Bipartisanship: It's a trap!

[Askthepizzaguy]

Lets assume for argument's sake that your assertions are not only correct, but also forgiving. Let’s assume that the GOP has absolutely no ideas of their own on health care. Not one single solitary one. Let’s assume that they are simply doing whatever they can to stop healthcare reform completely

That's not quite what I'm asserting though. They have ideas, but they don't seem willing to vote for a bill that incorporates some, but not most, of their ideas. Which is fine, that's their right as the minority party. They can wait until they are in the majority and pass a mostly-GOP version of healthcare. (Don't hold your breath, the status quo suits them fine)

The disingenuous argument is being presented that Obama/the Dems aren't listening to the GOP. If that's the case, the bill wouldn't be filled with pages of their ideas; ideas which, when Republicans are asked if they would vote for the bill if those ideas are included, they still flatly say "no". So, unless the bill is written mostly by Republicans, they won't vote for it. The Dems are listening to the GOP, but they won't be doing things like privatizing medicare, so it's silly to propose it. It's odd to assume that when the Dems control the Congress and the White House (And I use the word "control" very loosely here...) they will pass a mostly GOP bill which includes ideas which are the exact reverse of what they want to accomplish, such as deregulation and privatization.

If you took a poll on how the public feels about the GOP's proposals, you'd get far more opposition to it. Health care reform in most people's minds does not mean less government involvement. The problem people have with the current system is that costs are flying out of control, in the grip of insurance companies and other interests which are private and for-profit. They want some price controls, or costs controls, or some regulation and oversight, some justification for the cost increases here, when they aren't flying out of control in other modern industrialized countries who cover more people. When the GOP proposes an idea which even remotely fits into it as a workable option, it generally gets included. When they propose reducing the existing government involvement, the Dems balk, as most people would. That can only favor those who are rolling in riches, while kicking those who have no viable healthcare system of their own.

How does any of that justify passing what is widely regarded as a bad bill, full of buy-offs, accounting tricks, and massive new entitlements that even the Democrat's most rosy projections said would fall off the ledge into the massive ocean of unfunded liabilities we've already got after about 10 years?

Source? The Congressional Budget Office says the bill is a cost-saver, and it isn't an unfunded mandate either.

And, in that respect, aren't the Republicans more accurately representing the wishes of the people by just saying "no"? People certainly want health care reform, but I've never witnessed such an outpouring of dissatisfaction with a particular piece of legislation in my life.

Where are the polls about how the public feels about the GOP plan? You would find such dissatisfaction. A majority supports a public option, which is much more in line with Democratic principles than GOP principles. And it's not a representation of the public by just saying "no", they want action. They just aren't really thrilled about this heavily-compromised proposal.

[Ironside]

It's simple, they dug themself into a corner. Obama listens to them, he gets credit for being a unifier (as he promised), Obama incorporates their ideas, he gets credit for it (for improving the healthcare). Since Republicans have decided to stonewall anything as thier main strategy, even at the cost of the American people (a failed bill will stop a reform for at least a decade), they cannot stop doing it without giving tribute to Obama. Since being obtrusive works and they don't have a decent alternative, they'll keep doing it until it starts to backfire.
A strong Republican leader might be able to get a decent credit for normalizing the US politics, but they don't seem to have one, so the tribute would go to Obama.

[Lemur]

This seems both timely and appropriate:

[Beskar]

*Post on how Republicans screw-everything up and blame Obama and the Democrats*]

I completely agree with that post.

[Husar]

I like the idea because the snow should not be plowed away!

[Louis VI the Fat]

* Incisive Facebook comment *

winwinwin!

[Vuk]

Come on, Bipartisanship my behind. Bipartisanship is a joke. If I want one thing and you want the exact opposite, we can sit down and talk all we want, but unless we change each other's minds (which in this case will not happen), we will not agree on anything. If they (Democrats and Republicans) were really interested in Bipartisanship and fixing the current healthcare situation they would lay aside all thoughts of sweeping reform, get together all the things they can agree on (tort reform, etc) that would help fix the current system (there are actually more than you would think), quickly pass those to 'put the finger in the dyke' so to speak, then go back to the fighting to get their opposing plans passed. Neither side gives a rat's tail about Bipartisanship, they only care about appearing like they do to the public. You are fooling yourself if you think that Obama is seriously trying to work with Republicans on this. (and Republicans are smart enough to know otherwise)

[Beskar]

You are fooling yourself if you think that Obama is seriously trying to work with Republicans on this. (and Republicans are smart enough to know otherwise)

Self-defeating logic for the win?

