In theory you generally do not get good policy when it is wholly driven by one side or the other who snubs their nose at anything the minority wants. They are the minority so fuck 'em.
They parrot the bipartisanship meme because the minority of Americans (which is not a small minority) does not want to feel sidelined and told to fuck off, neener, neener, neener. To keep them placated lip service is paid so they feel they are still being heard.
Ideally both sides would tend to rein in the excesses of the other and come to a compromise. Hence bipartisanship = good. Of course it does not always work like that but I think that is where the notion comes from.
Of course in the current political climate it is the Reps reflexively saying “No” to anything the Dems do. Period. Doesn’t matter if it is a good idea. Doesn’t even matter if Reps actually like the idea. Dems said do it, reps oppose it. Hell, they’ve even switched positions they have held just because Obama got all bipartisan on them and said he liked “X” idea. Reps immediately flip flopped. Worse, the Reps float no substantive ideas of their own. Their one idea is to say no to anything Obama says.
So, I am with DtC for the current Congress. The Reps have proven themselves recalcitrant to the point of self-parody. I think the only proper response is to just wholly ignore them and get whatever can be done on their own done.
Of course, the AP article contains a factual error: In fact Republicans have NO right to kill health care reform via filibuster, they merely have the desire to to do so.
In the current congress, Republicans have staked everything on making sure health care reform fails. Here’s how the scenario goes:
Republican: “This health care bill sucks! It doesn’t have provision A, B, or C.”
Democrat: “If we added provisions A, B, and C to the bill, would you vote for it?”
Republican: “Fuck no. I’m voting against health care reform no matter what.”
Democrat: “OK then, why should we include provisions A, B and C in the bill?”
If compromise won’t entice any republicans to vote for the bill, then compromise is foolish, because it doesn’t accomplish anything. And since any Republicans who broke ranks and voted for the bill would be eaten alive by the VRWC, no Republican will dare vote for the bill, no matter what language it contains.
Therefore, any compromise bill is simply vaporware, and any time spent wishing for a compromise bill is utterly wasted.
The options are:
Pass the Democrat’s version of Health Care Reform.
The status quo.
Since the status quo is intolerable, where does that leave us?
Also: Magellan01, I hate to repeat myself, but you do realize the Senate already invoked cloture and passed the healthcare bill back in December right? Do I need to provide a link?
The bill won’t cover illegal immigrants BUT it is illegal for the provider to ask if they’re in the country legally.
Huge costs that somehow magically won’t create a larger deficit which apparently done by paying for the system for THREE YEEARS before it goes into effect. OK, technically you win so next time you buy a new car, offer to make a year of payments before you drive it off the lot.
I think the reason health-care cost are as high as they are is because they assume that it will be paid by MegaInsuranceCorp. This bill does not address that issue so I don’t see them going down. Wait and see if it does go up but certainly no cost savings in the future.
I’m having a hard time reconciling your implication that people are lead like sheep by sound bites and personality rather than facts (and I do agree with you) but yet universal sufferage for any citizen 18 or older is a desired trait of our democracy (a monthly thread here on SD). It’s like saying that Americans are idiots that don’t study the issues but they still need to have a say in our government. If true, does anyone wonder why we elect the crap@$$ politicians that we do?
Just talking in theory on why bipartisanship may be valued. Pretty sure we could come up with examples where it worked well and others where it became such an over-compromised mess as to be near worthless or worse.
Awhile back the Economist magazine did a long, hard look at what they termed a benevolent dictatorship. Basically the notion that you get a dictator who is actually a nice guy and wants to do the best by his country.
Been awhile since I read it but the upshot was they did not perform as well as democracies where there were opposing ideas. Turns out the marketplace of ideas tended to work better because no one side is so smart as to have all the answers right all the time.
I’ll see if I can find a link to the article (was interesting).
Nothing will change, illegals will still go to the emergency room. They can do that now.
They, however aren’t going to be able to get subsides. They will have to purchase Health Insurance on their own. Are you sure you understand the issue, because this argument here makes no sense. An illegal alien can purchase insurance now, so it doesn’t matter if the provider cards them.
I’m guessing you were upset paying taxes for the interstate before it was done, right? It takes time to build big systems. You have to pay for them while you’re building them. The fact remains the current Senate bill will lower the deficit over ten years and massively lower it (more than a trillion by some estimates) over twenty years.
I addressed this above.
With all due respect to what you think, I care more what the CBO thinks. The Senate bill will lower costs for everyone (except those paying for nearly worthless High Deductible plans now, but they will get much, much better coverage for their money). The Senate bill will cover 30 million people with no coverage now. The Senate bill will lower the deficit. The Senate bill will kill pre-existing conditions.
All politicians try and shade the truth to their advantage. The Republicans however, are outright lying about this.
Oh, okay, if you’re going to point at the clauses requiring supermajority votes for treaty ratifications or impeachment convictions, you can also explain their relevance to health care legislation, Sport.
**magellan01 ** how do you expect to be taken seriously when you misstate the Constitution with regard to the Senate, then tell other people to “look it up”? If conservatives had good reasons to oppose the health care bill they wouldn’t have to make shit up.
Every other industrialized country in the world has UHC, lower health care costs, and better health outcomes. The only question remaining is if the people opposing UHC are evil or just stupid.
Senator Byrd just wrote a letter to the editor of one of his home state newspapers. He said that the health care reform bill has already passed the Senate with 60 votes, and if further changes need to be made to the bill, and those changes are primarily about reducing the deficit, then he supports using reconciliation for those purposes.
Furthermore, he says that those who errantly claim that reconciliation would force health care reform down the throats of an unwanting public are making claims that “[resemble] more the barkings from the nether regions of Glennbeckistan.”
Link. So if you indeed support Senator Byrd’s view on not using reconciliation for health care reform, surely he has cleared up the matter for you.
What the public doesn’t like about the bill is that it does not include a public option. (See here.) But that can always be added later and is no reason not to pass it, as is, now.
