"suggesting the existing system works well enough for them and most of the people they know, so it should just be left alone."

Fixed it for you.

I just can't figure out how the republicans got everyone fearing the loss of government provided health insurance!

We have Obama talking about trying to save money, maybe he should switch gears and just say at a minimum, medicare for everyone!

The truth is that the republicans just want to discredit Obama so that they don't have to go into the details of the bill. Just like they did on the stimulus.

If Obama had really tried to get Republicans involved, he might have gotten a lot if not the "Public option." He and Pelosi made the decision to do this over the Republicans dead bodies and they have to live with the decision they made. Remember that Bush was sincere in his attempt to reform Social Security and Democrats demagogued that. This is not the way to get things done but we seem to be in a place where nothing gets done. In many ways, that is a default Republican position because Republicans do not depend on government to get things done.

David Frum is not on my A list or even B list of people to listen to, but by way of your citation it seems Mr. Frum is attempting to bring the fringe back to the real issue - reforming a beast of inefficiency, many times usury profiteering, and unaccountable claims denials all, in fact, costing us future prosperity.

Frum is doing the focusing for what seems, to date, a blind mob incited to action by peabrains and dunderheads of his own ilk. Bully for him! -Kevo

I'm truly stunned. A Republican (and former Bush speach writer) with an actual thought process.

Frankly, if conservative meant anything, they would be working to get good coverage in a fashion that would help business be more competitive in world trade. That would be a welcome debate to add to the current push for reform.

Sadly, David Frum just made himself irrevelent on his side. You know, "You're either with us, or you're against us". He's now against!

That would be speech & irrelevant. Can't spell today!!

It isn't David Frum's Party or crowd anymore. I actually feel sorry for his kind.

BTW, the authentic Mike K has a good enough blog out there, he has some interesting points at http://abriefhistory.org/. He actually has some good word for the French (!) system, and some cautions too. And after reading his blog and comparing comments from various times, it is credible that he was spoofed (not just from parody troll "Myke K.") in "Passive or active resistance?", ironically including the last one disclaiming the others.

Oh, and Mike K, how'd you like your social security privatized just in time for 2009?

Also, Bush's sincerity means nothing save the way you remember it. Bush was also sincere in his beliefs of WMDs and Saddam's ties to al Qaeda, in his efforts to ferret out members of his administration who outed a CIA operative, in his desire to use his "political capital" he believed he won in 2004, in his efforts to remake the landscape of the DoJ, so on and so on.

So, Mike K, your observation of sincerity is not quite as sincere as you would make us believe. Try again! -Kevo

The emperor has no clothes, but he continues to parade around claiming that he is the best dressed in the world.

Whether it is in regard to healthcare, education, energy policy, or whatever, if one dares to suggest that the U.S. could learn a thing or two from the way other countries do things, he is painted as unpatriotic or unAmerican.

Conservatives who disparage intelligence, sophistication, educational achievement, bilingualism, science-technology innovation, and refuse to face change or diversity leave our country vulnerable to failure. Our competition is motivated to succeed.

The status quo is not a strategy for success. "I want my country back!" does not prepare America for the future.

"Mike K": In many ways, that is a default Republican position because Republicans do not depend on government to get things done.

Sorry to hear about the severe brain injury, there, Mikie, during the first half of Ronnie Rayguns' administration... was it in '82?

A Republican victory in this would be a victory for manic hysteria, mob rule and money.

Bottom line: the right doesn't want health care reform.

Duh.

Bottom line: the right doesn't want health care reform.

Well, duh, yeah. You knew this already though.

The institutional right, while not the mob, has wandered far into Randian territory. In the land they inhabit, all considerations are secondary to profit. There was no way they were ever going to NOT oppose any type of reform that acutally works by controlling costs.

Steve Benen smugly concludes:

Bottom line: the right doesn't want health care reform.

