The problem, it seems to me, is whether medical treatment is, in fact, “private goods.”
I, like most of the rest of the civilized world outside the US, consider that medical care is (or should be) a public service – like the highways, or (better) like the police department. Everyone pays through taxes, and those who need the services, get them.
The other point of view is that medical care is a commodity, to be bought and sold on the open market, like TV sets or cars. The rich can afford it, the poor can’t, and that’s life.
There is no difference whatsoever. I am puzzled why the Dem electorate expect their elected representatives to act in ways that are opposed to their own self interests. To me the disenchantment most of the Dem electorate experience is due to their unrealistic expectations of altruism to be exhibited by their representatives. Of course, this is carefully cultivated by their candidates.
To my mind it’s the Progressives who provide who little backbone the party ever had. And they by and large wrote it off when the single-payer option was thrown out like week-old bread before it was even opened. And while there are some remaining features to be happy about – keeping college kids on their parents’ plans, guaranteeing coverage even if there are pre-existing conditions, etc., the bulk of it is a massive tax give away to insurance companies. There’s just not all that much to go wild for.
The mystery to me is why the Republicans don’t love it.
This is actually the LEAST mysterious part of the whole thing. The Republicans don’t love it because the Democrats (and especially Obama) proposed it. That’s the sum total of “Republican thinking” now…“Whatever the Democrats and Obummer are for, we’re agin!”
I’ve been thinking about another question, maybe worth its own thread. The Republicans have been making proposals like the individual mandate for years, largely in response to Democratic proposals that they found unpalatable. Now President Obama comes along and starts, to everyone’s surprise, to revive old Republican proposals and put them on the table.
So here’s the thing. I had been thinking that the Republicans have been rejecting their own old ideas simply because they were now coming out of Obama’s mouth. But it seems to me equally possible that they ALWAYS hated the ideas they themselves proposed, they never genuinely supported them, and they just proposed them to give them an excuse to oppose the more progressive Democratic initiatives. And knowing that the Republican counter proposals were unpalatable to Democrats, they could rest comfortably with the idea that neither side’s bills would go anywhere.
During the Obama presidency the Republicans have finally been forced to reveal their genuine attitude toward their own old proposals, which is that they were sham ideas and never had genuine Republican support. We are now mistaking their rejection of their old proposals as a mere tactic of opposing all things Obama. In fact their genuine reasons for the rejection are even more craven, a product or producing sham legislative proposals for a decade or more.
As a second example, conservatives were all for tradeable emission permits, before liberals advocated them too. You see, liberals engage in policy analysis and are perfectly willing to adopt the other side’s good ideas. Conservatives in contrast have a habit of bad faith. For a third, fourth, fifth example, google Republican-Lucy-Football. Republicans will make agreements, only to reneg on them in the last minute. And modern conservatives don’t mind that this makes them appear as having weak character. They can after all replenish their egos by watching Fox News, an information source that consistently mangles its facts.
Sure, it could be both. But while I’ve heard tons of left-leaning pundits bashing Republicans for opposing everything Obama likes, I haven’t heard one of them suggest that they were never serious about their ideas when they proposed them years ago.
Actually, let me revise that. Back when the the Republicans proposed the ideas, there were plenty of pundits who considered them to be red herrings. But the pundits seem to have forgotten that, and now are unable to ascribe Republican motivations to anything other than other than rejection of Obama.
Off the top of my head, no. And I may be conflating this idea with so-called “poison-pill” amendments, which are inserted to be so unpalatable to the spirit of the rest of the bill as to render in incapable and unworthy of being passed. The Republicans claimed just a week or two back that the Dems had added unacceptable amendments to the “Violence Against Women Act” for that exact purpose. But I’ll give it some thought. I certainly remember as general phenomenon that there have been accusations for a long time in politics about politicians or parties proposing legislation under false pretenses that they knew perfectly well had no chance of passing and had only the purpose of trying to make the other side look bad if they opposed it.
Yeah, I’d say that the poison pill amendments are different from this. Hell, depending who you are, there are poison pill amendments in a lot of bills.
I’ll start with the question. As a conservative am I as outnumbered on this board as I appear to be? I know I’m not outgunned but am I outnumbered?
Dems need to knock off calling their opponents crazy/stupid. It is getting old and does lend some credence to the idea that you have forgotten your point.
The Individual Mandate does certainly appear to be unconstitutional. Never before has the Commerce Clause been used to regulate the failure to participate in a market. Of course the Commerce Clause has also been used to regulate being in the market in ways that are also probably unconstitutional.
Republicans have backed away from the Individual Mandate because they pissed off enough people that the Tea Party was formed. The Tea Party reminded them that Republicans were not just the warmongering wing of the Democrat party. They were reminded that the Constitution isn’t just a piece of paper. That Federal deficits and debt do really matter. That throwing decade long wars paid for by Chinese loans just for the hell of it is not exactly cool.
Dems could have passed HC reform in a constitutional manner. What liberals want is a single payer system that covers 100% of the people in the country (notice how I didn’t say US Citizens :rolleyes:). All they needed to do was pass a 15% tax to cover the 17% of the economy which is HC. I’ll assume the other 2% represents savings in some form or another. Of course politically this would have been suicidal which is why they didn’t do it and instead intentionally or not made a completely muddled mess of the ACA.
So do Dems have any backbone? I’m sure some Dems do but I think you were talking about politicians so in that case I would have to say no.
Sorry I was not clear… The Tea Party reminded them that Republicans were not just the warmongering wing of the Democrat party. They were reminded that the Constitution isn’t just a piece of paper. That Federal deficits and debt do really matter. That throwing decade long wars paid for by Chinese loans just for the hell of it is not exactly cool.
I bolded the one that applies to the Individual Mandate. My point being that Republicans in Federal government were once again on the hook for deficits, fiscally responsibility, following the rules as laid out by the Constitution, etc.
When the Republican party stops being crazy and stupid, we’ll stop calling them that. There was a time when we didn’t call them crazy or stupid. We just called them heartless and stingy. Change the dominant attributes of the party and we’ll change the epithet we use to refer to them.
Yeah. Deficits didn’t matter through the time of Bush 2’s presidency, when a Republican was in, and now that we have to try and figure out how to fund two wars and tax cuts for the wealthy, now deficits matter. When the topic of getting rid of those tax cuts comes up, the side that’s supposed to be for fiscal discipline digs in their heels and fights it to its last breath.
