If Bush had proposed this exact same health care reform bill

[Truth2Tell]

I believe that if Bush had proposed the exact health care reform bill that passed the House yesterday, all but maybe a dozen members of Congress would have voted in the opposite way as they did.

I believe that nearly every Republican opposed this bill because it is an Obama administration benchmark. And I believe nearly every Democrat supported it for the same reason.

This is how sick our democracy is. Everything is about positioning and who gets credit for what. Almost nothing is about principle or policy progress.

Had a bill mandating private insurance been passed by Republicans, Democrats would almost certainly be universally deriding it as the industry gift that it is. And Republicans would almost certainly be defending it on behalf of their owners. But when the bill is lauded for months as a signature goal of a first term Democratic President all bets are off. The political implications of that trump everything else, for almost everyone on both sides of the debate.

How long can we continue to pretend we have a functioning democracy when the emperor clearly has no clothes?

[niceypoo]

1. The two party system is irrepairably broken

Our system of government is not unlike the Jerry Springer show of old.

[tridim]

2. Bush had his chance and he chose to do nothing.

The Republicans hate the bill because it's going to work and people will like the benefits. Bad news for their upcoming campaigns.

[Truth2Tell]

5. They hate the bill because Democrats support it.

For almost all of them, that's all that matters.

[tridim]

18. That's one reason..

But the real reason is that the VOTERS support it.

[xxqqqzme]

46. And we only have to wait 4 years to find out?

[sandnsea]

3. This is what Dean and Kerry proposed

It's been the plan of Democrats for years.

[Davis_X_Machina]

4. In 2006...

....a bill mandating private insurance was passed by a state legislature -- Massachusetts -- that has a state Senate that is 7-1 Democratic, and a lower house that is 10-1 Democratic.

The backlash was so severe that today the legislature is.... 7-1 Democratic in the Senate, and 10-1 Democratic in the House.

The only change in the meantime was in the governorship -- which went Democratic.

I suppose they're all tools of the industry.

[Truth2Tell]

12. See, you only think to analyze the POLITICAL consequences.

Check into how well that Mitt Romney bill has done in reducing health care costs. Here's a hint: It hasn't at all. It has reduced the proportion of uninsured in MA from 5.8 to 4.1% So I suppose that's a benefit. :shrug: It has also turned 2% of MA residents into law violators, as they haven't followed the mandate.

Additionally, that bill was passed with a coalition of corporate Republicans and Democrats. Most true progressives in the MA House opposed that bill. So yes, they are all tools of the industry. Believe it or not, most politicians of both Parties are tools. Actions speak the loudest, and they say, "I'm a tool."

[Davis_X_Machina]

13. Wildly popular with actual...

...Massachusetts people though -- 59% of population deluded, don't read DU, and so don't know where their real interests lie, says Harvard School of Public Health poll.

Note repeal -- which would be the official DU position, going back to doing nothing rather than the bad bill -- polled 11%.

[Mass]

41. So many people trying to tell us,poor people from MA, how stupid we are.

Some people would want the bill to go further. Few want it repealed.

[Truth2Tell]

42. Give it a few more years. nt

[Mass]

43. LOL. Thanks for your condescension.

[gaspee]

6. Exactly

A mandate, without a STRONG public option is just a giveaway to the crooks in the insurance industry. Whoopee- lucky us!

[LovinLife]

7. If Bushed propsed it, every republican votes on it. They never went against their Pres. nt

[Hutzpa]

19. +20000.

:thumbsup:

[Oregone]

8. Nixon tried it. Democrats fought tooth and nail against it

[rucky]

9. Self-interest seems to be the only common ideology

between the yea's and the nay's.

[bahrbearian]

10. Thank God it Passed , 2009

I remember " Thank God it Passed 2008" Too Big to Fail, Right.

[NYC_SKP]

11. I'd be more convinced if your sig line didn't have Kucinich.

And if it bore any validity.

I'm with Alan Grayson on this.'

