 1993. That is how extreme they’ve gotten, they now call their own ideas from 17 years ago a communist plot. In another 17 years they will think Palin was too smart to be president and Steve King is too secular.

http://scienceblogs.com/dispatches/2010/03/obama_health_proposal_1993_rep.php

If they do take over the house and Boehner is the speaker, I’m not going to be surprised if they push for impeachment on some trumped up charge.

23

That sounds about right. There was talk not long ago of the GOP becoming the “party of no”. I’d say their behavior on healthcare reform fits that bill. They seemed to keep screaming that they had no input in the process, yet the only real suggestion I heard was “start over”.

I could even be sympathetic to that that demand if I thought they were acting in good faith on getting something done. But the fact is they fought it in the 90’s, did nothing about it when they were in power for eight years years, and fought it again this time around. I honestly think they wanted nothing more than to have the status quo continue uninterrupted.

24

I was on another board talking with some folks about this. Their opinion was that there is nothing wrong with the system we have. Here is a quote:

This particular person’s point is that critical care is available to folks, and that’s all that matters. Doesn’t matter that people go bankrupt. Doesn’t matter that the hospital overcharges insured folks to cover uninsured folks. Doesn’t matter that the insurance company cuts sick people.

25

If they genuinely do prefer a private solution, then why the heck would they have had a realistic or meaningful plan for government solutions?

What would the party have done differently, in your view, if they’d had an interest in solving the issue via private solutions?

26

Very simply, they would have proposed some.

27

Well, they proposed ending the antitrust exemption, and talked a lot about dropping barriers to interstate competition, plus there was that whole bit about tort reform; what more would you have expected from them if, instead of not wanting to solve problems, they genuinely did want to solve problems but preferred private solutions and not government ones?

28

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20100324/us_time/08599197475700

Insurers Back Effort to Make Health Care Reform Succeed

Uh, what?

29

The article makes a terrific point: “Enroll America will focus on enticing the final 5% of Americans who will be eligible for health insurance under the new law but whom congressional budget scorers do not expect to enroll. On a state-by-state basis, the group will work to create an easy application process for benefits, including access to enrollment at doctors’ offices, pharmacies and government agencies that provide other benefits like food stamps. ‘All of these groups have a business reason to do this,’ says Pollack, who notes that his new coalition would include ‘many groups that don’t really see eye to eye’.”

Now that a whole bunch of people need to buy insurance or face a punishment, of course it makes sense for ‘groups that don’t really see eye-to-eye’ to step up and work that new incentive during an enhanced pitch.

30

I never heard much about how they proposed to encourage these private solutions, or even what they would be.

Tort reform and antitrust exemptions are good, but I think the interstate competition bit was well-intentioned but would have backfired.

It just seemed like they did a lot of fussing but never came up with any strong, clear ideas of what to do.

31

I think part of it is pure politics. I believe public health care will end up being like public education or social security or desegregation - once it gets going, people will decide they like it. And the Democrats will get most of the credit for it (especially now). So it’s going to hurt Republicans in future elections.

Second, it probably is going to raise taxes. Republicans always hate taxes. Especially when they don’t get to control who pays them.

Third, there are special interests who are benefitting from our current private health care system. They’re going to lose money competing against public health care. So they’ve been contributing to the politicians who oppose public health care. And a lot of these have been Republicans.

32

I get that, but I just want to make sure we separate out two different points.

The quote in question essentially divided folks up into three camps: those who prefer government solutions, those who prefer private solutions, and those who have no interest in even solving issues. So regardless of whether you think it was a well-intentioned idea that would have backfired, do you consider such an approach to fall into the first or second or third camp? (Especially, y’know, when coupled with that whole tort-reform-and-exemptions thing you said was good – except, again, leave aside the part about whether you think it’s good when addressing whether it’s the first or second or third.)

His point was that there’s a big difference between the second and third – so if the Republican approach was the third, and the Democratic approach was the first, then what more would a “second camp” approach involve (given that it’s supposed to center on private solutions rather than government ones)?

33

From what I’ve gathered (without delineating between what’s rhetoric and what is honestly believed):

  • Anything the federal government touches turns to crap. It will ruin our once-great system of health care
  • It’s too expensive, we’re stealing from our children, we’ll go bankrupt, lose our AAA rating, kill the dollar, etc.
  • It’s a power grab. The democrats want to make the country dependent on the government. That’s all they care about. Enter fascism, tyranny, etc.
  • The individual mandate forcing people to buy insurance is unacceptable
  • It’s going to run businesses big and small into bankruptcy
  • Nobody wants it
  • At the same time it must be killed it before people become addicted to it.
  • They don’t want to pay for health care for the indigent.
  • They lost on several fronts and can lose bigger
34

You want the federal government to take away the authority of the states to regulate health insurance? How is this a conservative principle? I thought you guys were all about local control, states rights and all that jazz.

You really are just making it up as you go along, right?

35

I am not a Republican, yet I see this health care bill as a disaster. Our country is bankrupt. There IS NO MONEY. As we are seeing throughout the country, government is unable to deliver on their promises any longer and the infrastructure is crumbling around them. Just look at California. From any perspective, liberal, conservative, independent, libertarian, this is a disaster. This mandates EVERYONE buy insurance from the insurance companies. This gives more power to the insurance companies. It does everything possible to perpetuate the exact same system we have today. For those who support it let me ask you this: What is the more ethical and compassionate option for our government at this point, to promise people and make claims that they can deliver goods and services that they really can’t and sucker people into an insolvent system that will eventually quit working due to fiscal reality setting in leaving people TRULY out of luck, or coming clean with people and cutting back on spending and transitioning people towards private savings accounts or other non-government alternatives while striving to take care of those truly dependent on the system? It seems an easy choice to me, yet when I hear the liberals taking the moral high ground it really pisses me off because I can see that those who truly believe that our Federal Government can follow through on its commitments will be in the worst shape when that illusion is shattered.

