View Full Version : Browns Win, Healthcare, etc....What it all means...

01-21-2010, 08:47 AM
As usual, George Will nails it down nicely...


''We are on the precipice of an achievement that's eluded congresses and presidents for generations.''
President Barack Obama, Dec. 15, on health-care legislation.

Precipice, 1. a headlong fall or decent, esp. to a great depth.
Oxford English Dictionary

WASHINGTON: Trying to guarantee Americans the thrill of the precipice, the president dashed to Massachusetts on Sunday, thereby conceding that he had already lost Tuesday's Senate election, which had become a referendum on his signature program.

By promising to cast the decisive 41st vote against the president's health-care legislation, the Republican candidate forced all congressional Democrats to contemplate this: Not even frenzied national mobilization of Democratic manpower and millions of dollars could rescue one of the safest Democratic seats in the national legislature from national dismay about the incontinent government expansion, of which that legislation is symptomatic.

Because the legislation is frightening and unpopular, Democrats have had to resort to serial bribery to advance it. Massachusetts voted immediately after the corruption of exempting, until 2018, union members from the tax on high-value health insurance plans. This tax was supposedly the crucial component of what supposedly was reform's primary goal reducing costs.

The late Sen. Daniel Patrick Moynihan, D-N.Y., thought Bill Clinton's presidency was crippled by the 1993 decision to pursue health-care reform rather than welfare reform. So slight was public enthusiasm for the former, Clinton's program never even came to a vote in either the House or Senate, both controlled by Democrats. There was such fervor for welfare reform that in 1996, after two Clinton vetoes, he finally signed the decade's most important legislation.
In their joyless, tawdry slog toward passage of their increasingly ludicrous bill, Democrats cling grimly to Robert Frost's axiom that ''the best way out is always through.''

Their sole remaining reason for completing the damn thing is that they started it.
They seem to have convinced themselves that Democrats lost control of Congress in 1994 because they did not pass an unpopular health bill in 1993.
Actually, their 1994 debacle had more to do with the arrogance and malfeasance arising from 40 years of control of the House of Representatives (e.g., the House banking scandal), a provocative crime bill (gun control, federal subsidies for midnight basketball), and other matters.

With one piece of legislation, Obama and his congressional allies have done in one year what it took President Lyndon Johnson and his allies two years to do in 1965 and 1966 revive conservatism. Today conservatism is rising on the stepping stones of liberal excesses.

Between FDR's reprimand by voters in the 1938 midterm congressional elections (partly because of his anti-constitutional plan to enlarge and pack the Supreme Court) and LBJ's 1964 trouncing of Barry Goldwater, there was no liberal legislating majority in Congress: Republicans and conservative Democrats combined to temper liberalism's itch to overreach.

In 1965 and 1966, however, liberalism was rampant. Today, Democrats worrying about a reprise of 1994 should worry more about a rerun of the 1966 midterm elections, which began a Republican resurgence that presaged victories in seven of the next 10 presidential elections.

The 2008 elections gave liberals the curse of opportunity, and they have used it to reveal themselves ruinously. The protracted health-care debacle has highlighted this fact: Some liberals consider the legislation's unpopularity a reason to redouble their efforts to inflict it on Americans who, such liberals think, are too benighted to understand that their betters know best.

The essence of contemporary liberalism is the illiberal conviction that Americans, in their comprehensive incompetence, need minute supervision by government, which liberals believe exists to spare citizens the torture of thinking and choosing.
Last week, trying to buttress the bovine obedience of most House Democrats, Obama assured them that if the bill becomes law, ''the American people will suddenly learn that this bill does things they like.'' Suddenly?

If the Democrats' congressional leaders are determined to continue their kamikaze flight to incineration, they will ignore Massachusetts' redundant evidence of public disgust.

They will leaven their strategy of briberies with procedural cynicism delaying certification of Massachusetts' Senate choice, or misusing ''reconciliation'' to evade Senate rules, or forcing the House to swallow its last shred of pride in order to rush the Senate bill to the president's desk.

Surely any such trickery would be one brick over a load for some hitherto servile members of the Democratic House and Senate caucuses, giving them an excuse to halt their party's Gadarene rush toward the precipice.
Will is a Washington Post columnist. He can be e-mailed at @washpost.com.

01-21-2010, 02:07 PM
Politics is all in how you frame the discourse.

Modern donkeys stick to their marxist roots and make everything a "crisis". "We MUST act now to save the "blah, blah, blah." And anyone that has a differing view is tarred and feathered as a racist, whateverphobe, or a teaser of baby birds. Its a simple visceral approach to political discourse that the simplest of organisms can "carry". Well, except coakley. :chuckle:

Modern elephants don't seem to recognize this and endlessly allow themselves to be taken in by this and marginalized in the caterwauling.

The "health care" issue is neither a "health care" issue, or a "crisis". Go back to the original "crisis" and how it was framed. "We MUST save the 47M uninsured".

We crawled through that to find that after illegals, people between jobs, young people that don't care, etc, etc, etc are accounted for among "the 47M" that there are less than 10M "chronically uninsured". If that is indeed an issue of national merit, then frame all discourse around that issue and address it as such.

The simple fact is that ANYBODY, citizen or illegal, that seeks "health care", or more succinctly medical service, in these here United States will receive the best service in the world. Period. The only question is payment.

90% of citizens take individual responsibility to take insurance through employers, buy it on their own, or pay for medical service as it is rendered. Thats what people that understand their freedom is in direct relationship to their responsibility do. The "issue" is that a small percentage of citizens, and some illegals (granted, some get employee benefits) do not take responsibility. Again, if that is an "issue" of national merit, then frame it and address it as such.

The elephants are culpable in this "health care" insanity in that they allow the colossally stupid premise that "we MUST meet this 'crisis' head on with every fiber of our national resolve or we're all doomed" to frame the discourse. Its bull@#$%. They play into it, and by extension, facilitate it.

That enables the donkeys to "craft" "legislation" in secret meetings that encompasses thousands of pages of draconian bull@#$% having nothing to do with "47M uninsured", and leaving 30M still uninsured. Its just amazing to watch this. "Now don't you people go readin whats in that bill. No sir. Why'd you want to do that?"

Fire Haley
01-21-2010, 05:16 PM
House Liberals To Pelosi: “We Cannot Support The Senate Bill. Period.”

In a private meeting in the Capitol just now, a dozen or more House liberals bluntly told Nancy Pelosi that there was no chance that they would vote to pass the Senate bill in its current form — making it all but certain that House Dems won’t opt for this approach, a top House liberal tells me.

“We cannot support the Senate bill — period,” is the message that liberals delivered to the Speaker, Dem Rep Raul Grijalva told me in an interview just now.


Tellingly, House liberals also urged Pelosi to consider passing individual pieces of reform through the House as individual bills, and sending them to the Senate to challenge the upper chamber to reject them, Grijalva tells me. Liberals said this approach would be preferable to passing the Senate bill.

For instance, Grijalva said, why not send the Senate individual bills that would, among other things, nix the “Cadillac” tax or close the donut hole, pressuring the Senate to deal with each provision separately?

“If the Senate chooses not to close the donut hole, that’s their damn problem,” Grijalva said. “They’ve had it too easy. One vote controls everything. Collectively, we’re tired of that.”



It's dead Jim

01-21-2010, 07:28 PM
I find healthcare being killed because of a special election to hold the senate seat Ted "Universal Healthcare" Kennedy held for nearly half a decade to be poetic justice.