"This is a time to celebrate." http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4C4ZfeqOzVk

[Truth2Tell]

21. Right. You'd be more convinced. Uh huh. nt

[stray cat]

14. You Know McCains Health Care Plan or should

[CTLawGuy]

15. I would look in the sky for flying swine

The Republicans plainly don't believe that government should help people. It's against their ideology. Their "reform ideas" include things that are actual giveaways to insurance companies, including allowing cross-state insurance purchases (sets up race to the bottom as companies relocate to the least regulated states).

Not only is HCR against their ideology, they are trying to get HCR to fail because they think that it will trigger another 1994. And all these far leftists talking about sitting on their hands in 2010, or killing HCR outright, because the bill isn't perfect are doing nothing but helping the Republicans accomplish their goals.

[dickthegrouch]

16. TThe method for proposal and passage is COMPLETELY WRONG

When you have 2000 pages of obscure contradictory crap that requires 10 more years to implement, the entire process is BROKEN.

When the only thing you can do at the end of the day is approve or disapprove of the entire thing, the process IS BROKEN.

When all anyone on the other side can do is say "I'm voting against the entire thing because it contains this one provision, or doesn't contain that one provision", the process is BROKEN.

The "Home of the brave" needs to fix its process before it can ever be the "Land of the Free".

[glitch]

17. It hasn't been "Home of the brave" for quite awhile, either.

I think the mess is much worse than we thought, even in 2008. Amazing as that is to imagine.

[FrenchieCat]

20. IF, THEN......

means nothing, as it is pure speculation of something that didn't happen.

proof in point, Bush's terrible Medicare Part "D" legislation in 2003 included 16 Democrats,
which is quite bi-partisan by today's standard-

H.R. 1 <108th>: Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003

Yea: 220 (51%)
16D and 204R

Nay: 215 (49%)
189D and 25R

http://www.govtrack.us/congress/vote.xpd?vote=h2003-669

[Cha]

22. I do know this..

they want him to fail and fail miserably. They do not want a 2nd President Obama term.

[NYC_SKP]

23. The shits gonna hit the fan during his second term.

I know it and they know it.

:evilgrin:

[Cha]

26. And,

I know it:evilgrin:

[Jennicut]

24. Rethugs hate the bill because it would make insurance companies cover people with preexisting

conditions. The Rethugs so called health care proposal left that conveniently out.

[Truth2Tell]

28. No, the insurance companies hate it for that reason.

But the insurance cartel controls enough Democratic votes that they were able to cut a deal without the Republicans. They accept the pre-existing condition reform (and yes, some other good stuff) and in exchange they get millions of new government mandated customers and a public option deliberately engineered to fail.

[Hippo_Tron]

25. You fundamentally misunderstand how a democracy works, IMO

A democracy is designed to make politicians worry about how good they look and how they posture themselves because that is how they get re-elected. In the process of posturing themselves they tend to do some things that are good and some things that could have been done better if they weren't so worried about their posturing. Alternatively we could have an autocracy where politicians don't have to worry about their posturing since they don't have to stand for election. But we've seen the results of that time and again and there's a general consensus that this sort of system is less preferable to a democracy.

Democracy is, as Churchill famously said, "The worst form of government except for all of the others." Democracy isn't by any means a perfect system of government. It's just the best thing that humanity has been able to come up with this far.

[Truth2Tell]

31. If the politicians were only posturing for the people

you would have a point. But they are posturing for their corporate owners at the same time as they posture for us. So they choose to speak with forked tongue.

[Hippo_Tron]

32. Yes but that wasn't really what you were arguing

You were arguing that people support something simply because their party leaders support it and I am telling you that in any democracy that is the case because politicians will naturally act to strategically position themselves in order to improve their chances of being re-elected.

I agree that money has too much influence in our democracy and one of its flaws is the idea that money equals speech. They don't have that principle in Western European democracies and I do think those democracies are better off for it. On the other hand, we have some things that they don't, like the First Amendment, and I think our democracy is better off for having those.

At the end of the day people are voting in the way that the public wants them to. The problem is that the public is uninformed and scared by insurance companies who have spent millions of dollars scaring them. Democracy works better when you have informed people who understand what their own interests are.