You must have gotten distracted before finishing that sentence, Steve (perhaps Yo Gabba Gabba just came on?).

I'll finish it for you.

Bottom line: the right doesn't want health care reform that will saddle future generations with crushing debt while inserting a government bureaucrat between a patient and his or her doctor.

You're welcome.

-A

Note the way Hannity's show is introduced since Obama: "America Under Siege."

Mike, try to live up more to your blog persona. There were good objections to SS "reform", not just demagoguery. Look e.g. at the stock market, may or may not recover back up in real terms to the 14k. As for working with Republicans, we explained here often that they weren't very interested in workable proposals. But if you list some, I'll have an open mind. Meanwhile, proposals by Republicans like Susan Collins to pay for end of life counseling, get turned into lies about Obama's plan.

Aren't you saddened by the key issue here, how most Republicans turned into feral wingnuts and left people like David Frum - and you I generously suppose - out in the cold?

I don't think the Democrats want health-care reform either. They're going through the motions, and they will fail. And the US will be the poorer for it.

The modern-day (elected) Dems are pretty awful. They're beholden to lobbyist & big business every bit as much as Republicans are. The days of Democrats representing regular people and Republicans representing rich people are pretty much over. The only real distinction between Dems and Republicans is the level of crazy they bring to the table.

Mike K, if you think Bush was sincere about wanting to "reform" Social Security, I have some excellent money-making opportunities I would like to discuss with you!

zhak - I'd still have to say "corrupt" holds a slight edge over "crazy and corrupt".

Atanarjuat:

Bottom line: the right wants health care that will saddle sick people with crushing debt while inserting a corporate insurance bureaucrat between a patient and his or her doctor.

Fixed it for you. And you're welcome.

I know the right doesn't want health care reform. The funny thing is, if say, a single payer bill passed both Houses, I bet it would get 4 or 5 Republican votes with out Obama having to whip it. Why? Easy. They don't want to be on the wrong side of history. Will that day come? I don't know.

Heh, Atanarjuat repeats a standing talking point with little evident understanding. The insurance companies already stand between us and our doctors, and many of us don't like what happens. As for debt, we are already paying for insurance and health care and the issue is the difference in cost. Borrowing does have to be justified, OK. But do you really think the status quo is OK? Who did Steven quote from, a liberal Democrat?

Jennifer, I agree. :-)

I like things like clean air and water, safe roads and buildings and (not least) Civil Rights. I like the idea of Social Security & Medicare, safety nets to preserve a certain quality of life for Americans. For those things, we can thank Democrats.

We can also thank Democrats for other things, like winning World War II despite chronic Republican appeasement.

But I feel that today's Democrats, with very few exceptions, are nothing at all compared to decades past. They talk a good talk, some of them, but when it comes down to brass tacks, they rarely side with the people they've been elected to represent. (Republicans never do.) And I'm quite sick of voting for the lesser of two evils.

It could be worse with a conservative victory. With all the "socialized medicine" rhetoric, we could see a real attempt to roll back Medicare/ Medicaid and replace it with a free market (sick and broke? --then die already) insurance market for older Americans.

Republicans have bent over backwards to work with Democrats since Obama's ascension. We tried to do the same with health reform by making numerous substantive proposals for change, but were rebuffed by a speaker who's too big for her satin britches.

Bipartisanship doesn't exist for the left. That's why we have to flatly vote against everything you do.

It's on you.

we could see a real attempt to roll back Medicare/ Medicaid and replace it with a free market (sick and broke? --then die already) insurance market for older Americans.

So long as Mutual of Ben Nelson is based in Omaha, I would consider that a virtual certainty.

Mike K, there's a logic problem with your theory. When Bush and the Republicans were in charge of everything, there were Democrats who voted with them. Offhand, I can't think of a single thing Bush didn't get that he wanted except for his long-cherished dream of gutting Social Security and enriching Wall Street.

When both parties vote for things, that's called bipartisanship. This occurred repeatedly, and disastrously, during the Bush years.

