Son of US Politics

[DanteGabriel]

Because they perceived the alternative as worse. In any case, Bush's deficits were caused primarily by military spending, which Republicans tend to view as a more legitimate core function of government

It's funny you should say that, since Bush's spending on Iraq and Afghanistan was never factored into his budgets. Those were funded with emergency spending bills.

Always refreshing to see how well-informed right wingers are about the realities of the reign of George W. Bush.

[The Real Will]

And what's wrong with not passing anything but the most benign legislation? The fundamental point for most Republicans is that the government is essentially turning health insurance into an entitlement program. Regardless of whether its a "public option", or simply a government handout to buy highly regulated private policies in an "exchange", it's still the creation of a new entitlement program. I'm happy to observe that for a lot of Republicans, that's a deal-killer. In a bunch of this thread, people criticize the Republicans for not following through with promises to control federal spending. Now, they've drawn a line in the sand doing exactly that, and they're being criticized for not compromising.

There are some parts of this bill that are good, but the creation of a new entitlement is the gorilla in the room that dwarfs everything else.

I think they're supposed to control their own spending first (or, you know, at all). If a group of people take it in turns to carry a common wallet, and one of them spends as much as they can when it's their turn to have the wallet and becomes disapproving and snarky when any of the others spend money, the original spend thrift might come out looking like a bit of a dick, but they certainly aren't going to look fiscally responsible.

There is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the ability of government to pass any but the weakest legislation. Obviously you would then accept that the same thing will apply when the power shifts to the other side. Also, anyone who goes into the government to prevent it from operating had better be crystal clear that this is their intention when they're campaigning. Most people, I think even conservatives, expect their government to take actions. If the voter were a genuine small government conservative they probably hope the politicians will take actions to reduce the size and scope of government power, but they still expect positive action. If you're intent is genuinely to neuter the entire legislative process for as long as it remains in its current form than I think you should be saying that very clearly.

Also your arguing with the wrong person about healthcare and entitlement. As far as I'm concerned healthcare is an entitlement and the fact that you guys don't have a broad "entitlement program" for healthcare is far beyond sickening.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I think they're supposed to control their own spending first (or, you know, at all). If a group of people take it in turns to carry a common wallet, and one of them spends as much as they can when it's their turn to have the wallet and becomes disapproving and snarky when any of the others spend money, the original spend thrift might come out looking like a bit of a dick, but they certainly aren't going to look fiscally responsible.

There is nothing inherently wrong with limiting the ability of government to pass any but the weakest legislation. Obviously you would then accept that the same thing will apply when the power shifts to the other side. Also, anyone who goes into the government to prevent it from operating had better be crystal clear that this is their intention when they're campaigning. Most people, I think even conservatives, expect their government to take actions. If the voter were a genuine small government conservative they probably hope the politicians will take actions to reduce the size and scope of government power, but they still expect positive action. If you're intent is genuinely to neuter the entire legislative process for as long as it remains in its current form than I think you should be saying that very clearly.

Also your arguing with the wrong person about healthcare and entitlement. As far as I'm concerned healthcare is an entitlement and the fact that you guys don't have a broad "entitlement program" for healthcare is far beyond sickening.

First, I understand that there is disagreement about whether healthcare is an entitlement, and that can lead to differences of opinion on the bill. I was simply explaining why this bill is bottom-line unacceptable to so many Republicans.

But I do not understand your wallet argument. It seems to say that if the Republican Party failed to control spending while it was in power, it has no right to try to do so when it is out of power. That makes no sense to me. For starters, the flip side of that argument is that because the Democrats failed to pass health care or climate legislation during the Clinton Administration, they've lost the moral right to advocate it now. does anyone really want to take that position?

Political parties are not static entities with static points of view. They are the sum of the views of the various elected officials who comprise that party, a composition that changes over time. And in turns, those officials represent the aggregate views of voters, whose views also change over time. And generally, whenver the Republicans move to a majority, they do it by gaining seats in swing districts whose candidates are not as conservative. So when they finally obtain a majority, they can't always enact the spending-cut mentality of the party's core because they don't have the votes even within their own party.

Democrats excuse Obama and their party for failing to enact the current bill because they were hamstrung by "wishy-washy" moderates in the Senate like Lieberman, Nelson, and Landrieu, and blue dogs in the House. But Republicans have had the same problem with people like Arlen Spector, Lincoln Chaffee, and the Maine sisters. You might have a numerical majority, and it will prevail on the more moderate legislation, but that majority falls apart when you try to really cut spending. That doesn't mean that you should stop trying, though.

