Republican or Democratic Party's Waterloo?

Waterloo | FrumForum

This guy thinks the GOP lost big. Which is weird, because he claims to be a conservative!

Conservatives and Republicans today suffered their most crushing legislative defeat since the 1960s.

It’s hard to exaggerate the magnitude of the disaster. Conservatives may cheer themselves that they’ll compensate for today’s expected vote with a big win in the November 2010 elections. But:

(1) It’s a good bet that conservatives are over-optimistic about November – by then the economy will have improved and the immediate goodies in the healthcare bill will be reaching key voting blocs.

(2) So what? Legislative majorities come and go. This healthcare bill is forever. A win in November is very poor compensation for this debacle now.

Click to expand...

I agree in general premise with the article. I think the GOP will make some gains in 2010 and 2012, but a veto-proof majority is out of the question in 2010. In 2012, you could conceivably get a Republican president back in the white house, but at this particular moment I just don't see a GOP candidate that can oust Barack Obama. The current frontrunners have some issues that will hurt them. But hey, some conservatives here can probably come up with more on that than I can.

In 2012 you'll also have what the author discussed. The economy will be better off than it is now, (probably) and some of the benefits of the legislation will already be on the streets, while the big scary socialist parts are still two years away. I think this bill was strategically designed to help in the 2012 election to make sure Democrats keep the white house.

The constitutional challenge isn't going to work. Procedurally, it is airtight. The main bill is already passed, with a proper majority vote in both the House and Senate. The Supreme Court doesn't have the grounds to challenge reconciliation - the House and Senate get to set their own rules. If the House and Senate rules say reconciliation passes, then reconciliation passes.

On constitutional grounds, you're going to have an awfully hard time saying this bill is unconstitutional while still hanging on to medicare as allowable. There aren't any provisions in this bill that don't have some precedent, and our current Supreme Court isn't going to rule for ending Medicare.

Even if the GOP regains a majority or supermajority, repealing this bill is harder than passing it. You'll have to stand in front of your constituents and tell them why you're re-allowing pre-existing condition drops, rescission, and kicking under-26 folks back off their parents' healthcare. That would just swing the pendulum right back to the Democrats.

The bill is going to stay. I got $20 that says it stays long enough for the main provisions to activate in 2014.

He makes a very good point that Obama's desire to have some Republican votes could have led to a bill that implemented more ideas that were wanted by conservatives. There is no question that Obama would have prefered to have been able to pass this as a bi-partisan bill. However, the fringe of the Republican party could not stomach the idea of that and as the blog indicates, the party once again listened to the right-wing fringe who were riled up by the right-wing radio fanatics....and they not only lost, they lost big.

This is definitely a waterloo for the GOP and they must now find a way to salvage legitimacy. Either they will stick to their failed party of NO politics or they will try to function in a bi-partisan manner. There is no doubt that the Democratic congress is probably not particularly excited about bi-partisanship, but the bottom line is that Obama is and it will be interesting to see the next moves in this game.

disneydude said:

He makes a very good point that Obama's desire to have some Republican votes could have led to a bill that implemented more ideas that were wanted by conservatives. There is no question that Obama would have prefered to have been able to pass this as a bi-partisan bill. However, the fringe of the Republican party could not stomach the idea of that and as the blog indicates, the party once again listened to the right-wing fringe who were riled up by the right-wing radio fanatics....and they not only lost, they lost big.

This is definitely a waterloo for the GOP and they must now find a way to salvage legitimacy. Either they will stick to their failed party of NO politics or they will try to function in a bi-partisan manner. There is no doubt that the Democratic congress is probably not particularly excited about bi-partisanship, but the bottom line is that Obama is and it will be interesting to see the next moves in this game.

Click to expand...

I do agree that their gamble failed and momentum is on the Democratic Party's side. Immigration reform next? DADT/Gay Marriage? For now, I expect they'll try and shore up the victory but not rock the vote too much before November.

Edit: "Dems just converted on 4th down," says a friend's facebook status. Well put.

edit2: The other question is what will the GOP do next? Keep railing against socialism and voting en masse against anything the Democrats do? That tactic failed once, but do they have anything else to go with right now?

Deuce said:

I do agree that their gamble failed and momentum is on the Democratic Party's side. Immigration reform next? DADT/Gay Marriage? For now, I expect they'll try and shore up the victory but not rock the vote too much before November.

Edit: "Dems just converted on 4th down," says a friend's facebook status. Well put.

edit2: The other question is what will the GOP do next? Keep railing against socialism and voting en masse against anything the Democrats do? That tactic failed once, but do they have anything else to go with right now?