There are online dictionaries you might consider using.

Also, though I don't think it will help to point this out, in order for bipartisanship to work, both parties have to be sincere about desiring to work with each other. All those wonderful Republicans bending over backwards to work with Obama, who so cruelly rebuffs them all -- eh, the policy suggestions they are making would work against the desired result.

Mike K., you sound like one of those pricks who beats his wife then 'explains' to her why it's her fault and he had no choice but to beat the hell out of her.

Might explain why you can't keep one.

Frum writes:"we'll have (1) flat-lining wages, (2) exploding Medicaid and Medicare costs and thus immense pressure for future tax increases, (3) small businesses and self-employed individuals priced out of the insurance market, and (4) a lot of uninsured or underinsured people imposing costs on hospitals and local governments. "

-Travel, if you will, Gentle Reader, with me, back in Time. To, say, 1932. Or 1933.

Frum's Future eerily resembles the recent Past.

Homeless hobos by the thousands riding the rails from soup kitchen to flop house, while Dorothea Lange photographed their women and children.

It could happen.

-That's what DOES happen, when politicians buy the votes of the elderly with promises of perpetual life. . .

And by the way, Dr. Butcher, when the Rs were in charge, they were locked out of committee meetings. Tell me again how you venal asshats are so magnanimous and willing to work across the aisle, but let me borrow Sarah's hip-waders first because the bullshit will be deep.

*they= Democrats in my last comment.

Mike K,

Sorry, Bush was extremely irresponsible in his approach to social security reform.

For example, he referred to US Treasury bonds as "worthless paper" while his government was trying to sell US Treasury bonds to finance his deficits.

Democrats suggested that investing in the stock market with Social Security funds was gambling with the funds, and recently collapse of the market proves it.

In addition, social security investment of funds would amount to public ownership of corporations, a decidely non-coservative goal, and potentially destructive to free-market capitalism. The only way to avoid that would be to give the public free reign to invest the money as they saw fit, with very limited conditions. That would be a recipe for disaster, as organizations looked to profit off ill-informed investors.

"Mike K"
"MykeK"
Atanarjuat

these guys are sad...
could somebody open up another can of trolls.

"In many ways, that is a default Republican position because Republicans do not depend on government to get things done."

That's why the big evil government had to bail out Wall St, isn't it, because Wall St didn't really need those trillions of dollars , it just stole it from the taxpayers...

ROTFLOL!!!!

If Obama had really tried to get Republicans involved, he might have gotten a lot if not the "Public option."

I'll ignore the breathtakingly huge lie about Dems being the ones who refused to play with others -- note that the reason we're even having this conversation over the recess is that our blue dogs are still turning their starry eyes at the possibility of getting a modicum of Republican cooperation instead of snits, tantrums and mob action -- and focus on what Mike/Myke K thinks "quite a lot" might mean.

Without the public option providing the competition you say you love except when you personally have to face some, what specifically do you think signifies quite a lot of compromise on the GOP's part, Mike/Myke? Again, I want specific details, not tangential tears about how someone swore at you this morning or Nancy Pelosi was mean to point out that swastika imagery is uncool.

The utter lack of concrete content in your posts on this subject leads me to believe that you would have considered a verbal statement along the lines of "We will try to contain costs. Sincerely, Big Insurance" to be comprehensive healthcare reform.

You have not yet argued in good faith on this topic -- not once. Let's see if you can do it now.

You quote Frum: "To the extent that anybody in the conservative world still aspires to any kind of future reform and improvement of America's ossified government, that should be a very ashy victory indeed."

As some other commenters have noted, finally we get a thoughtful conservative.

I would argue that the Republican Party has gotten itself into a terrible position, as Frum seems to realize. It's hard to remember now, but this used to be the party of Lincoln, Theodore Roosevelt, and Eisenhower. It was a party that used government, a government it celebrated (remember Lincoln's words), to save the union, settle the West, set aside national parks and build the Panama Canal and bust monopolies, and integrate schools and build interstate highways and begin space travel.

