U.S. Politics 18

[Shryke]

There are individual politicians and groups ideas of what they should do instead, but the party has no firm position on the issue.

They should have delayed the repeal vote as you say .... if you assume they actually care about the whole issue.

They are doing it now because they know it will fail and they want that failure out of the way and forgotten, but still able to be put the attempt on campaign literature in 2 years.

They've had ages to formulate a plan and have produced nothing, as Swordfish notes.* Because they have no interest in it.

*Though this may also have to do with the fact that the Democrats passed the previous plans the GOP was previously, over GOP opposition. :) It seems they must desperately scramble now to not agree with the Democrats.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The real question is why aren't they ready?

because i don't know if you noticed this, but this whole healthcare debate has been around for a little while.

I know it hasn't gotten a lot of press and stuff, but...

;)

Because it's complicated stuff, the committee lineups have all changed, and there are buttloads of new members who weren't part of those debates or bill drafting. So it takes time to get it all ramped up, get votes on the various proposals, and it's still only January.

The oft-repeated claim that the GOP had no ideas or alternatives of its own is just ridiculous. Just for starters, you could easily say there was no point since everyone knew any such alternative was an exercise in futility anyway. But in fact, various alternatives were drafted and offered. Here's one version from the last Congress, 219 pages or so long. I don't know how that amounts to "no ideas", etc.

http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Stories/2009/November/03/republican-health-bill.aspx

[TerraPrime]

No, actually, they have. There are various versions floating around, but it takes time to get them in the right form and get agreement on them. Personally, and I argue this with some conservatives, I think they should have delayed the repeal vote until they were ready to do it all at once.

This seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Why didn't they work with the Democrats in the first place to get rid of the parts that they don't want? Either it's because they can't get enough muscle to get the Democrats to give in on those issues, or that they're using it as a political tool. In the first case, they should know that they haven't won enough seats in the Senate to overcome a presidential veto. So, all this talk is just that, talk. In the second case, they're just doing a series of kabuki theater to mollify their base.

So, either way, it's a lot of motion for nothing, as far as I can tell.

Also, it sends a rather bad message that laws passed in one Congress will be overturned when the next group comes in. I think it's unseemly.

[Swordfish]

This seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Why didn't they work with the Democrats in the first place to get rid of the parts that they don't want? Either it's because they can't get enough muscle to get the Democrats to give in on those issues, or that they're using it as a political tool.

Is there some reason it can't be both?

Also, it sends a rather bad message that laws passed in one Congress will be overturned when the next group comes in. I think it's unseemly.

Ha! That cracked me up for some reason.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

This seems like an exercise in futility to me.

Why didn't they work with the Democrats in the first place to get rid of the parts that they don't want?

I think Krugman nailed this. There are some fundamental disagreements on issues of principle where the two parties do not agree, and where compromise is not possible. At the very core, Democrats wanted to make health care an entitlement, and Republicans didn't. There's no "work with" possible on that.

Either it's because they can't get enough muscle to get the Democrats to give in on those issues, or that they're using it as a political tool. In the first case, they should know that they haven't won enough seats in the Senate to overcome a presidential veto. So, all this talk is just that, talk. In the second case, they're just doing a series of kabuki theater to mollify their base.

So, either way, it's a lot of motion for nothing, as far as I can tell.

It clearly has a political motive, but I don't see why that is necessarily improper. The key parts of the ACA don't kick in until after the 2012 election, and that means it is going to be an issue in that election. As it should be. So, the GOP is trying to ensure that voters have some bright lines and votes of record on which to judge candidates. They'll pass an alternative in the House that preserves the pre-existing condition exclusion, does something about lifetime caps, etc., but doesn't contain a mandate or entitlement. And the choice between that and that ACA as drafted will be placed at the centerpoint of the 2012 election.

Also, it sends a rather bad message that laws passed in one Congress will be overturned when the next group comes in. I think it's unseemly.

I don't see why that is unseemly, but I suppose that's not really a debateable point.

[TerraPrime]

It clearly has a political motive, but I don't see why that is necessarily improper. The key parts of the ACA don't kick in until after the 2012 election, and that means it is going to be an issue in that election. As it should be. So, the GOP is trying to ensure that voters have some bright lines and votes of record on which to judge candidates. They'll pass an alternative in the House that preserves the pre-existing condition exclusion, does something about lifetime caps, etc., but doesn't contain a mandate or entitlement. And the choice between that and that ACA as drafted will be placed at the centerpoint of the 2012 election.

Then run those alternatives as their platform in the 2012 cycle. Trying to pass these as laws, knowing that it won't pass at all, seems like a giant waste of time for everyone. Can't the GOP focus on something else in the mean time? Isn't there some arctic land they want to drill, or some tax they want to cut, or some gays to kick out of the military?

I don't see why that is unseemly, but I suppose that's not really a debateable point.

