BS: Republican response to Health Reform

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:39 PM

Health Care Reform

It's Time to Decide, and 54% of Voters Oppose the Health Care Plan
Sunday, March 21, 2010

Speaker Nancy Pelosi has scheduled a House of Representatives vote today on the health care reform plan proposed by the President Obama and congressional Democrats. Yet while in Congress there has been months of posturing and shifting of political tactics, voter attitudes have remained constant: A majority oppose the plan being considered by the legislators.

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. These figures have barely budged in recent months.

Another finding that has remained constant is that the intensity is stronger among those who oppose the plan. The latest findings include 26% who Strongly Favor the plan and 45% who Strongly Oppose it.

The partisan divide remains constant as well. Seventy-four percent (74%) of Democrats favor the plan, while 87% of Republicans are opposed. As for those not affiliated with either major party, 34% are in favor, and 59% are opposed.

Still, 50% of all voters say they're less likely to vote this November to reelect a member of Congress who votes for the health care plan.

Fifty-seven percent (57%) believe that if the plan passes, the cost of health care will go up. Only 17% believe the plan will achieve the stated goal of reducing the cost of care.

At the same time, most voters (54%) believe that passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.

The Congressional Budget Office recently said that the proposed legislation would reduce the deficit, but voters are skeptical of the official government projections. Eighty-one percent (81%) believe the health care plan will cost more than projected. That's one reason voters overwhelmingly believe passage of the plan will increase the deficit and is likely to mean higher middle class taxes.

Some parts of the legislation are popular, but voters are reluctant to embrace the high cost of paying for it. Most voters (56%) oppose reducing Medicare spending and also oppose an excise tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans. Fifty-seven percent (57%) also believe that passage of the plan will hurt the U.S. economy.

In fact, 55% of voters would rather see Congress scrap the original plan and start all over again.

While most voters oppose the legislation, 64% say it's at least somewhat likely to pass. The disconnect between sustained public opposition to the health care plan and the belief it may pass may be one reason that just 21% of voters believe the federal government has the consent of the governed. This follows a similar disconnect on the bailouts, the government takeover of General Motors and other initiatives that were approved in the past year despite strong public opposition.

In his new book, In Search of Self-Governance, Scott Rasmussen observes that most Americans "have come to believe that the political system is broken, that most politicians are corrupt, and that neither major political party has the answers." He adds that "the gap between Americans who want to govern themselves and politicians who want to rule over them may be as big today as the gap between the colonies and England during the 18th century."

In Search of Self-Governance is available from Rasmussen Reports and at Amazon.com. The book ends on a hopeful note and reminds readers that "in America, the politicians aren't nearly as important as they think they are."

Skepticism about politicians plays a role in the opposition to the health care legislation as well. Only 20% believe most members of Congress will understand the bill before they vote on it. When it comes to making health care decisions, 51% fear the federal government more than they fear private insurance companies. Thirty-nine percent (39%) fear private insurers more.

Health care reform now ranks fifth in terms of voter concern on a list of 10 issues regularly tracked by Rasmussen Reports.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: pdq
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:35 PM

This is basic Constitutional law 101...


"South Carolina's attorney general is leading nine other state AGs -- all Republicans -- in threatening to sue over the provision of the health care bill that exempts Nebraska from new Medicaid costs, a measure secured by Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE).

The 'review' was prompted by a letter sent Monday by Sens. Lindsey Graham and Jim DeMint to Attorney General Henry McMaster, who is currently running for governor. 'We have serious concerns about the constitutionality of this Nebraska compromise as it results in special treatment for only one state in the nation at the expense of the other 49', they wrote.

In an interview with McClatchy, DeMint said the Nebraska provision, which would save the state $100 million, violates Article 1, Section 9 of the Constitution: 'No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one state over those of another ...' "

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:33 PM

Right, Q. That is called democracy. We will see who prevails in the next election. Why do you think the opposition spent so much money and time trying to demonize it? Because they knew that once passed, folks would come to see it as essential, just as Social Security and Medicare are. The last numbers I saw show a 49% and rising approval, and a 40% disapproval. See you at the polls.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Q (Frank Staplin)
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

Mitt Romney has called the bill unconstitutional and asked for repeal. Several states are voting to put roadblocks in the way of implementation. Loosely organized groups, Tea, Statists and Liberty, are whipping up opposition.

If the opponents increase their voting power in Congress, and the attacks continue to grow, repeal is likely if the Republicans prevail in 2012.

The 'majority' in the last election may well be a 'minority' in coming elections.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: artbrooks
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 01:01 PM

The legal challenges, at least so far, seem to be focused on the mandatory coverage provisions that don't go into effect until 2014. I doubt if any court would accept a suit to delay the entire program in order to address that part (dumber things have happened, of course).

These challenges focus on the idea that a Federal law imposing an obligation on the states is precluded by the 10th Amendment. The Supreme Court addressed this, on the topic of Social Security and Medicare, in 1937, and found that a national law that addresses the general welfare of the citizens of the entire nation is constitutional. (Look up Helvering v Davis, if you'd like.) It would be very interesting if the current Court found the health care program unconstitutional - then where would Social Security be? Besides broke, that is.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:40 PM

The scholars that are most credible, and not paid shills of Fox or any network, are pretty unanimous in their opinion.

As to term limits, in a democratic republic they are built in. It is called "one person, one vote". Only those opposed to representative democracy would be in favor of anything other than that. Note how it was the conservatives, when they could not win in the court of popular opinion known as the majority, that favored establishing term limits.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:29 PM

"Every legal scholar has indicated that they have no chance of prevailing."