Those Republicans are all gone now. In their place are Goldwater and Reagan, Dubya and Palin. Notice, in passing, the intellectual decline in this sequence. Their mantra, in Reagan's words, is that government is not the solution to our problems, government is the problem.

Along the way, the Republicans have turned their backs on facts, as developed through the scientific method, and embraced paranoid gingoism, white racism, religious fundamentalism, and unrestrained capitalism.

As Frum seems to understand or at least fear, the result is a party which has has nothing to offer this nation in terms of "government" and "improvement."

All of their ideas of the last 30 years have been tried and have failed. Tax cuts have produced monstrous debt and growing inequality, de-regulation produced scandalous failures of Enron and AIG and -- almost -- the entire financial system, and privatization turned into the crony capitalism of Blackwater and Haliburton. They invaded a nation which had not attacked us and had none of the weapons or terrorists they alleged. They stood by as a great American city was destroyed. They turned their backs on the scientific frontiers of the new century, stem-cell research and new energy technologies. They turned their back on the highest moral teachings of our Judeo-Christian heritage and our Constitution. They have chosen hate over love and torture over due process.

It's too bad that today's Republicans are beyond irony as well as facts. You would think that they would find it a scandal that the US spends at least 16% of its GDP on health care, while no other nation spends more than 10 or 11. They should want to free American business from the burden of health insurance. They should be scandalized, as self-professed Christians if not as Americans, by today's "malefactors of great wealth" in what could be called "the medical-industrial complex" using terms like "pre-existing conditions" and "medical losses" and "recission" to deny health care to their fellow citizens. They should be embarrassed by the complexities of health insurance forms and the mysteries of health care bills, compared to how easy and hassle-free health care is in other nations.

Instead Republicans such as Frum have surrendered to (or at least been pushed aside by ) the know-nothing, lie-infested, hate-filled, race-baiting, violence-inciting rants of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck.

Frum writes that the defeat of health-care reform "will be a triumph for inertia." That's the best Republicans have to offer. I think it's worse. Can we fix the glaring weaknesses in our health care system? Can we develop new energy technologies? If the answer is no, then we will not for long remain a great nation. What Frum should have written is more like "set the stage for decline."

"Republicans have bent over backwards"

And forwards too. Angry poor old white Republicans apparently like taking it up the A$$ for rich people...

ROTFLOL!!!

Yeah, it's from Forbes, but look at http://www.forbes.com/2009/07/24/obamacare-medicare-death-business-healthcare-obamacare.html on the "death panel" fracas. Actually a rather good piece, and see also "Palinoscopy" and the Republican strategist and interviewer who mock Palin.

Superb post CMcC.

Lupin's post above responding to a health care "denier" is one of the best turnarounds I've ever seen.

Bottom line: the right doesn't want health care reform.

Maybe, but the center does not want the bills that Congress is considering. The center does not believe what Obama is saying about those bills.

If the center wanted this health care "reform", Congress would pass it, Obama would sign it, and the Democrats would reap the electoral rewards. Instead, the bills are stalled in Congress, and Democrats are fighting amongst each other.

Mike, try to live up more to your blog persona. There were good objections to SS "reform", not just demagoguery. Look e.g. at the stock market, may or may not recover back up in real terms to the 14k.

The stock market over a long period does far better than any other kind of investment including real estate. Bush was proposing that some percent of the FICA tax collected from young people could be invested in private accounts. The demagoguery was in misrepresenting that. My SS wouldn't be privatized because I am not one of those young people who will never see the benefits. You are paying for me and that is what he wanted to change.

As for working with Republicans, we explained here often that they weren't very interested in workable proposals. But if you list some, I'll have an open mind. Meanwhile, proposals by Republicans like Susan Collins to pay for end of life counseling, get turned into lies about Obama's plan.