Finally, it was claimed above that the GOP never really tried to stop spending even when it had control. I'd just disagree on that. GWB was not the first Republican to advocate the partial privatization of Social Security, which regardless of how you feel about the program, would constitute a long-term spending cut. But he just didn't have the votes, nor did his predecssors who advocated the same. The best the GOP did in recent history was welfare reform via the Contract with American in 1994, which did result in a successful reduction in a federal entitlement program. That was the first significant reduction ever in a federal entitlement program, and I don't think it was a coincidence that it came with the first Republican House in more than 40 years.

[TrackerNeil]

Pay-as-you-go is a Trojan Horse tax increase. It really means Tax and Spend as much as you like.

If your definition of 'compromise' is Democrat majorities in both houses write the legislation they want, and then the Republicans vote for it, then that's correct. They aren't compromising. Nor should they. If they aren't getting anything they want, why should they kow tow?

As opposed to the Republican strategy of borrow-and-spend, you mean? Sheesh...at least the Democrats are proposing spending the money we have.

As to your other point, I suppose it is health insurance reform to which you so obliquely refer. The GOP refused to compromise not because they were unable to get anything, but because the party wanted to stymie Barack Obama. There were numerous opportunities for Republican senators to get something out of the bill, but when it became clear they weren't having it )and when the Dems scored their 60th vote) it no longer made sense for Harry Reid to lobby for their support. It's like Gondor trying to get Sauron to agree to the Destroy the Ring Act; the Dark Lord is never going to sign on no matter what you offer him, so why bother? If the GOP had been smart they would have held out for various small compromises the Democrats would actually have considered, instead of simply saying "no way." Instead, they have made it clear there will be no reform no matter what.

Of course, all of this is pointless now that the Democrats have essentially surrendered on an issue on which a majority of Americans - Democrat and Republican - agree with them. However, in the unlikely event that Democrats remember they are vertebrate creatures and ram a bill through Congress, the Republicans will have gained nothing. Zero. That's not really smart politics.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The GOP refused to compromise not because they were unable to get anything, but because the party wanted to stymie Barack Obama.

So you're saying that all those Republicans really support the idea of creating a new health insurance entitlement program, but are opposing it just because they don't like the President?

[The Progressive]

The GOP refused to compromise not because they were unable to get anything, but because the party wanted to stymie Barack Obama.

So you're saying that all those Republicans really support the idea of creating a new health insurance entitlement program, but are opposing it just because they don't like the President?

The history of the opposition spearheaded by Bob Dole to kill healthcare reform at all cost under the Clinton administration speaks for itself.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001638.htm

Dole is singing a new tune now in favor of healthcare reform ............. remorse or opportunistic, you make the call. ;)

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/to_pay_for_their_health.php

[Mad Monkey]

So you're saying that all those Republicans really support the idea of creating a new health insurance entitlement program, but are opposing it just because they don't like the President?

Well, Sen. Chuck Grassley spearheaded the creation of Medicare Part D in 2003, creating a massive entitlement equal in size with, well, Medicare and Medicaid themselves. It even contained the end-of-life counselling provisions that Republicans like Grassley have recently likened to some kind of government-run "death panels". The whole thing was even financed entirely with deficit spending; the two bills in Congress right now at least have provisions intended to help pay for it, but the Republican bill from 2003 didn't even attempt to find a way to finance it. It's hard to believe that these are all the same guys screaming about the costs and provisions of the current health care bill when the law that they created a few years ago contained some of the most controversial provisions, costed much more than either of the current bills, and didn't even attempt to pay for it with anything other than deficit spending.

Although for what it's worth, I don't think it has anything to do with Obama as a person. They would have done this to President Gore or President Kerry too.

It seems like the only time politicians (or anyone, for that matter) talks about the deficit is to justify torpedoing a proposal that they oppose for other reasons.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

The history of the opposition spearheaded by Bob Dole to kill healthcare reform at all cost under the Clinton administration speaks for itself.

http://www.perrspectives.com/blog/archives/001638.htm

Dole is singing a new tune now in favor of healthcare reform ............. remorse or opportunistic, you make the call. ;)

http://politics.theatlantic.com/2009/06/to_pay_for_their_health.php

Sounds like remorse to me, but look, you're making the point. No politicla party is monolithic, and there are specific Republicans who do not oppose universal coverage (public option or no), and there are those who do oppose it. Even the first article you listed had the opponents saying that the bill was bad overall, and so should be killed. And it opposed individual members of the GOP voting yes for political reasons. In other words, don't vote "yes" on a bad bill just to get political credit for the generic concept of "health reform". I don't see anything wrong with that approach.