[Vuk]

Self-defeating logic for the win?

Really, just how?

[PanzerJaeger]

The disingenuous argument is being presented that Obama/the Dems aren't listening to the GOP. If that's the case, the bill wouldn't be filled with pages of their ideas; ideas which, when Republicans are asked if they would vote for the bill if those ideas are included, they still flatly say "no". So, unless the bill is written mostly by Republicans, they won't vote for it. The Dems are listening to the GOP, but they won't be doing things like privatizing medicare, so it's silly to propose it. It's odd to assume that when the Dems control the Congress and the White House (And I use the word "control" very loosely here...) they will pass a mostly GOP bill which includes ideas which are the exact reverse of what they want to accomplish, such as deregulation and privatization.

I would certainly question your assertion that bill is "filled with GOP ideas", but regardless, I'm not really sure what you expect. Anyone who follows politics understands that true bipartisanship only emerges when clear public consensus forces the two parties to come together, or more commonly, the opposition party to fall in line.

Recall the votes for the war in Iraq. Do you really think all those Democrats really wanted to authorize a war? However, public consensus after 9/11 was so strongly in favor of pretty much whatever Bush wanted, opposition was not politically viable for all but those in the most liberal districts and states.

Obama, and more specifically this bill, have no such public support. In fact, poll after poll shows a public highly opposed to it. What impetus does the GOP have to support a bill that includes measures diametrically opposed to their - and their constituents - core beliefs..... that also happens to be political suicide?

I mean, really, speaking from a standpoint of simple political survival, why would the Republicans willingly choose to attach themselves to such a disaster of a bill? Its not even polling particularly well among Democrats, much less independents and the right wing GOP base.

For the good of the country? Hardly. Despite what MSNBC would lead you to believe, health care is certainly not a public crisis. A growing concern that needs to be addressed? Certainly. But not the kind of emergency that required rushing through this abortion of a bill. Olympia Snowe, hardly a radical right-winger, said it best:

Unfortunately, the issue continued to be driven by artificial deadlines. I said from the outset, forget the deadlines. Let's just discuss how we can build strong support for the right policy in crafting health care.
Health care is a complex issue and not to mention costly. We had to get it right, there are so many facets to it. But unfortunately, they were really obsessed by arbitrary timetables that did not fit the complexity of the issue and the scale of it.

To be completely honest, this left wing whining about a united and strong… err obstructionist… opposition just seems to be cover for the fact that the Democrats completely squandered their supermajority. The Dems run everything, and up until a few weeks ago, the Republicans were essentially a powerless opposition. The failure of Healthcare Reform is due solely to the weak and ineffectual leadership of Obama and the congressional Democrats, and the fact that they were not able to get it done with a supermajority highlights how poorly crafted the legislation is.

If you took a poll on how the public feels about the GOP's proposals, you'd get far more opposition to it.

Orlly?

Health care reform in most people's minds does not mean less government involvement. The problem people have with the current system is that costs are flying out of control, in the grip of insurance companies and other interests which are private and for-profit. They want some price controls, or costs controls, or some regulation and oversight, some justification for the cost increases here, when they aren't flying out of control in other modern industrialized countries who cover more people. When the GOP proposes an idea which even remotely fits into it as a workable option, it generally gets included. When they propose reducing the existing government involvement, the Dems balk, as most people would. That can only favor those who are rolling in riches, while kicking those who have no viable healthcare system of their own.

Yep, please, someone take me out of the grip of those evil, amazingly profitable, insurance barons and place me gently in the arms of the government.

Seriously, did you crib that from Rachel Maddow?

Source? The Congressional Budget Office says the bill is a cost-saver, and it isn't an unfunded mandate either.

Yikes. Lets start with the doctor fix, and go from there. Clever accounting tricks aside, the math involved in insuring 30 million more people for less money just doesn’t work.

Where are the polls about how the public feels about the GOP plan? You would find such dissatisfaction. A majority supports a public option, which is much more in line with Democratic principles than GOP principles. And it's not a representation of the public by just saying "no", they want action. They just aren't really thrilled about this heavily-compromised proposal.

“Aren’t really thrilled” is the understatement of the century. I’m sorry, I just don’t buy the Kos narrative that the bill didn’t go far enough to the left. It just doesn't jive with the polling I've seen.

As for the polls you and Keith Olbermann constantly cite showing such strong support for the public option, they’re nothing but a farce built on misleading semantics.

Earlier in the week, after pollsters for NBC dropped the word "choice" from their question on a public option, they found that only 43 percent of the public were in favor of "creating a public health care plan administered by the federal government that would compete directly with private health insurance companies."