Read Charles lane's piece in the WaPo about that. I have it linked on my blog.

What comes out of the Congress this year, if anything, will actually look like the current bipartisan proposals. They include taxing company health plans and using the proceeds for tax credits to buy insurance. Remember whose proposal that was last year ? I think there will be a bill; it would be a disaster for Obama to get nothing. I think the current AG statements about investigating CIA "torture" is bread and circuses for the left to compensate them for losing the public option.

The "government bureaucrat" point is one of the right's greatest hits, and a spectacularly annoying one.

For starters, as everyone always points out, the WHOLE FUNCTION of an insurance company is to place bureaucrats between patients and doctors. It's the raison d'etre of the whole multi-billion dollar business.

Second of all, if you HAVE insurance, you already have to deal with bureaucrats; but MILLIONS OF PEOPLE DON'T HAVE INSURANCE, which means they don't have doctors, which means there's no sacrosanct doctor-patient relationship that needs to be protected.

This world where everyone has doctors they deal with directly and happily -- it doesn't fucking exist. Telling me that health care reform will damage my doctor-patient relationship is about like telling me that it will hinder my career as a concert violinist. It's imaginary.

Richard Shelby comes from old Southern money. He was a member of the right fraternity at the University of Alabama and went on to its law school. He has spent his professional and political life defending the interests of the country club set he grew up with. They are all he knows, which is OK with him because they are the only people that matter.

I don't think progressives grasp the bigger point. For a large part of Movement Conservatism drawing its intellectual inspiration from Hayek ends DON'T justify means. Not when those means are governmental.

Defenders of Hayek claim that his ideas were far more subtle than those of what we can call Vulgar Hayekism. Yeah well the same is true of Marx and Freud which didn't save us from Vulgar Marxism and Parlor Freudianism.

Hayek allowed his seminal work to be reproduced in literally cartoon form, that is he allowed the Road to Serfdom to be reduced to 18 cartoon panels and distributed. All you need to know about the mindset of the Dittoheads disrupting the town halls can be gleaned from reading the following:
http://mises.org/books/TRTS/

Just go through all the panels and substitute 'health care plan' and 'health care planner' everywhere you see 'plan' 'planner' and 'planning'. If you do you will see how Palin managed to make the trip from voluntary end-of-life planning to death panels, the fatal steps on the Road to Serfdom were outlined by Hayek's followers 50 and more years ago.

"First they came for my census information ..."

Paranoia is by definition irrational, that doesn't mean it lacks its own logic, In this case the logic was laid down by Hayek and distilled into a phrase by Goldwater in 1964.
"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice! And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue!"

Combine Hayek, Goldwater and Friedman (Capitalism and Freedom) into a neat package, dumb the package down, and hand it out and the result is what you see. We look at these guys and see irrational people shouting down what is clearly in their own material best interest, they look at themselves in the mirror and see a freedom fighter making sure that their fellow men don't drag that Trojan Horse through the Gates. To change classical images a little: Did anyone tell the 300 not to yell? Of course not.

It may be hard to fathom minds that equate accepting health care for themselves and their kids as surrendering Greece to the Persians, but there we are.

If Obama had really tried to get Republicans involved, he might have gotten a lot if not the "Public option."

ROFLMAO.... And if pigs had wings, they'd be pigeons. Obama did try; they didn't want to. Republicans are philosophically and politically opposed to real health care reform, with almost none of them embracing *anything* that would actually help reform the system.

He and Pelosi made the decision to do this over the Republicans dead bodies and they have to live with the decision they made.

Tell me, what color is the sky in your world?

Remember that Bush was sincere in his attempt to reform Social Security and Democrats demagogued that.

Complete bullshit. Had Bush been sincere about reforming Social Security, he would have actually put a proposal on the table that did something to solve the problems. His own administration had to admit that the proposals he was considering did nothing to address the real issues.