             There have been a number who have indicated they do.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:23 PM

Term limits? You mean keep folks like Henry Waxman and Sherrod Brown and Sheldon Whitehouse and Barney Frank...and a whole list of others from being 'established', with experience and wisdom?
No thanks...I'd rather struggle with the bad ones than lose guaranteed GOOD ones.

(UNLESS we change the entire system of choosing candidates to eliminate most of the power brokering and nepotism... I can design that, but the 'system' has its own built-in safeguards against any changes that interfere with its habits.)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Big Mick
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:16 PM

No, Riggy, they have issues to make political hay out of. Every legal scholar has indicated that they have no chance of prevailing. This is about politics at the expense of the public. Nothing else.

Mick

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:13 PM

"Its a shame that some of those attorney's general can say the things they have been saying and remain members of the bar."

             They have issues that seem reasonable to them. That's why we have three branches of government.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: SINSULL
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 12:07 PM

It is disgraceful. Rather than participate in the process and produce a health care plan to benefit the entire nation, both parties voted along party lines to ensure their own re-elections. A few hundred people get paid to fuck around, pontificate, hurl slurs and decide our lives for us while protecting their power base.
I suggest term limits in both houses - maximum two. Work, get it done right and get out.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:54 AM

Those challenges are political theater. Nothing more. Its a shame that some of those attorney's general can say the things they have been saying and remain members of the bar.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Riginslinger
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:14 AM

The big question now is how the courts will handle it. Once the suits are filed, will everything be put on hold until a legal decision is made?

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Bill D
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 11:03 AM

It isn't health care....it isn't even money that they are frothing over. It's the fact that Obama has won on this VERY important battle. They were banking on him losing, and being able to label him a loser in 2012. Now, by that time, it will have sunk in that he and the Democrats have done something seriously GOOD for the country and made the Republicans look like fools for all the lies and dirty politics.

(well...it IS also money....the money they get from their corporate backers to finance elections. I suppose you 'can' say, using the old joke, that the Republicans are honest politicians - once bought, they STAY bought.)

Now they are sort of committed to doubling down and increasing the lies and hyperbole and artificially linking all sorts of special interest issues to this one...just as they have been playing the abortion card.

Expect to hear LOTS more about guns and religion and *gasp* Socialism, and innuendo about race and immigration and every other conservative 'hot button' they can think of! They KNOW how to use fear and prejudice to inflame people, but just 'maybe' those they are trying to inflame will realize that the party which FINALLY got them Health Care is really the party which cares and can be trusted.

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Amos
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:10 AM

"Unfairly or not, the defining images of opposition to health care reform may end up being those rage-filled partisans with spittle on their lips. Whether the outbursts came from inside Congress — the "baby killer" shout of Rep. Randy Neugebauer, and his colleagues who cheered on hecklers — or outside, where protesters hurled vile names against elected representatives, they are powerful and lasting scenes of a democracy gasping for dignity.

Now, ask yourself a question: can you imagine Ronald Reagan anywhere in those pictures? Or anywhere in those politics? Reagan was all about sunny optimism, and at times bipartisan bonhomie. In him, the American people saw their better half.

    The Republican Party has taken some of the worst elements of Tea Party anger and incorporated them into its own identity.

Compare that to the closing days of a week that will soon be chiseled into the larger American story. One Democrat, Rep. Ciro Rodriguez, said he was called a "wetback" by Tea Party hecklers at a meeting a few days before the vote. Black members of Congress say they were spat on, and called racial epithets. Bricks were thrown through the office windows of two other Democrats. And now, the inevitable death threats.

From the leader of the opposition, at least, was expected a level of decorum. But instead, Rep. John Boehner, the Republican who wants to be the next speaker of the House, predicted "Armageddon," and shouted "Hell, no!," his perma-tan turning crimson in rage.

Most of these vignettes are isolated incidents — a few crazies going off in a vein-popping binge. But the Republican Party now has taken some of the worst elements of Tea Party anger and incorporated them into its own identity. They are ticked off, red-faced, frothing — and these are the men in suits.


In trying to explain his intemperate shout over a bill that in fact explicitly outlaws using public funds for abortion, Congressman Neugebauer said he was representing the views of people back home in Texas, as expressed in town hall meetings. By this logic, he'd throw his popcorn on somebody's head if enough people did it in movie theaters in his district.

"Let's beat the other side to a pulp!" Rep. Steve King, Republican of Iowa, shouted to the last stand of Tea Partiers on Sunday night. "Let's chase them down! There's going to be a reckoning."

Indeed there will. But as the party of the hissy fit, Republicans are playing with fire.

On Monday morning, most Americans awoke with some relief that the epic battle was over. Then, they tried to figure out what health care overhaul would mean to them. They found out that insurance companies would no longer be allowed to drop people if they get sick. They saw that older children could stay on their insurance through age 26. And the elderly, the most consistent voting block, discovered that the new law would gradually end a prescription drug donut hole that causes many of them to cut their pills in half to get through a month.

No death panels. No socialized public option. No forcing people to change doctors or providers. And the most contentious part of the new law — requiring nearly everyone to get health coverage or pay a fine — does not kick in until 2014.

Little wonder then, as the focus turned away from legislators cutting deals to a new law of the land that tries to help average people, the polls showed public sentiment starting to shift. Armageddon was nowhere to be seen."

(NY Times Opinionator)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Leadfingers
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 10:05 AM

I think they CAN ! Just hope they can carry on improving things !

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: katlaughing
Date: 25 Mar 10 - 03:15 AM

Well done!

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Alice
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:37 PM

Oh, that was funny.

Careful you don't get hypnotized while listening. :-)

Subject: RE: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: CarolC
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:33 PM

What a clown.

Subject: BS: Republican response to Health Reform
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 24 Mar 10 - 11:31 PM

No You Can't