Of course there are some politics in this, and I would agree that many Republicans who oppose the current bill on principle also see a side benefit of handing the President a defeat. Personally, I think the bill is such a disaster that the worst thing for the Democratic party would have been for the thing to have actually passed. IMHO, Brown's victory saved the Dem's political bacon. But regardless of how the politics worked out, I personally opposed the bill because I thought it was extraordinarily bad, and a lot of Republicans feel the same.

[The Progressive]

But regardless of how the politics worked out, I personally opposed the bill because I thought it was extraordinarily bad, and a lot of Republicans feel the same.

I don't recall your participation is the various threads arguing the nuts and bolts of healthcare reform as contained in the two bills from the Senate and the House. I could guarantee you that virtually every single argument against any of the bills have been debunked, and if any particular measure contained in them could be improved, the necessary improvement would be even more distasteful to someone of a libertarian/conservative mindset.

Nonetheless, I'm always open to substantive criticism of proposed reforms and willing to consider alternative measures if you're willing to discuss them. Do tell us why the bill (which one?) is bad, and how would you do things differently.

[Shryke]

And what's wrong with not passing anything but the most benign legislation?

Because there are serious fundamental problems that need to be dealt with?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I don't recall your participation is the various threads arguing the nuts and bolts of healthcare reform as contained in the two bills from the Senate and the House. I could guarantee you that virtually every single argument against any of the bills have been debunked, and if any particular measure contained in them could be improved, the necessary improvement would be even more distasteful to someone of a libertarian/conservative mindset.

Nonetheless, I'm always open to substantive criticism of proposed reforms and willing to consider alternative measures if you're willing to discuss them. Do tell us why the bill (which one?) is bad, and how would you do things differently.

I don't recall your participation is the various threads arguing the nuts and bolts of healthcare reform as contained in the two bills from the Senate and the House.

That's because I didn't. And to be honest, I really don't want to get into the nuts and bolts. I've had to do that for work, and I think it will end up devolving into link wars and a fundamental disagreement over some facts.

So I'll just be general. I don't believe that health care should be a federal entitlement, so that kills the bill for me at the outset. I also don't think the government should mandate no waiting periods or no lifetime caps, though there are other ways to get around a good part of the waiting period issue via some changes in COBRA that are mostly technical. I'm not a fan of adding business mandates or taxes period, particularly in a recession. And I'm not in favor of a bill that 1) increases federal spending, 2) increases taxes, and 3) will result in increasing costs for those who already have private health insurance. All of which essentially are the result of paying for the entitlement and tightening insurance regulation.

[The Progressive]

So I'll just be general. I don't believe that health care should be a federal entitlement, so that kills the bill for me at the outset.

So how would you ensure that everyone could have access to quality, affordable healthcare?

I also don't think the government should mandate no waiting periods or no lifetime caps, though there are other ways to get around a good part of the waiting period issue via some changes in COBRA that are mostly technical.

Uhhh that's interesting. I've read many suggestion to alter COBRA, all of which required substantial financial contribution from either the government, the former employers, or the insurance companies ............... how would "technical" changes solve the problem?

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

So how would you ensure that everyone could have access to quality, affordable healthcare?

I wouldn't. The most I would try to do is make it more affordable, but never as an entitlement. Which is basically the position of the Senate GOP.

Uhhh that's interesting. I've read many suggestion to alter COBRA, all of which required substantial financial contribution from either the government, the former employers, or the insurance companies ............... how would "technical" changes solve the problem?

The purpose of those provisions is to prevent "insurance shopping" after you already are ill. So....This works in the job change situation only. Essentially, when you sign up for insurance with your new employer, you don't have to apply that new employer's premium contribution to insurance offered by the new employer. Instead, you can take that and apply it to your old employer's insurance plan, to which you opt-in under COBRA. So essentially, you continue under your old employer's insurance for one year. At the end of that year, the new employer's company has to accept you regardless of preexisting conditions. But that's not a problem, because you've spent the last year still under your old employers insurance after you changed jobs, which eliminates the whole "change jobs when you're already sick to get better insurance" issue.