This is not the way to get things done but we seem to be in a place where nothing gets done. In many ways, that is a default Republican position because Republicans do not depend on government to get things done.

You left out "... for everyone else." Republicans definitely do "depend on government to get things done," when those things are what they and their supporters want. Republicans haven't *really* been in favor of "limited government" for decades.

The stock market over a long period does far better than any other kind of investment including real estate.

And over short periods, it does far worse, as we've seen.

Bush was proposing that some percent of the FICA tax collected from young people could be invested in private accounts. The demagoguery was in misrepresenting that.

Nope. What was pointed out was that the Bush proposals (he didn't have just one, and he never actually settled on a real plan) a) didn't solve the problem with the shortfall, both the short-term shortfall and the long-term shortfall, b) didn't have any details about how, precisely that money would be invested, what restrictions would be placed on those investments, what to do when someone lost their shirt in the market, who would manage this money, and so on, c) what effect such an influx of money would have on the stock market, and d) any reason why the new system was superior to the existing system.

As for working with Republicans, we explained here often that they weren't very interested in workable proposals.

How about that; Mike actually speaking the truth for once.

I had missed this one. This is just priceless.

Republicans have bent over backwards to work with Democrats since Obama's ascension.

ROFLMAO.... Note the complete lack of details or of any corroborating evidence.

We tried to do the same with health reform by making numerous substantive proposals for change, but were rebuffed by a speaker who's too big for her satin britches.

LOL... And this is even better. Do tell us, Mike, dear, just what those "numerous substantive proposals for change" were, won't you? We'd be simply fascinated.

Bipartisanship doesn't exist for the left. That's why we have to flatly vote against everything you do. It's on you.

Oh, you poor dear. Life is so unfair, isn't it, what with all that effort you've been making, only to have those nasty liberals rebuffing your "substantive proposals" for more tax cuts. How dreadful of them. You should lie down for a bit until you feel better.

Sad to say, one has to ask just how committed Obama is to health care reform. Corporate America doesn't want it. Corporate America is acting through all kinds of pols on both sides of the aisle.

I'd be curious to know how many agree that the game was up when Rahm Emanuel signed on. Not just the health care game, the whole Obama game.

Let's divy up the debate. One topic is the policy discussion on what is the best way to reform health care. The second has to do with the republican strategy. The latter has nothing to do with the former. The focus on the latter is suggests it has something to do with health care policy. It does not.

This is how I see the repubublican brilliant strategy to get back control of Congress in 2010. The got the House back in 1994, and the Senate in 2002, so they know what they are doing. This strategy began January 22. First, the repubs have a clear message:...Do not cooperate with the Obama on any issue, no way, no how. Just say NO. This unites the party on the one place they can all stand together. Then, use Talk Radio to undermine the legitimacy of the presidency.....he is not native born; he is a socialist, radical, communist, muslim..
Continue to undermine the non-right wing media...call it the "state controlled media." Finally, spread lies about the health care proposals. No one on the other side has the credibility to refute the lies.

Forty-seven million people voted for McCain and twenty million of them listen to Limbaugh every day. All those voters lost in 2008. The repubs, et.al. are currently giving them a win. It reinforces them and they will turn out in 2010.

As an old community organizator, Obama should have known how to win a fight where you need the public on your side:
1) Get a slogan 2) Name the enemy 3) Start a fire. Get the word OUT.

Just Say NO
Obama is the "enemy"
The Town Hall meetings are the venue for the "fire."

Talk radio has been doing one and two for seven months, 24/7 and the message and the medium works. And, the Democratics gave them the time and place to "start the fire."
It works every time.

I don't mean to suggest that there is anything untoward or actually subversive about the strategy. I think the consequences of the "Conservative Victory" is just that. I think the Republicans will take back the Senate, and increase their numbers in the House.