The proximity of the two is one aspect of it. The ACA just passed not 4 months ago. Already, they're saying they want to repeal the whole thing? Most of its provisions have not even had time to be implemented yet. Part of what makes the U.S. (and other democracies) great is the continuity from one set of politicians to the next, in that laws that are made here are not going to be the opposite once the next batch of politicians come to power. That sort of flip-flop reminds me more of tinpot dictators than a mature democracy. It also speaks poorly of the entire enterprise of legislating that the GOP felt/acted so disempowered that the only redress they have is to wait till they control the House and Senate so they can annul the laws that they were involved in making themselves.

But if you don't see it that way, then you don't.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't think it's completely true that the GOP has no ideas, but it's a good line of attack for the Dems to take and not entirely unfair. Their biggest idea is the actual law that they now want to repeal, and it's pretty clear that they haven't historically considered reforming the health care system to be a legislative priority.

Prior to 2008, there were conflicting approaches to health care, and neither party had enough votes to force their vision. At the same time, neither party wished to compromise in a manner that moved the debate in the other direction. So nothing of significant happened because there simply weren't the votes for signficant reform in either direction, and everyone knew that.

Democrats were unable to get a health care bill through until they had the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Republicans never had that, so that's why they couldn't get reform through.

What I would be fascinated to see is what the GOP would actually do if they did succeed in a total repeal, perhaps by winning back the Senate and White House in 2012. It would be no time before the public would again be pushing for changes to the health system. I wonder what they would come up with were that scenario ever to come to pass. I don't think that it will, but it's possible.

Well, I did link the 219 page alternative they offered in 2009.

I think we're about to see the Democrats start to do a much better job of defending the law than they've done in the past. Most of the House people from swing districts are gone. The remaining Dems in the House aren't afraid to talk about it.

Well, that's why the GOP needs the alternative. The biggest selling points for Dems are things like pre-existing conditions that benefit everyone. When they push those benefits, they do well. And as long as they can claim Republicans want to get rid of that, they'll score points against repeal.

But I believe the bill is far more vulnerable politically when it gets down to the mandates and the entitlements. So if the GOP offers an alternative that includes the accross-the-board benefits people like, but eliminates the mandate and entitlements, they may have a winning issue.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I could be wrong, but I don't think their party ever cared to do much legislatively on health care even if they had control of everything. Other than Medicare Part D, of course.

Well, sure they did. Didn't the Democrats try HillaryCare during Clinton's first term? When that failed, there remained some pretty strong battle lines drawn. Republicans weren't going to give in on the entitlement question, and Democrats weren't going to engage in market-reforms that took the country further away from a single-payer entitlement system. And everyone knew that. So all that was left was nibbling around the edges, and neither party wanted to waste legislative/political capital on something that wasn't going to pass anyway.

[awesome possum]

Democrats were unable to get a health care bill through until they had the Presidency, the House, and a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate. Republicans never had that, so that's why they couldn't get reform through.

And what would they have attempted to reform if they did have those majorities? I'm fairly certain they had control of everything for about 6 straight years and for a few of those years had control of Dems with use of their "look they're not letting us legislate, they're unAmerican terrorist apologists!" rhetoric.

What did they give us again?

But I believe the bill is far more vulnerable politically when it gets down to the mandates and the entitlements. So if the GOP offers an alternative that includes the accross-the-board benefits people like, but eliminates the mandate and entitlements, they may have a winning issue.

As long as estimates are that the bill saves money or cuts the deficit, all they have are lies. Which, according to recent history, still work very well when spoken loudly enough for long enough. So good luck with that.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And what would they have attempted to reform if they did have those majorities?

Who knows? It never existed, and all the major players knew that. The fight over HillaryCare left some serious political scars.

I'm fairly certain they had control of everything for about 6 straight years

And you'd be wrong. And they were never had close to a filibuster-proof majority even when they did have control of the Senate.

As long as estimates are that the bill saves money or cuts the deficit, all they have are lies.

How's that? It's not a lie to say that the bill includes $500B in new spending, and $700B in new taxes. Those are the CBO's own numbers. The GOP need only argue that more government spending is a bad thing, and that raising taxes by that much is a bad thing too. You could disagree with those conclusions, but the numbers are what they are.

[awesome possum]

And you'd be wrong. And they were never had close to a filibuster-proof majority even when they did have control of the Senate.

Yeah, but if they're so concerned with doing away with stuff like pre-existing conditions, why not work towards that? Why not work towards things they know the other side will agree with?

How's that? It's not a lie to say that the bill includes $500B in new spending, and $700B in new taxes. Those are the CBO's own numbers. The GOP need only argue that more government spending is a bad thing, and that raising taxes by that much is a bad thing too. You could disagree with those conclusions, but the numbers are what they are.