Click to expand...

I am probably wrong, but I think that the financial crisis may have changed a lot of thinking. Many think that the country is sinking under a pile of debt.

I din't think anyone would run on saying we should not have made insurance fixes. No one is going to argue that people should have medical insurance. The question will be did we really create a health care system that is financially viable.

It is easy to have noble goals, it is much harder to figure out the puts and takes to be able to afford it.

Also remember that this bill is not viewed in isolation. We start with $12 trillion of debt ( not this administrtion's fault) and a current deficit of $1.3 trillion. These are scary numbers or they should be.

I am not sure this is a win for democrats or republicans. Both have been in power recently and the problem continues to worsen.

Deuce said:

Waterloo | FrumForum

The bill is going to stay. I got $20 that says it stays long enough for the main provisions to activate in 2014.

Click to expand...

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Entitlement programs are almost impossible to cut once they've been provided. Liberty lost is freedom very difficult to regain. :hm Socialism won big time after ObamaCare passed into law. And America will be crippled because of it.

washunut said:

I am probably wrong, but I think that the financial crisis may have changed a lot of thinking. Many think that the country is sinking under a pile of debt.

I din't think anyone would run on saying we should not have made insurance fixes. No one is going to argue that people should have medical insurance. The question will be did we really create a health care system that is financially viable.

It is easy to have noble goals, it is much harder to figure out the puts and takes to be able to afford it.

Also remember that this bill is not viewed in isolation. We start with $12 trillion of debt ( not this administrtion's fault) and a current deficit of $1.3 trillion. These are scary numbers or they should be.

I am not sure this is a win for democrats or republicans. Both have been in power recently and the problem continues to worsen.

Click to expand...

This bill is expected to reduce the deficit. So, it's a tiny dent in the financial problem. What most people just assume is that paying for the healthcare of the poor will cost more money, but that isn't necessarily true. You already pay for the healthcare of the poor. Your insurance company gets overbilled to help cover uninsured patients who hit the ER. (the ER can't turn them away) We also spend a fair number of tax dollars helping prop up hospitals. This method is inefficient, the ER is a really expensive way to care for anything. Health insurance is cheaper, so now we're buying the poor some of that.

Magic bullet? Nope. A hundred billion-ish saved over a decade isn't exactly going to turn this ship around, but I wont be complaining.

The deficit will come down some when unemployment comes down. People will eventually be getting back to work and start paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment. Again, just another dent.

We've also got two wars to end and a lot of waste to cut out, but we can do that without cutting out programs that can literally be life-or-death sometimes.

And whose idea was this massive corn subsidy, anyway? We grow so much corn that we've started trying to turn it back into fuel, and I wonder what incalculable sum has been spent on healthcare due to the corn syrup we put in everything.

Politics101 said:

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Entitlement programs are almost impossible to cut once they've been provided. Liberty lost is freedom very difficult to regain. :hm Socialism won big time after ObamaCare passed into law. And America will be crippled because of it.

Click to expand...

Oh hey, more hyperbole. You need to keep up on the buzzwords, Boehner said this would be "armageddon." Your use of "crippled" is just too weak!

Buying insurance from private companies is not socialism. Who told you what that word means? You should hit them with a dictionary. And then read the dictionary. Obama is not Stalin. Bush was not Hitler. Until we can start talking in terms of reality again, this country is going to remain in serious trouble.

Edit: I'm gonna make that my new signature because I find myself repeating it over and over.

But mandating insurance coverage is what is souring everyone!

Bassman said:

But mandating insurance coverage is what is souring everyone!

Click to expand...

That doesn't make it socialism and there's pretty good reasoning behind it.

Deuce said:

That doesn't make it socialism and there's pretty good reasoning behind it.

Click to expand...

No, there is zero reasoning behind it, unless you consider more governmental control over our lives a good thing. And BTW, how much of my money will be wasted on the welfare queens this time??

Bassman said:

No, there is zero reasoning behind it, unless you consider more governmental control over our lives a good thing. And BTW, how much of my money will be wasted on the welfare queens this time??

Click to expand...

1) Lots of young, healthy people deliberately skip health insurance because they think they are invincible or something. They get sick or injured, and you end up paying for it in higher premiums and higher taxes. The mandate makes them chip something in.

2) The poor use the ER as a safety net. The ER is very expensive. A GP visit is cheaper than an ER visit. Wouldn't you rather pay $200 for a bottle of pills for the "welfare queen" who gets pneumonia instead of $3000 when that person's condition deteriorates into a serious condition and they go to the ICU? I know, you don't want to pay for anything, but the alternative is to swipe credit cards before you treat people and turn them away or let them bleed out if it declines.