[Truth2Tell]

35. Sorry, at the end of the day

our Congress members are NOT voting "the way that the public wants them to." It's not working that way. The public, even in the blue dog states, supported a real public insurance option. The public, across the board, opposes mandated insurance. This garbage isn't in this bill because Congress members are responding to pressure from misguided constituents. It's in there because they are answering to their insurance industry sponsors. The public has proven to be far less "uninformed and scared" than you imagine.

[Hippo_Tron]

36. Seats are disproportionately dispersed

Particularly the Senate where each state gets two seats and smaller states tend to be ones where insurance companies are big employers.

Some conservadems (like Joe Lieberman) are truly voting against the interests of their constituents. But I would venture to say that many of them are looking at their polling and seeing that their constituents are misinformed and think the public option will be bad for them for some reason or another.

The Senate's 60 vote rule is also a huge problem because the few hold-outs are having a largely disproportionate influence on the process.

[Truth2Tell]

37. The 60 vote rule was beatable

and a more robust public option could have been included in this bill with 50+ votes had the leadership and Obama had the political guts to take on the insurance companies and their blue dog vassals. And I still stand by my assertion that the people in the blue dog states supported a real public option. We can agree to disagree.

[Hippo_Tron]

38. Well if blue dogs are truly voting against their constituents

Then they ought to be feeling the heat pretty damn soon. I know, for example, that Blue Dog Jim Cooper was considering voting against the bill. But after protest from his constituents he decided to vote yes.

[LatteLibertine]

27. Honestly

I don't care which party or politician it is that pushes for reform and justice in the United States, I'll support them. The brakes need to be put on corporatism, and crony capitalism. The people on my team are those who stands up for the majority of United States citizens instead of the wealthy few. The top 1-10% deserve fair representation and not to lord over a rigged system. I know that will never drastically change and we can make improvements.

Yes, it is true we have a big problem with the revolving door or that is; government officials going into lobbying and lobbyists going into government.

My attitude is it is true that life isn't fair and that doesn't absolve us from trying to make it so. So things often look bleak and I won't give up trying.

[optimator]

29. I never thought Democrats would be the ones

to bring corporate totalitarian rule to this country.

[Egnever]

34. WEEE!

:silly:

[Faryn Balyncd]

30. You've nailed it!

[Egnever]

33. I totaly dissagree

This bill has a ton of good stuff in it, The only difference had bush been in office is the republicans wouldnt have stood in the way.

[backscatter712]

39. Bush didn't push this bill or anything like it.

He was perfectly fine with the insurers lining their pockets while hundreds of thousands died from lack of health care.

[Truth2Tell]

40. Apparently so is Obama, and nearly every member of Congress. nt

[TheKentuckian]

44. False premise. Bush would have never pushed for this reform.

Sure, he'd love to line his cronies pockets and bankrupt the government in the process, but he would have never provided public protections to do it nor would he set up any system that would have actually assisted poor people with coverage rather than setting up a tax refund boondoggle that only the rich could take advantage of.

What people are really trying to say, in my opinion, is that we had a responsible and even semi-ethical Republican party that is how that hypothetical party might legislate, which may or may not be the case. However, the reality of the Republican party we've lived with over the past generation plus gives us zero indications that they'd ever, even to get rich, do something that places rules on their cronies or helps the poor.

No, sadly the Republican plan is exactly what they produced which is a way to screw over people that suffer from malpractice, reduce regulations so that even those that live in states that try to keep big insurance honest can't find decent coverage, cover even less people than today, allow big insurance to sell all of us garbage that gives no value whatsoever, and generally the same old Laissez Fare bullshit conservatives have pushed for a hundred and fifty years.

Sure, we all wish the Republican plan was as good as the watered down reform Democrats are offering but the truth is not there or even somewhere between but in the fact that the Confederates actually have zero interest in good governance and are actively against the people. Not just unconcerned with or having as a downline concern but actually actively against.

[Truth2Tell]

45. I agree they are the Party of "no,"

but they do sometimes compromise, despite their reputation.

I could envision many Republicans accepting the pre-existing condition reform in exchange for the mandates - if the "Obama must fail" politics were removed from the equation.