Actually, Mike whining about how "bipartisanship doesn't exist for the left" reminds me of the whining he does here about how we just want an echo chamber and how we'll never actually engage him or listen to him, and how picked on he gets when his mindless partisan drivel crosses the troll boundary and gets deleted, all of this while completely ignoring the fact that he almost never posts anything substantive (this thread being a case in point), never backs up anything he writes, and never responds to the counter-arguments that others make. That's Mike for you.

Bipartisanship doesn't exist for the left.

But you're the ones who think "bipartisanship is date rape." So are we to understand that you're complaining about not being date-raped? Figures.

@JoanneinDenver: while i think the gop might pick up some house seats next cycle, they would need to flip 11 seats in the next cycle to get control of the senate...the most optimistic gop strategists i've seen are talking about 4 targets...CO being one of them....personally, i think the gop will be lucky to still hold 40 seats...and the landscape for 12 isn't much better for them

Mike K: The stock market over a long period does far better than any other kind of investment including real estate. Bush was proposing that some percent of the FICA tax collected from young people could be invested in private accounts.

But retirement accounts have to be good over defined time periods, not over vague "long" periods. People saving for retirement lost almost everything in the market crash and bank failures of 1929. It didn't do any good to a 65 year-old retiree in 1932 that the value returned 1 or 2 decades later. A similar consideration applies to people who retired 2 years ago, or in 1999.

SS as run now permits anybody to invest after-tax dollars in any assets that they want, while enforcing a small, low-risk, low-yield fund of the sort that should be included in any investment portfolio.

zhak: When both parties vote for things, that's called bipartisanship. This occurred repeatedly, and disastrously, during the Bush years.

The Medicare Prescription Drug Benefit passed the House without any Democratic support. It was unpopular with Conservatives, then and now, but was supported by some who thought that the Democrats would eventually pass something more expensive and more restrictive on the pharmaceutical companies.

It may be the case that none of the Republicans who voted for it benefited in their re-election campaigns, and none of the Democrats who voted against it suffered. That's a precedent that the Democrats are loathe to follow with a much larger and more controversial wholesale reform.

Frum is absolutely right, in the short run.

But as more and more middle class (i.e. the voting class) people under 65 (Obama’s and the dem’s constituency) fall thru the medical care cracks the outrage will build. Obama is a good enough politician to get ahead of it. Harry Reid will be beaten or retire, and senate dems will get a real leader. And real outrage, real fear (not the gop kind, built on lies) will come to the great middle, where all the real politics happens.

And the bill which finally DOES pass will be the GOP’s worst nightmare. No, not offing granny, but single payer or something very close to it.

Unless the GOP backs off, and lets some version of the Obama/Pelosi/Reid legislation pass now.

But of course they think their political (not policy) tactics always work. They forget that once in a while the public really does get pissed off enough, and aware enough, to overcome the scare talk.

It happened in the depression (anyone in the GOP notice how many elections FDR won?)
It happened in Watergate.
And it can happen around paying for healthcare.

The great center of the american polity is like a supertanker: any large change of direction takes a long time to implement, and the actions which do so seem not to work at first. But once turning, it is impossible to stop.

Thank you CMcC for you thoughtful observations. You provide historical clarity, and if only others would shed their veils of emotion, maybe they would also benefit from your offering!

I am an Eisenhower Republican from the old school, and even though Ike realized many white parents of young Euro-American children didn't really wanted yhem to sit next to African American children, he knew desegregation was the moral future. Ike had resolve to do the right thing. Teddy R. also promoted conservation and to an extent regulation. And Abe, good ol'Abe!

CMcC, I do not recognize the Republican party as I had come to know it prior to the election of that failed Hollywood actor! -Kevo

Mike K: If Obama had really tried to get Republicans involved, he might have gotten a lot if not the "Public option."

