The question then is, why? Possibilities include:
What’s YOUR theory for this strange behavior you see in Democrats?
Hmm, gee, that’s a toughie … thinkthinkthink …
Don’t insult other posters in Great Debates. This is a formal warning.
It didn’t pass because first of all it wasn’t universal health care. In every form the bill will still leave out millions of people. If 15 -20 million people aren’t going to be covered and the coverage won’t start till 2013, well that’s no benefit to anyone.
Second people fail to realize the parties in America aren’t very far apart on issues at all. Usually one takes a side and the other immediately rejects it.
Senators especially have to co-operate. For instance, Wyoming is a small state with a lot of Republicans. California is a HUGE state with a lot of Democrats. California NEEDS smaller states like Wyoming to get things for it.
UHC is nice but since, even at best, it would be years away from being implimented there’s no rush to it. Things like Water, land use and energy are programs that need more immediate attention.
So Democrats and Republicans work behind the scenes. A Democratic senator will say, “Give me the votes for water rights, and I’ll guarantee you UHC won’t pass.” The Republican will say, fine."
So the Democratic guy votes for UHC knowing darn well it won’t pass, but he gets the credit.
Politics in America are about getting credit for promises not for accomplishing anything. We as voters never hold our polticians responsible. We let them off the hook with “Well I tried.” Try telling your boss in the “real world” you tried. As Homer Simpson said, “You tried? What? Anyone can TRY.”
A huge failure was lack of any unified plan, and the fact that it couldn’t be implimented within a year. Anything that leaves million uncovered and can’t be implemented for years was bound to fail, as any bill that can be passed can be “unpassed” by a later congress.
Remember in the 60s, it only took about 10 or 11 months (it was under a year) for medicare to pass and people to start getting benefits.
Just to add a few more facts to the “debate”: health-care reform bills similar in almost every respect did pass in both the Senate and the House. So claiming that “the Dems” didn’t pass health-care reform isn’t the whole story.
As discussed above many compromises were made to get to 60 votes in the Senate, some of them rather unseemly (Nelson’s gambit in particular). This led to a bill that few want to fully own, especially now that the Democrats no longer have 60 seats in the Senate (or at least won’t once Brown is seated). The House doesn’t trust the Senate to pass a reconciliation bill (and thus are unwilling to force a party-line vote accepting the Senate bill unmodified), and the Senate is rendered completely impotent by the rather unprecedented unity of the minority party in demanding 60 votes for any action at all.
All that said, it’s not entirely clear that the process is well and truly dead, and I would put the odds of a signing statement at maybe 25-30% at this point.
No benefit to those 15-20 million people, sure, but to anyone? The number currently uncovered is larger than that, so if you just subtract 15-20 million from that number, you’ll find a bunch of people for whom the bill is a benefit.
If enough Republicans agreed to support health care reform in exchange for Democrats say supporting a law to ban abortion except for the life of the mother, rape, and incest or banning gay marriage would you support it?
Take it to another thread, Curtis LeMay. I’ll thank you not to hijack this one.
I’m not hijacking. I’m asking if the conservatives asked for a tall order like that in exchange for supporting a UHC bill would the liberal members of this board support it.
And you are welcome to ask that question in another thread. Here, it’s a hijack.
No, what I’m saying is that if you elect a Democrat instead of a Republican, he’ll vote the way the Republicans would on most issues; in large part because that’s what they are paid off to do. Outside of some social issues that business doesn’t care about enough to bribe them over and the sheer craziness of the Republicans, there’s little advantage to choosing one over the other; they vote how they are paid.
Corrupt cowards. Paid off by the insurance industry, terrified of the Republicans.
What makes them terrified? What hold have the Pubs got over the Dems?
This. Fact is, they were not as effective in communicating the merits of UHC as were the Republicans in demonizing them. No amount of whining will change that fact.
This is what happens with conciliation. Hillary was right. You need to start out with the proposition that UHC is the goal then go from there. Debate its merits, win the arguments. As it were, Obama started with a pansy-assed version of UHC and the Republicans smelled weakness and pounced.
Yes, it worked out so well back when Obama-care was Hillary-care.
Didn’t it?
I apologize for responding to the accusation of hatred. Thanks for pointing out the error of my ways. Best wishes to all.
The Democrats’ own cowardice. All the Republicans need to do is spout a few tired lines about how the Democrats are"soft on X", “liberal”, “socialist”, or “tax and spend” and the Democratic leadership collectively curls up in a ball and whimpers. The Republicans are a weak, divided party, more so than in decades; but it doesn’t matter much when the Democrats will simply cave in whenever a Republican yells at them.
Money. The health care industry set 1500 lobbyists loose on the pols. They were lined out the door threatening to withhold any money and to bury it into the repubs., who would be glad to sell out. How do you compete with that. Obama defused Pharma by giving them an exemption before he even started health care. He probably calculated that between them ,they had too much power to get it passed. But it may be that the insurance companies have enough power to win it alone. It would be sad.
But Obama-care is NOT Hillary-care. And I didn’t say that it will be easy. It won’t. But arguing for UHC should be the start off point, not some compromised version. Otherwise, you’d end up in a position where you’ll be fighting for crumbs. Also, they didn’t do well in defining the argument.
Frank Luntz .the repub consultant, taught the repubs how to name and frame issues to get the results the powerful want. Nobody can be stupid enough to think UHC is socialism. But calling it the proper nasty name seems to be effective. The Estate Tax becomes a “Death Tax”. Wow they want to tax people for dieing. We can’t have that in America.
Palins “death panels” are another example. It adds an emotional element to the conversation that stops intelligent discourse in its tracks. It has been shown to work well in the electorate.
When Obama went to the repub lunch last week, he called out Luntz for that. So ,by scaring people and spending a ton of money, the repubs can get their way. Even if their programs are hurting the average voter.
This isn’t really an explanation. What you’re saying is that although the Pubs are - and appear to be - weak and divided, the Dems fear them for more or less imaginary reasons. Further, the President is mysteriously incapable of leading them away from these imagined constraints toward actions the electorate would strongly approve.
Sounds fanciful.