Your new employer isn't out any money because it pays the exact same contribution it would pay if you were under the new employer's plan. Your old employer isn't out anything, because you're still paying the employee's share, and the employer contribution is paid by the new employer. And neither the feds nor insurers need pay a dime. To the extent there is a difference between the amount of contribution between old and new employer, the employee picks that up.

[The Progressive]

I wouldn't. The most I would try to do is make it more affordable, but never as an entitlement. Which is basically the position of the Senate GOP.

Let's start from there. I agree that's a good goal, but how would you achieve that with free-market solutions?

The purpose of those provisions is to prevent "insurance shopping" after you already are ill. So....This works in the job change situation only. Essentially, when you sign up for insurance with your new employer, you don't have to apply that new employer's premium contribution to insurance offered by the new employer. Instead, you can take that and apply it to your old employer's insurance plan, to which you opt-in under COBRA. So essentially, you continue under your old employer's insurance for one year. At the end of that year, the new employer's company has to accept you regardless of preexisting conditions. But that's not a problem, because you've spent the last year still under your old employers insurance after you changed jobs, which eliminates the whole "change jobs when you're already sick to get better insurance" issue.

Your new employer isn't out any money because it pays the exact same contribution it would pay if you were under the new employer's plan. Your old employer isn't out anything, because you're still paying the employee's share, and the employer contribution is paid by the new employer. And neither the feds nor insurers need pay a dime. To the extent there is a difference between the amount of contribution between old and new employer, the employee picks that up.

That would make sense, but that's a solution for a very small minority. But how would you deal with the vast majority of those who were discharged and cannot find employment for months or years?

[TrackerNeil]

So you're saying that all those Republicans really support the idea of creating a new health insurance entitlement program, but are opposing it just because they don't like the President?

No, that's not what I am saying. I'm saying that the GOP was in a position to extract compromises from the Democratic majority...that is, until the party made it clear it would not support any attempt at reform, no matter what. That gives the lie to the assertion that the Democrats simply set out to ignore the Republicans. The Dems tried to engage the Republicans, and spent months courting Olympia Snowe, only to have it fall apart because of intransigence from the minority.

As has been said upthread, in 2003 the GOP proved it has little problem creating new entitlement programs that strain the federal budget, so I don't see why the party is so exercised about an entitlement plan that doesn't. Perhaps because this entitlement plan was proposed by a Democrat, perhaps?

Oh, and your picture of COBRA leaves out one crucial thing: the employer has to maintain the group plan for former employees to buy in through COBRA. My employer went belly-up in May 2009, which left me and my hundreds of coworkers out in the cold.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

Let's start from there. I agree that's a good goal, but how would you achieve that with free-market solutions?

To be clear, I'm not expecting any such solutions to result in everyone having coverage. But specific cost-reductions? I don't know -- I kind of look at those ideas as they come along but I don't have any particular ones in mind. But I will say this -- a lot of the ideas I've read will result in lower care or less research. The bottom line is that I think we pay so much for health care because we pretty much demand cutting-edge medicine, which is always more expensive than just going with stuff that's already standardized. If we really want to cut costs significantly, we have to be willing to settle for less. The rest of the world largely is the beneficiary of the investment we make in medicine.

That would make sense, but that's a solution for a very small minority. But how would you deal with the vast majority of those who were discharged and cannot find employment for months or years?

I don't think its that small a minority at all, but I guess that's beside the point because there admittedly is a large group whom my solution wouldn't benefit. So the answer is that generally, I wouldn't "deal with it" at all. But I'll also say that's not something that would necessarily be a deal-breaker for me either if a prohibition on pre-existing conditions was included in legislation I thought was otherwise good. I don't think its a good idea, because it would raise costs for the rest of us, but I wouldn't necessarily go to the mat over it.

The lifting of the lifetime restrictions is a much worse idea, though. Basically, its a cost containment measure, which is what people say we should get more of. If you don't want lifetime restrictions, buy available supplemental coverage. In a way, that's a microcosm of the whole debate. Polls show that most Americans are satisfied with their coverage (except for the cost), but they bristle at efforts to hold those costs down.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

I'm saying that the GOP was in a position to extract compromises from the Democratic majority...that is, until the party made it clear it would not support any attempt at reform, no matter what.