A major reason for our economic crisis is the fact that our government is completely insolvent and unable to fulfill its commitments. We need to reform Medicare and Social Security, not pretend that we can cover millions more! As I’ve said, I am an Independent, but one thing that bothers me about the liberals especially is that they seem to think that the laws of economics don’t apply to the government. They just say “the government will pay”. Well where does the government get the money to pay for something? They either steal it from someone else or debase the money by printing more of it causing the standard of living to go down for everyone. Then there is more who need assistance, thus perpetuating a fraudulant system, and accelerating our national bankruptcy. The only way out is accepting the fact that we need to balance the budget, cut spending across the board and live within our means. If we don’t do this the only inevitable consequence is hyperinflation and the destruction of our currency. This is what we are on the verge of. Many great economists and trends forecasters see this coming within a few years. This new health care legislation will only accelerate the process.

What this health care bill does is put a government bureaucrat between you and your doctor, eliminates medical independence, privacy, and patient choice. It gives the Health Insurance Industry massive new power over our medical system. Why not allow medical freedom once again? Why not allow people to seek safer, alternative treatments, and natural supplements to treat illness? Why should we force them into a “sick-care” system which promotes needless surgery and harmful prescription drugs?

There are many people who are very healthy, such as myself, who don’t need or want health insurance. I would prefer to save the money, see alternative doctors, nutritionists, chiropractors and personal trainers, and spend the extra money on healthy food to eat, rather than spend it on insurance for medical care that I would never use. You may say, “but what if you are in an accident, or get cancer?” Well, I probably won’t because I am very careful and eat healthfully. In a free society, I should be allowed to take that risk.

So, there are many objections. The main one obviously is that we are completely broke. This will just accelerate the bankruptcy that is inevitable. When gas is $8 a gallon and a loaf of bread is $15, ask yourself whether it was worth it to have a massive subsidy to the Insurance and Pharmaceutical Industries in the form of health “reform” People are so ignorant of the economic implications of government meddling.

36

Perhaps I’m not understanding your question, still (maybe I’m up too late).

Are you asking do I think that antitrust exemptions, tort reform and interstate competition are government solutions or not? They are solutions achieved by changing government regulations.

I don’t know what private solutions Republicans would put forth. If they had some in mind, I would expect them to talk about what they thought would work, and how they thought the solutions might be implemented.

As to the OP, I read it as pertaining to the Republicans I know and interact with daily. Maybe that makes a difference as well.

37

No, they’re just very distantly related.

38

The federal government is not bankrupt, not even remotely close to NO MONEY.

Name one obligation the federal government has defaulted on. Name just one.

This is factually false.

Since there is no public option, and all insurance is provided by private companies, this is factually false.

They already have massive power over our medical system. This bill reduces their power.

Because they don’t work, and millions would be fleeced out of their health care dollars with no medical benefit.

Only if you sign a Do Not Resuscitate waiver so that when the other guy who is not so careful mows you down, we don’t have to pay for your medical care.

39

The problem is that this concept vanished a long time ago. It’s no longer a debate about how to best achieve a best way to achieve a goal. And this is a very significant point.

The debate has been shifted away from “most logical” to “most moral.” The distinction represents a shift from differing opinions to flat out contempt for the other side.

When you are working with a person you respect, at any level of respect, there is a measure of consideration for the points they are making, and there is an attempt to explain your point to them. This is gone.

I don’t want to pin this on the Republican party because frankly I don’t have a dog in this fight, I don’t care about either party.

But I noticed a few years ago the nature of the campaign commercials changed. It’s not about who has a better plan, it’s about shitting on the other person’s plan, and painting them as morally inferior.

I had a boss like this, who painted all debates as a question of morals. She was morally superior, so her ideas were correct. To disagree meant that you were morally inferior, you were choosing to do things wrong.

She would say things like, “I’m a hard worker, I have a strong work ethic, and I don’t take shortcuts. Which is why we should do things this way.” To suggest any alternative implied that you were lazy, weak, and trying to half ass it.

The result was that communication stopped. She didn’t have to explain why something would work better, she just had to say that it WAS better. And the worst part was that because her way was morally superior, she couldn’t do it any other way, despite being shown it was wrong. She’s painted the alternative as morally wrong, so it can’t be used.

That is why the Republicans are so pissed right now. They painted this issue as a question of morals. To agree with HCR meant that you were inferior.

But they lost, and now they have to HOPE things get worse. How fucked up is that? There are only two political parties, and one of them WANTS things to get worse. NEEDS things to get worse, or else it will show that they aren’t morally superior.

40

Well, let me see if I could maybe clarify it by open-ended analogy.

Here’s that quote, again: “in the past both parties wanted to solve serious problems, they just had different methods. The democrats preferred government solutions while the GOP preferred private solutions. Now it seems the GOP has no interest in even solving issues.”

I take that to highlight three possible approaches to a problem:

  1. We prefer government solutions.
  2. We prefer private solutions.
  3. We’re not interested in solutions.

To make sense of that, consider a problem – any problem, really – and consider those three differing approaches: what do you figure someone in the first camp would propose, and ditto for someone in the second camp, and ditto for someone in the third?

The accusation is that Republicans, in proposing that we end the antitrust exemption while dropping assorted barriers to interstate competition, are in the third camp rather than the second; I thought it was a second-camp approach, and that’s why I’m asking for an example of what – if not this – a hypothetical second-camp approach would look like.