Also, I don’t see how the GOP can realistically expect to be able to “roll back HCR.” They can pass whatever they want in the House; they still have a minority in the Senate (and remember… we’ve learned you need 60 votes to pass anything in the Senate now). And even passing that hurdle, they’d face a presidential veto. So really, talk about repealing or rolling back HCR is just masturbation.
If they had forced filibuster reform at the start of the 111th congress and rammed through meaningful legislation they would’ve done better. As it stands the dems were so busy trying to be ‘bipartisan’ with people who openly said their only goal was obstructionism that they pissed off their opponents and demoralized their base. A common feeling among dem voters seemed to be ‘even with supermajorities, the best the dems can do is quasi-plutocratic milquetoast legislation while getting endlessly duped by the GOP, so why work to give them bigger majorities’.
I’m not sure how they could have that view - I thought the Reps made it fairly clear that no matter what HCR was, they would vote against it.
That’s not really ‘debate’.
Maybe. I certainly don’t know. I tend to think that the Reps will continue with their blockade strategy and I think it might be effective for them, provide the economy sinks.
True and I admit I could totally be wrong.
All in all, I hope that by 2012 the economy is better, no matter who gets credit for it.
This is how I feel, although I would not characterize myself as their base - I certainly supported a lot of their ‘goals’ (especially with regard to healthcare) as they were originally presented.
So, I would say that I lost confidence with the Dems when the public option went off the table.
A fear I have is the dems will let them because the GOP will hold something hostage. Maybe a budget or a military funding bill. But they will say ‘unless you want X passed, repeal HCR’. Which bothers me personally because in 2014 (yay, only 4 years from now) people with pre-existing conditions will be able to get insurance.
The dems seem to be so easily duped that I honestly don’t know if they’ll fall for it. But they might.
Ah well. One of hte few things I really envy about the GOP is how competent they are at politics. I disagree with them on the issues and pragmatism, but even with smaller majorities they got stuff done under Bush.
They could try shutting down the government. They could say “we refuse to pass any budget until you sign the HCR repeal bill!”
They just might be that desperate. A few years from now, when the HCR takes full effect, people are going to discover that they actually like it and that they were being lied to by the GOP. Since it netted 0 GOP votes, the GOP doesn’t get to take any credit for it passing and they’ll be villainized for opposing it. The Republicans will pull out all the stops to keep that from happening.
This election is just another confirmation of selectorate theory. The key point in all of politics is to get reelected. Nothing else is really important on a big enough scale. So we will continue to get behavior geared toward winning over the selectorate and not toward improving the country. Thankfully, those two things often overlap in a democracy. Unfortunately, health care insurance isn’t one of those things.
Maybe with a divided government, we can get some good legislation through and limit the bullshit.
I sincerely doubt that.
Some thoughts:
I don’t think people will blame the Republicans if things don’t improve. People tend to blame the president, for the most part. Most people are ignorant, and imagine the president to have far more power than he actually has.
That said, IMHO Obama’s chances in 2012 have been improved by this election.
One of his big problems to this point was that “the professional left” kept dragging him leftwards (which is where I imagine he wants to be anyway) but while this was tempered with political implications for the 2010 election, there was no real check on his ability to enact his agenda. As a result he got it both ways, with the swing voters unhappy about how far he went (e.g. HCR) and liberals unhappy that he didn’t go even further.
But that’s all changed now. At this point, he has an excuse to his left flank as to why he can’t stay on the left, and even if he tries to stay to the left he will eventually have to compromise to the middle anyway. So everyone will be happier. The left-wingers give him points for trying and the swing voters are happier with the results.
Of course, this assumes that the economy recovers. The good news for him is that all economists assume that it will - the economy goes in cycles - and all he needs to do is catch the economy on the upswing in the Fall of 2012. But even if he doesn’t he’s better off than he is in 2010. Because he’s in a lot worse of a position if there’s unhappiness with the results and something concrete to get worked up about than if there’s unhappiness with the results and nothing specific to get worked up about.
And as Obama goes, so go the rest of the Democrats. IIRC they may have a structural problem in the Senate, since they will be defending more seats, but otherwise I think they’re a lot better positioned for 2012 than they were for 2010.
The flip side of that is that they will be unlikely to retake the House in 2012. Because if things are not going well, Obama will not be especially popular, and if things are going well, it’s not likely that 25+ House incumbents will be ousted.
So if I had to bet right now, I would say Obama wins in 2012, the Senate probably stays Democratic and the House stays Republican. IOW, no big changes.
<spit-take>
Rubio began his speech with what amounted to a sermon, which I found rather odd. Nonetheless, the substantive portion of his address was excellent, and struck exactly the right note.
Yep. As I said in another thread, they’re going to treat HCR as they’ve done a bunch of other issues they’ve purported to care so much about over the years - abortion, gay marriage, illegal immigration. Hell, they might even put forth a few bills calling for its repeal. But in the end they’re going to do two things - Jack and Shit, and Jack’s nowhere to be found.
Can you point out even one example of a country that has implemented Universal Healthcare that has decided to repeal it?
The HCR act is not universal healthcare, and most people probably won’t be able to difference between the old system and the new one.
The Democrats basically gave up any hope for holding the House by passing the Health Care bill. They knew at least 25 seats were going down based on that vote alone. There is 0% chance they give up that massive victory, won at such a cost.
And without the Senate there is nothing the House can really do anyways, and pin it on Obama. He won’t have to veto a damn thing.
The earliest date for repeal is 2012, and the GOP probably wants it that way - it’s an issue to run against Obama on. Even then I don’t think it’s likely they can get over 60 votes in the Senate in 2012. And by 2014 the major provisions will have kicked in, and the push for repeal will likely be gone. Obamacare is here to stay, IMO.
True on the first part (although it will likely make access as an individual better).
The second, however, is a bit dicey - if vast majorities see no difference, and it actually reduces the deficit, how will the fervor still be there for repeal in 2-4 years?
If HCR is to be repealed, it will likely have to be done soon. Because there’s a very good chance that HCR results in the collapse of the employer-based health insurance system, and if it does, then simply repealing HCR will just leave people with no insurance at all. At this point it will be politically unfeasible.
If they won’t be able to tell the difference, then there won’t be much desire to repeal it. The 30 million additional people who get health insurance sure will notice the difference though, and that’s not chump change. The middle class voters getting subsidies will notice the difference also.
I don’t think it will be repealed. I don’t think there’s a snowball’s chance in hell it will be repealed, in fact. Not because it will reduce the deficit; I don’t know if it will, and probably nobody will be able to tell if it does.
I was just pointing out a flaw in Blalron’s line of argument.
I agree with your point regarding what Wesley said, too. The Democrats knew the Civil Rights Act was going to lose them the South for generations, and they didn’t repeal that either. Not that HCR is the Civil Rights Act, or even close to it, but unless it’s a bad law, they’re not going to give up on it when so many congresscritters lost their seats by doing the right thing.
That’s a good example.
There are many people against the “Obamacare,” initiative.
But only a fool would pretend that this means monolithic opposition to the idea of universal health care; indeed, most people support that basic idea. (I don’t, admittedly, but I recognize I’m in the minority). For the most part, this has been a victory of rhetoric over substance: some people “oppose” the bill because it didn’t go far enough; others because they don’t actually understand what it does and, if asked about its individual components, claim to favor them.
And of course some people actually understand the bill and don’t like it, period.