Interesting opinion piece in the WSJ re: healthcare/Olympia Snowe

[sysiphus]

Obviously, consider the source and the inherent leanings of the paper, but regardless, I thought the author had a few interesting points--particularly worth noting is how compared to passing Medicare, etc, calling the current efforts "bipartisan" is a total farce--and that bipartisan support might be a worthy barometer for the healthcare reform efforts. Thoughts?

il collegamento ipertestuale (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704007804574573841915542278.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_sections_opinion)

[Gelfin]

Bipartisan support is not a valuable measure when the opposition party consciously abandons the public trust in order to use calculated lack of bipartisanship as a tactic to discredit their opponents without regard to the specific measure at hand.

You couldn't get bipartisan support for a nonbinding resolution that puppies are adorable in this Congress.

[sysiphus]

Bipartisan support is not a valuable measure when the opposition party consciously abandons the public trust in order to use calculated lack of bipartisanship as a tactic to discredit their opponents without regard to the specific measure at hand.

You couldn't get bipartisan support for a nonbinding resolution that puppies are adorable in this Congress.

To a point. But this is hardly the first time we've had a sharply divided Congress--look no further than the Clinton era. The point is that if you have a good enough plan, it will get support--and while the GOP has been anything but easy to work with this time around, it's disingenuous to suggest that the Dems have tried to do much other than railroad through whatever they want, given their near supermajority. They don't care about reaching across the aisle either, any more than is necessary to get 2 or 3 votes.

[leekohler]

To a point. But this is hardly the first time we've had a sharply divided Congress--look no further than the Clinton era. The point is that if you have a good enough plan, it will get support--and while the GOP has been anything but easy to work with this time around, it's disingenuous to suggest that the Dems have tried to do much other than railroad through whatever they want, given their near supermajority. They don't care about reaching across the aisle either, any more than is necessary to get 2 or 3 votes.

I love that you're still using my quote. :)

Oh- and there will never be any bipartisanship in this congress. Obama could call for massive tax cuts and the Reps would oppose it. There goal is to make him fail, no matter the cost. They are not interested in our needs. Same was true during Clinton. They were amazingly shameful then. It was shocking.

[Ugg]

To a point. But this is hardly the first time we've had a sharply divided Congress--look no further than the Clinton era. The point is that if you have a good enough plan, it will get support--and while the GOP has been anything but easy to work with this time around, it's disingenuous to suggest that the Dems have tried to do much other than railroad through whatever they want, given their near supermajority. They don't care about reaching across the aisle either, any more than is necessary to get 2 or 3 votes.

Medicare Part D, the big drug benefit, was simply a handout to the drug companies as it did almost nothing to address the big issue, the increasing unaffordability of drugs. The repubs were slobbering all over themselves due to their "compassionate conservatism."

Now, we have a year long effort to address the major issues of health care.
1. It's unavailable to a vast number of Americans.
2. It's unaffordable to a vast number of Americans and business owners.

Nothing the right has proposed comes close to dealing with these issues. As a matter of fact, many on the right propose "solutions" that more or less mean sick people being allowed to die and rot in the street.

The current proposal leaves a lot to be desired but it's an attempt to include the vast majority of Americans, something the republicans continue to refuse to do. For them, if it doesn't serve the needs of their big biz taskmasters, it is irrelevant.

[Zombie Acorn]

The current proposal leaves a lot to be desired but it's an attempt to include the vast majority of Americans, something the republicans continue to refuse to do. For them, if it doesn't serve the needs of their big biz taskmasters, it is irrelevant.

The only concern the current bill addresses is regulation on the crap that insurance companies were pulling beforehand, things that were unethical and should have been unlawful anyways, guess what they get in return? Millions of forced low maintenance customers who are already strapped with credit card, tuition, and other debts that they can rape for over-priced service cha-ching! On top of that, the possibility of no public option available to anyone who wants it. Where is the competition that everyone was talking about? If I didn't know better I would think the insurance companies wrote the bill themselves... oh wait.. they pay people to do that for them... congress..

I would much rather have a single payer system then a private industry + government reach around system. Its just a breeding ground for corruption.

[Eraserhead]

Obama could call for massive tax cuts and the Reps would oppose it.

Well it would increase the deficit ;).

[leekohler]

Well it would increase the deficit ;).

You're right. :)

[abijnk]

The point is that if you have a good enough plan, it will get support--

I don't think this is the case with the healthcare debate, simply because a "good" plan on one side of the aisle (say, single-payer) would be tantamount to dismantling the country on the other side.

[sysiphus]

I love that you're still using my quote. :)

Oh- and there will never be any bipartisanship in this congress. Obama could call for massive tax cuts and the Reps would oppose it. There goal is to make him fail, no matter the cost. They are not interested in our needs. Same was true during Clinton. They were amazingly shameful then. It was shocking.

With regard to the quote--it makes me chuckle :p

You're painting with very broad strokes with regard to GOP intentions in Congress. No argument with regard to them wanting very different things than Obama--but it's a reach for you to claim that they want him to fail regardless of the cost--either you're going for dramatic effect, or you're setting yourself up to come up with a whole heck of a lot of evidence for your claims ;)

Oh, and I don't want to see tax cuts now, and I'm a fiscal conservative--I just want them to stop increasing the budgets, and preferably cut them until we start to make appreciable progress on the deficit. It's absurd to keep sending more and more money that we don't have--while the average American is becoming more frugal, it's crazy for the government to do the inverse, spending and borrowing on more of our money.