Abortion and citizenship aren't substantive issues that are central to health care reform. Frankly I don't give a damn about them. If supporting or opposing those provisions will get more congressmen to sign on, go for it.
As for the public option, this is the ONLY poll I've seen which has shown plurality opposition to it. And even here, the numbers aren't horrible. 40-48% opposition on a single poll of a single issue is not exactly the kind of thing that will send a party into the political wilderness for decades, as you put it.
Dav said:
The fact is that both Rasmussen and Gallup have shown 80% of Americans to be satisfied with their health insurance. Hence, any move that may pose any danger to current coverage will probably be unpopular.
If 80% of Americans don't USE their health insurance on a regular basis, why would they NOT be satisfied with it? The whole point of insurance is that most people don't use it and people share the risk.
Dav said:
That's silly. About as many people were thinking of health care when they went to the polls as those who were thinking about abortion.
Then it's not an issue that's going to send the Democrats into the political wilderness. If the American people were so overwhelmingly and vigorously opposed to this, surely it would've been on the forefront of their minds when the Democrats were campaigning on it. :2wave:
Dav said:
Heck, lots of Republicans campaign in part with their anti-abortion views, yet something tells me they wouldn't be very popular if they tried, with a 66-37 majority in the Senate, to pass a strict pro-life amendment. It also wouldn't work to criticize the need to have 67 votes to pass an amendment, and claim that Democrats were being obstructionist for voting against something they oppose using a method perfectly valid for such a condition.
While I'm not a big fan of our constitutional amendment process, it *is* a part of the Constitution. The filibuster is not.
Dav said:
When they come up with less partisan, more popular ideas.
So every government should abandon ship on every policy the minute it drops below the 50% threshold in the polls? This is not a direct democracy, nor should it be, lest the entire country end up like California.
If the people don't like the policies of the government, they should have voted for someone else, and they'll be able to correct that mistake next time.
Dav said:
I have no idea why they opposed it, and don't particularly care, but it's almost funny to suppose that there's some political gain in opposing something that you just recently supported and isn't extremely unpopular.
So if you're implying that there is no political gain, then you're also implying that they did it for policy reasons and that all of the people who SPONSORED the bill had a sudden change of heart all at the same time. Right?
Dav said:
Indeed. They also filibuster it if that is what their constituents want. Which is pretty much true in all 50 states right now regarding the health care bill, with the possible exception of Vermont.
The people get a chance to voice their opinion once every two years, which is plenty. In between, I don't give a damn what they want, except inasmuch as it relates to what Congress wants.
Dav said:
And you are once again confusing a minority of Congress for a minority of the public.
I have yet to see any evidence that the people oppose the main provisions in the reform bill (other than the individual mandate): Ending preexisting conditions, helping people buy insurance, an independent Medicare commission, making insurance portable, etc.
All I've seen so far is ONE poll that indicates they're slightly opposed to the public option (and many other polls to the contrary), and some polls that indicate they're opposed to "the bill" as a whole...even though most people have no clue what's in it.
Dav said:
Indeed, that is exactly what they did in 1854, which is the last time this happened.
I hardly think 40-48% opposition to a public option, which is not in the bill, is going to cause such devastating losses...especially when there was overwhelming SUPPORT for it just last summer. :roll:
Dav said:
What about Susan Collins? Or Voinovich, who isn't even up for re-election? They are both pretty much as moderate as Snowe, and yet both opposed the health care bill.
As I mentioned before, Snowe opposed the bill despite getting everything she wanted, which indicates to me that either A) she was negotiating in bad faith from the outset, or B) the Republican leadership leaned heavily on her to oppose it. I think (B) is more likely, and the same is probably true for Sue Collins.
Dav said:
39 House Democrats opposed the bill, and probably plenty of Democratic Senators would have if they hadn't been bought off.
(They wouldn't have HAD to have been bought off if the majority had its way, but I digress.)
As for the 39 House Democrats who opposed it, you are forgetting that it STILL passed, because the Democrats had an even bigger majority, because the people voted them into power. You seem to be suggesting that even an OVERWHELMING majority should still capitulate to the wishes of the minority.