$700,000,000,000 - $500,000,000,000 = $200,000,000,000

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yeah, but if they're so concerned with doing away with stuff like pre-existing conditions, why not work towards that?

Honestly? I think it's because it will increase costs, and nobody was keen on doing that. And sometimes, it does take a legislative crisis to bring something like that to the table.

$700,000,000,000 - $500,000,000,000 = $200,000,000,000

I believe most polls show that voters prefer cutting spending to tax hikes as a means to close the deficit. Or both. But increasing spending by $500B is moving in the exact opposite direction. Hell, keep $200B in tax increases, but kill the $500B in new spending and $500B in new taxes, and you're in the exact same place deficit-wise.

And of course, that's assuming you believe all the CBO's numbers, which include estimates the CBO admits are "very uncertain" (the exact wording, I believe), and cuts that may not happen at all. Whether you or I choose to believe those estimates or not really isn't relevant. What's reelvant is what voters will choose to believe.

I know you don't agree with any of this. I'm simply pointing out that the approach the Democrats hope the GOP will take -- repeal ObamaCare including the most popular measures without offering an alternative -- is probably not the one the GOP actually will take. Instead, they'll likely triamgulate by taking those popular measures and ensuring they survive, and make the 2012 debate solely about the new entitlement and the mandates. I think that's a tougher argument for Democrats to win than if the GOP just offers repeal and nothing else.

[The Progressive]

Yeah, but if they're so concerned with doing away with stuff like pre-existing conditions, why not work towards that? Why not work towards things they know the other side will agree with?

Because there's no feasible way to do away with pre-existing exclusion except for expanding the pool of the insured like what the ACA is attempting to do.

The Repubs know this, they're just very dishonest about it.

[TrackerNeil]

I'd still prefer the "ugly Matthew McConaughy" contest, though. Anyway...

Of course we do, since I used the CBO figure myself in my post. The $500B in additional spending contained in the ACA IS the CBO figure, so we do have that common frame of reference. I just don't see how repealing $500B in new spending amounts to an increase in spending. That, not the specific amounts, is where the disconnect lies.

The CBO has stated that the ACA will reduce the deficit over time, and that a repeal will cost $230 billion. Most leading (and not-so-leading) Republicans have dismissed that estimate, just as they dismiss that the ACA can be deficit-reducing but I figure the CBO usually knows what it's talking about. I'm not going to re-argue the ACA, though; either one accepts the CBO's estimates or one doesn't. The ACA is law until the Supreme Court says it isn't, and that's good enough for me.

TerraPrime:

I've noticed that the GOP is prone to these sorts of stunts, like reading the (whitewashed) version of the Constitution, fighting for amendments to ban same sex marriage or flag-burning (I'm sure one is in the works even as we speak), and passing pointless repeals. Democrats employ political theater as well, but theirs is usually in service of a greater policy goal (the SCHIPS fight with Bush is a good example). Republican stunts are almost exclusively about winning elections. I asked PDC about it once, and he said (paraphrased) "The Republicans don't really have any policy beyond tax cuts, so they have to go with stunts." I think he was right.

Edited to add: I should correct myself. The only real Republican policy objective I can discern in the last ten years was the establishment of the national security state, and in that the party was highly successful. I don't think that's a good accomplishment, but it's an accomplishment all the same.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Yes you can, as long as you agree that is okay to screw those who intentionally try to game the system.

[DanteGabriel]

The Repeal bill, if it's name didn't clue you in, is pure political theatre that will accomplish nothing. It's grandstanding so the GOP can claim they tried to kill "Obamacare" like they promised without actually having to own up to killing all the parts of it their constituents like.

There was a post on Talking Points Memo the other day that this vote was indeed just political theater, and the real effort will be trying to de-fund the bill during budget discussions.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/democrats-welcome-health-care-spending-fight-with-republicans.php?ref=fpblg

[The Progressive]

There was a post on Talking Points Memo the other day that this vote was indeed just political theater, and the real effort will be trying to de-fund the bill during budget discussions.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/01/democrats-welcome-health-care-spending-fight-with-republicans.php?ref=fpblg

Hahaha, I would love to see the Repubs try to shut down the federal government over this issue.

[TrueMetis]

The Repubs trying to repeal legislation right after it was approved reminds me of when new helicopters for the military were bought by the Conservatives in 1992 and then when the Liberals got a majority they canceled it, costing 500 million in cancellation fees. Of course the military still needed new helicopters, which only began showing up over a decade and multiple preventable deaths latter. And they are a different model and they aren't getting as many of them, even though many in the military say the model the Tories choose was better.

Not exactly the same but fair warning guys.

[jurble]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KA3SYFpvIL8

Glenn Beck went too far today, he insulted Starcraft 2.

[Lord O' Bones]

I don't know about anyone else, but there's no way I'm sitting through up to a possible 20 minutes of Glen Beck just for a Starcraft reference.