Chuck Todd asked Grassley whether he'd vote for the bill if it was a good piece of policy that he'd crafted but that couldn't attract more than a handful of Republican votes. "Certainly not," replied Grassley. Todd tried again, clarifying that this was legislation Grassley liked, and thought would move the ball forward, but was getting bogged down due to partisanship. Grassley held firm. If a good bill cannot attract Republican support, then it is not a good bill, he argued.Nobody seems to have figured out the obvious, that Chuck Grassley will never vote for a health care reform bill, and neither will any other Republican. Period. They're not here to pass a bi-partisan bill. They're here to strip the bill down so far that progressives revolt and the bill dies.
Grassley, in other words, is working backward from the votes. If the Gang of Six reaches a compromise that the Senate Republicans don't support, Grassley will abandon that compromise, regardless of the fact that he's the guy who built it. The Gang of Six, in other words, falls apart if it can't assure a vote of 76. Since it seems virtually impossible that such a vote will manifest, it seems similarly unlikely that Grassley will sign his name to the final bill. And Grassley, remember, was willing to say all this publicly. His version of bipartisanship is strikingly partisan.
I mean honestly, what will it take for Democrats to stop dicking around with bi-partisan anything, or negotiation, when no matter what form the bill takes, no Republican will vote for it? Can we stop fantasizing and get on with the reality that the Republican party is nothing more than a useless roadblock? When the pointman on Senate GOP negotiations on health care has clearly has no intention of negotiation in good faith, why waste your time with him or his party?
Most of all, why is anyone still acting surprised at this?
[UPDATE 3:55 PM] At least somebody seems to understand that no public option means no bill.
[UPDATE 2 4:00 PM] Publius at ObWi posits:
My take on all this is that he was always bad, but that the teabaggers have scared the bejesus out of him, and made him worse. The only potential threat to him is from the right, so what possible incentives does he have to stand up to the town hall protesters, Palins, etc.None.
The part you can't figure out is that people have read the bill (it's posted all over the internet) and don't like it.
ReplyDeleteThey're also offended by congressmen voting for the bill when they clearly hadn't read it yet.
By overreaching the Dems are really stuck now. If they pull back the so called progressives will reject them but the more they push the more everyone else will reject them.
Republicans 2010!
Let's be honest Serv, there is no plan that the Democrats can come up with on health care reform that Republicans will vote for.
ReplyDeleteThere is no length of time that will satisfy the "haven't read the bill" requirements.
There is no desire on the part of Republicans to reform health care if the Democrats can take credit for it. It will leave the GOP in the minority for a generation.
I would change that to "there is no plan that the Democrats would come up with..."
ReplyDeleteAll the ideas Dems come up with stink and create more problems.
I prefer Mackey's ideas myself. http://ow.ly/kiR3
"Rather than increase government spending and control, we need to address the root causes of poor health. This begins with the realization that every American adult is responsible for his or her own health."
Either health care is a right, or it is a privilege to those who can afford it.
ReplyDeleteChoose one.
Of course it's not a right because to make it a right would be to enslave the person who would have to provide it for the recipient of the right.
ReplyDeleteThis gets into the whole concept of positive and negative rights. You have negative rights such as a right to life, liberty and property. That is to say, no one can kill you or steal your stuff or throw you in jail without "due process of law".
However, to provide a right to something you don't already possess would mean violating someone else's right to property or liberty.
To throw in the loaded language of "it is a privilege to those who can afford it" is to once again indulge in a logical fallacy. That some people can afford it and others can't does not make HR3200 a good bill or the public option a good idea.
Furthermore, passing a law that says it will provide health insurance or health care for all does not accomplish the task. We will still have only so many resources, so many doctors, so many hospital beds and so much medicine.
The question is why wouldn't we use the free market system that distributes resources efficiently in every single other industry where it is allowed to operate rather than tying the market for health care down with regulations and red tape?
Negotiaions, Republican Style
ReplyDeleteNegotiations
need another T in that headline
The hard core Libertarian thing is amusing, but government does provide police, firefighting, and other necessary services.
ReplyDeleteIt provides mail, and competes with free market package carriers. It already provides health care to 30% of America. Why can't it be allowed as an option for the other 70% of us?
If it is not as efficient, then people will choose the free market insurance providers, yes?
The free market system is a profit and loss system. USPS would go out of business if it weren't backed up by taxes to keep it solvent. Same with this so-called public option.
ReplyDeletePlus the added regulations and mandates on the insurance companies would saddle them with costs the government plan wouldn't have to deal with. Why care about costs when you can just tax people for revenue. A free enterprise company has to get people to pay for its services voluntarily. This is not true for government enterprises.
Using the rhetoric of the market to prescribe a centralized system is deceptive. The essence of the free market system is freedom of choice but HR3200 would require you to give up your plan the moment your plan changed or you switched jobs. Also, we would have no choice but to pay for it through taxes no matter how much money it lost.
But, why assume a third party insurance is the solution at all. It seems third party payer is much of the problem. The dental procedure I had this weekend, I didn't look at the price the insurance company paid, only what I paid. I would shop around for a better price if I had to pay it. This would lead to better competition, lower prices and better service. I won't rewrite all of Mackey's ideas here. They're available at this link. http://ow.ly/kiR3
Your example of police and fire is a bad example. That they are provided by government does not mean they could not be. Even if they are best provided by government does not mean that health care would be.