3) You can make arguments about "abusing" welfare, but it's a lot harder to make that argument about health care. Do you think people go to the doctor just for kicks? Get random organ transplants for fun? No, they go when they're sick.

4) A healthier workforce is a more productive workforce.

You may not agree with the reasoning, but saying there isn't a reason is intellectually dishonest.

Deuce said:

1) Lots of young, healthy people deliberately skip health insurance because they think they are invincible or something. They get sick or injured, and you end up paying for it in higher premiums and higher taxes. The mandate makes them chip something in.

2) The poor use the ER as a safety net. The ER is very expensive. A GP visit is cheaper than an ER visit. Wouldn't you rather pay $200 for a bottle of pills for the "welfare queen" who gets pneumonia instead of $3000 when that person's condition deteriorates into a serious condition and they go to the ICU? I know, you don't want to pay for anything, but the alternative is to swipe credit cards before you treat people and turn them away or let them bleed out if it declines.

3) You can make arguments about "abusing" welfare, but it's a lot harder to make that argument about health care. Do you think people go to the doctor just for kicks? Get random organ transplants for fun? No, they go when they're sick.

4) A healthier workforce is a more productive workforce.

You may not agree with the reasoning, but saying there isn't a reason is intellectually dishonest.

Click to expand...

And more and more businesses will be forced to close because they cannot afford the new higher costs!! Effectively killing the private sector.

Deuce said:

This bill is expected to reduce the deficit. So, it's a tiny dent in the financial problem. What most people just assume is that paying for the healthcare of the poor will cost more money, but that isn't necessarily true. You already pay for the healthcare of the poor. Your insurance company gets overbilled to help cover uninsured patients who hit the ER. (the ER can't turn them away) We also spend a fair number of tax dollars helping prop up hospitals. This method is inefficient, the ER is a really expensive way to care for anything. Health insurance is cheaper, so now we're buying the poor some of that.

Magic bullet? Nope. A hundred billion-ish saved over a decade isn't exactly going to turn this ship around, but I wont be complaining.

The deficit will come down some when unemployment comes down. People will eventually be getting back to work and start paying taxes instead of collecting unemployment. Again, just another dent.

We've also got two wars to end and a lot of waste to cut out, but we can do that without cutting out programs that can literally be life-or-death sometimes.

And whose idea was this massive corn subsidy, anyway? We grow so much corn that we've started trying to turn it back into fuel, and I wonder what incalculable sum has been spent on healthcare due to the corn syrup we put in everything.



.

Click to expand...

I think a lot of people think that the numbers being thrown around about the cost of this problem are off by a lot. An example is the point you mentioned, that the poor already have insurance we pay in another way. That is only true when people go to the emergency room. Also subsidies in this bill go to people who make up to $88K per year, hardly poor.

It is also intellectually dishonest in my view for congress to say that tax increases go to pay for a specific program. We need to raise more taxes in general, so if these taxes are a good idea they should have been passed to reduce the deficit.

As to the two wars, I was strongly opposed to adding troops to Afghanistan and we will be out of Iraq by next year.

Farm subsidies is just another way we spend money we do not have. Congress is unable to fix the problem because reducing spending means taking away someone's goodies.

My sense is that the public has finally woken to the fact that we can't afford all this stuff, even if individually you would like to be able to spend for it.

The anger may be a frustration that we are in a mess and don't seem to have a way to get out of it. So whether it is the coffee party or the tea party it is telling both sides this isn't working!

Bassman said:

And more and more businesses will be forced to close because they cannot afford the new higher costs!! Effectively killing the private sector.

Click to expand...

When that happens you be sure to come back here to report on it for us, ok? This seems a stretch since businesses with less than 50 employees will not be forced to buy health insurance.

ADK_Forever said:

When that happens you be sure to come back here to report on it for us, ok? This seems a stretch since businesses with less than 50 employees will not be forced to buy health insurance.

Click to expand...

Did you stop and think about the firm that has 55 employees today. Just a guess that they will figure out how to turn that into 49.

Politics101 said:

Unfortunately, I think you're right. Entitlement programs are almost impossible to cut once they've been provided. Liberty lost is freedom very difficult to regain. :hm Socialism won big time after ObamaCare passed into law. And America will be crippled because of it.

Click to expand...

ACtually its more Facism. They did NOTHING to lower the COST of health care.

What they DID do is RAISE the cost of health care and gave everyone insurance ...... thus raising the stock price for insurance companies. They will STILL rape all of us.

They did the OPPOSITE of what was needed.