There was no chance of a compromise that did not include covering the uninsured. And Republicans have pointedly said there are some reforms they support. If you suspect that isn't true, then the Dems could just call their bluff by passing the stuff with which Republicans claim they agree.

That gives the lie to the assertion that the Democrats simply set out to ignore the Republicans.

I don't think they set out to do that at all. I think what happened was that there is a philosophically unbridgeable gulf that neither side is willing to cross. Republicans don't want to create a new entitlement, and Dems don't want to abandon the uninsured. Nothing nefarious about it -- just a legitimate policy difference.

As has been said upthread, in 2003 the GOP proved it has little problem creating new entitlement programs that strain the federal budget, so I don't see why the party is so exercised about an entitlement plan that doesn't.

So any time a political party ever does anything that appears inconsistent with its stated principles, it should abandon those for all time? The fact that some Democrats voted for the October 2002 resolution regarding Iraq means they can't support withdrawal at a later date?

The fact is that a lot of Republicans didn't like the prescription drug idea, but it became an issue in the 2000 election. And the mood of the electorate was such that if Bush didn't support it, he may not have gotten elected. So, he proposed a plan that was less generous than Gore's, and Republicans who didn't like it held their noses and voted for it, because the alternative was that an even more expensive plan was going through with an alliance of Dems and more liberal Republicans. And Bush, who was never a budget conservative to begin with, would have signed it rather than pass nothing.

Perhaps because this entitlement plan was proposed by a Democrat, perhaps?

To some extent, absolutely, but the reasoning isn't as nefarious as you're implying. Many Democrats who screamed about Bush regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gritted their teeth and supported Obama's continuation of those policies. Sometimes, you have to support policies you don't like because the overall political environment demands it. Republicans don't like this plan at all, just as most Dems didn't like the wars, and there isn't any overriding political reason to support it.

The underlying problem for Republicans is that the electorate has, in general, supported an expansion of the welfare state over time. That leaves the GOP to fight a rearguard action in which they have to give ground to stay politically viable. Personally, I'm hoping the budgetary excesses of the current Administration changes that dynamic a bit, but who knows?

But to some extent, I think this entire line of argument is a bit....disingenuous. Democrats have been complaining for 40 years that Republicans spend too much money on guns and not enough on butter. "End the Iraq War and spend that money at home" was the mantra for much of the 2000's. But mysteriously, that attack on Republicans as the party of the rich who won't spend money on social welfare programs vanishes whenever Dems want to make a different argument. Now, the argument is that Republicans really want to spend as much or more on domestic programs than Dmeocrats, so they don't have any right to oppose Democratic spending initiatives because they spend just as much. Which is it?

[Kelli Fury]

Hey Minnesota BwBers- precinct caucuses are tomorrow @ 7 http://caucusfinder.sos.state.mn.us/ find yours. DVR LOST and pick out your candidate for governor.

[TrackerNeil]

I don't think they set out to do that at all. I think what happened was that there is a philosophically unbridgeable gulf that neither side is willing to cross. Republicans don't want to create a new entitlement, and Dems don't want to abandon the uninsured. Nothing nefarious about it -- just a legitimate policy difference.

Well, I am glad you can admit, if only tacitly, that Republicans want to abandon the uninsured. Most GOPers aren't willing to admit that truth.

To some extent, absolutely, but the reasoning isn't as nefarious as you're implying. Many Democrats who screamed about Bush regarding the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan have gritted their teeth and supported Obama's continuation of those policies. Sometimes, you have to support policies you don't like because the overall political environment demands it. Republicans don't like this plan at all, just as most Dems didn't like the wars, and there isn't any overriding political reason to support it.

Talk about disingenuous! Democrats have had to back Obama on Iraq and Afghanistan because we realize that we can't simply walk away from the can of worms GWB recklessly opened. That's not at all analogous to the Republicans creating a big entitlement program when they spent the rest of their time deriding said programs.

I believe it is better to be right than to be consistent, but then again I don't go around calling those who change their minds "flip-floppers" and accessories to terrorism or whatever else. Can you say the same of the GOP?

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

Moon return program to be cancelled:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/TECH/space/02/01/nasa.budget.moon/index.html?hpt=T1

We can't afford it, but it still makes me a little sad. Then again I'd love to see a private Moon shot and exploration program.