Should Republicans continue to challenge the Health Care Bill?
Yes - 62%
No - 33%
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-20001117-503544.html

And according to Rasmussen's latest Likely Voters poll...

61% Favor Repeal of Health Care Law
[excerpt] ... A new Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 33% of Likely Voters oppose repeal...

How's that for consistency?

CW said at the time of HCR's passage that the main thing at the time was to get a few good things passed (such as the ban on "pre-existing condition" rejections), with the intention of fixing the problem areas afterward. but as michale has pointed out on numerous occasions, the hcr legislation in its current form has very little of what people want, and a whole lot of what they don't. personally, i'd prefer to have a mandate (unpopular) with a public option (popular), as well as government-enforced price controls (un-polled, but i bet they'd be popular) on the cost of certain drugs, doctor visits and insurance coverages.

that's a more economically liberal view on the issue than Congress might be comfortable with, but at least it's coherent. then again, as CW's latest column proves, neither D's nor R's seem to be all that good at math. in any case, this is a squish like grape issue. (can i trademark the expression? i think i was discussing hcr the first time i used it, too.) for those to whom i have not yet quoted the famous line from the karate kid:

Daniel-san, must talk. Walk on road, hm? Walk left side, safe. Walk right side, safe. Walk middle, sooner or later get squish, just like grape.

Well, she KNEW what was in it and she KNEW that the people would be even MORE against it if THEY knew what was in it..

So, let's look at CrapCare, 6 months later..

» Obamacare won't decrease health care costs for the government. According to Medicare's actuary, it will increase costs. The same is likely to happen for privately funded health care.

» Obamacare allows the IRS to confiscate part or all of your tax refund if you do not purchase a qualified insurance plan. The bill funds 16,000 new IRS agents to make sure Americans stay in line.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/Obamacare-is-even-worse-than-critics-thought-960772-103571664.html#ixzz10NljlEkp

No wonder Democrats don't want to brag about CrapCare....

Michale.....

So how come the party of "no" was wrong when they spoke out against it, and warned against it, and voted against it?

The individual mandate is the least-liked part of healthcare reform. It really has no natural constituency other than insurance companies. There was no call from the public to include this in the final law (as there was with the "public option," in comparison). The Left wasn't in favor of it, and it causes apoplexy over on the Right. President Obama did not campaign on the individual mandate (although Hillary Clinton did, I should point out), so he obviously didn't think it was all that important (or all that good an idea, take your choice) before he got elected.

So how come the mandate is there and the public option is gone? Because Insurance lobbyist Karen Ignagni insisted that Obama ditch the public option he had promised to deliver to the American people and give her what she was demanding, instead. And he did. "That was the quid pro quo," as Tom Daschle says in the PBS Frontline documentary, "Obama's Deal."

It does seem like something just about everyone could agree upon. Everyone, that is, except politicians.

Sad ...
David

Thanx for the link...

Yea, the DREAM Act is a WIN WIN WIN for everyone across the board..

I don't know WHAT the GOP was thinking when they opposed this..

I bet that if it was offerred up on it's own merits without any baggage, it would be VERY well received..

But it today's hyper-partisan environment, it won't ever see the light of day.

Which is a shame.

Michale.....

I know this is a comment on another thread, but I'm rushed, so excuse the disjointed nature.

DREAM Act article (you're basically right, except that it's just 2 years in military or in college), which explains it in a novel way:

http://www.salon.com/news/politics/war_room/2010/09/22/tea_party_dream_act/index.html

-CW

I think it started in 1994... :D

This speaks to what I said earlier. If Republicans win Congress then they might actually have to take some responsibility. They won't always be able to say "no".

And my point was that, when the Republicans WERE the majority, they DID take responsibility. And then it was the Democrats who always tried to say no...

I just wish they would focus on what they do better and I also wish that they would pick their battles - rather than say "no" to everything. Health care, for example, is a winning one for them.

By definition, Political Partys care about their Party first and their country and obligations second.

This is, by NO means, solely the fallibility of the Right...

Michale.....

BTW- That said. I do realize that they are trying to define themselves and that there's only so much they can do as minority party.

I just wish they would focus on what they do better and I also wish that they would pick their battles - rather than say "no" to everything. Health care, for example, is a winning one for them.

This, to me, hurts their credibility and gives credence to the "party of no" label.

Not sure when the minority party's role became endless moaning and blaming, but ok.

This speaks to what I said earlier. If Republicans win Congress then they might actually have to take some responsibility. They won't always be able to say "no".

There are a couple reasons for that..

A. They have been the MINORITY party...

and

2. Everything, pretty much, IS Obama's fault... :D

Ok, maybe not everything. But a lot of it is his fault..

But does he take responsibility for that??

Nope...

It's always "Bush's" fault... Or "Congress'" fault.. Or the "People's" fault..

Never Obama's fault...

November 2nd can't come soon enough...

Michale.....

LOL. Republicans? The party of "personal responsibility"? Looks more to me like they've spent the last 2 years trying to blame everything on Obama.

But I could just be basing that on what they've said. Comic relief indeed.

http://www.foxnews.com/static/managed/img/Opinion/11ToddRoberts.logo.jpg

Michale.....

Republicans never had a problem doing that when they were in power..

So, what you are saying is that the political roles will be reversed.

The GOP will be full steam ahead over their agenda and the Democrats will become the party of NO...

Of course, if recent history is any guide, the Democrats will actually become the party of "Maybe, oh all right, fine! Do what you want!!" :D

Michale....

That's why I find your suggestion interesting. I had a feeling that individual mandate was going to be a "poison pill" in the legislation.

-David

P.s. Someone, forget who, had an interesting article over at Salon arguing that it might not be a bad thing to have a Republican Congress. Why?

1) Republicans could no longer play the "we're not in power" card
2) Republicans would actually have to take some responsibility for what gets accomplished or not accomplished, rather than just saying "no"

Basically, there would be more incentive for them to negotiate.

Still hoping for a comeback in November if Dems can get out the vote, but it might not be the end of the world if Republicans win in November :)

In other words, the Democrats are "The Party Of 'NO'"... :D

Ya gotta love the irony... :D

Michale.....

I think the word you're looking for is "popular": he didn't campaign on it, so he obviously didn't think it was all that popular.

"The idea of paying a fine, or extra taxes, because you can't afford health insurance doesn't exactly have a whole lot of support"

If you can't afford it because you have too little income, the government should pay for it. (If we're going to have insurance-based medical care at all, anyway.) And they do, under the law. If you can't afford it because you spent the money on something else, like a house that's worth a million dollars solely because you think you can sell it to someone else for more than that later, maybe there should be an incentive against that kind of "can't afford it". If that's why you "can't afford it", maybe the government shouldn't be stuck with the medical bills.

"It would end the talk of constitutionality by healthcare reform critics."

Pull the other one. It has bells on.

--

All that being said, I'm not particularly committed to the individual mandate. Theoretically there are good reasons for it. But the situation is complicated enough that empirical answers are needed.

Politically, it was absolutely necessary in order to keep the insurance companies from killing the whole thing. There's something to be said for keeping one's end of an agreement: if the insurance companies get burned for having made a deal, the next interest group with veto power will could understandably think it safer to just say no.

Unfortunately, it's a LOSE LOSE situation for Obama and the Democrats.

Drop the mandate and the administration has to admit it dropped the ball.

Don't drop the mandate and have the courts whack the administration's wee-wee..

Personally, I don't think that the administration will drop the mandate. Obama has a real problem with admitting he was wrong and owning up to his mistakes.

If Obama does drop the mandate, I am sure he will spin it so that it was all Bush's fault.. :D

Michale.....