Congressional Republicans opposed TARP, the Stimulus, the budget supplemental (for Iraq/Afpak), Tax and Trade, and even "cash for clunkers" (which entailed money already allocated for the stimulus, and is undeniably "shovel ready"); 31 Senators voted against confirming Judge (now Associate Justice) Sotomayor, despite her 380 unquestionably mainstream opinions. I think that there is nothing Obama or the Congressional Democratic leadership could have done to get more than 5 Republicans to cooperate on a health care reform package that a majority of Democrats would vote for.

I look at healthcare reform as being similar to a situation I was faced with recently. I went in last Wednesday to get the oil in my car changed. I knew I needed 3 new tires but was thinking I could put it off for just a bit longer. The guy who changed the oil also performed a courtesy check and found the tread on the 3 tires were at a critical level. I thought to myself, well, ok, I can still wait a little longer. The company had changed its' policy though. The cashier handed me a statement I was required to sign acknowledging that I knew the tires were bad but chose not to remedy the situation. The statement was also designed to absolve them of all liability in the event of any accident resulting from my inaction. After reading the statement, I bought the tires and a warranty on them. Why? Because after seeing the statement warning of a possible accident if I didn't replace the tires, I decided I would buy them to avoid a future negative situation from happening. I imagined what would happen if due to my inaction, I was killed or injured. But what really persuaded me was the thought that my inaction could cause someone else harm.
Addressing HC reform now means we try to get a handle on costs NOW before they get totally out of control in the future when it will be more difficult to do so. It will also provide financial and personal security to all Americans. My purchase of the tires gives me a sense of security I can use now and in the future that my car will be safer and decrease the chances of a tire-related accident. It's important to acknowledge a problem exists and handle it sooner rather than later in order to have a better outcome in the long-run. Just saying.

It's apparent that Frum, while being cared for in a Canadian clinic, was implanted with a brain chip that gives his government to control his words action. He's a tool of Canuck domination, I tell you.

"American Under Siege" indeed, my friends.

Hayek: overlooks that serfs were working on the estates of "private property" owners with unlimited powers and much greater wealth, which is what made the serfs the pee-ons that they were.

For starters, as everyone always points out, the WHOLE FUNCTION of an insurance company is to place bureaucrats between patients and doctors. It's the raison d'etre of the whole multi-billion dollar business.

It's another ironic side effect of Republican policies that they tend to generate a lot of bureaucratic work, and a lot of bureaucrats. Republican lawmakers are obsessed with making sure that nobody gets anything they don't "deserve", and therefore writes in a ton of rules about who and under what circumstances they can benefit. These rules have to be enforced by somebody. These somebodies are called bureaucrats.

In other countries, rules for benefits can be a lot simpler, just because people generally aren't as worked up if somebody somewhere gets something they don't really need or weren't intended to benefit from.

Congressional Republicans opposed TARP,

The problem with TARP, which seems to have worked, is that the money wasn't used for what they said it would be used for. It was a pig in a poke, like the health care bills. In retrospect, it worked but was not presented honestly. I have no problem with them voting no. The Fed has more to do with the recovery than anything Congress did.

the Stimulus

They were correct about the stimulus. The Republicans' alternative was to suspend FICA for six months. It would have cost about the same and been immediately available, a bit like cash for clunkers. Instead, the "stimulus" was a ten year Democrat wish list that hasn't helped at all. 90% of it is still unspent.

the budget supplemental (for Iraq/Afpak)

That one I don't remember.

, Tax and Trade,

Was that a Freudian slip ? It will never get out of the Senate and is a mess.

and even "cash for clunkers" (which entailed money already allocated for the stimulus, and is undeniably "shovel ready")

The cash for clunkers is closer to what Republicans advocated but the mistake is in destroying the used cars turned in. Are you aware of the "broken window theory " of economics ? This is an example.

31 Senators voted against confirming Judge (now Associate Justice) Sotomayor, despite her 380 unquestionably mainstream opinions.

Maybe mainstream to you but she is a far left ideologue. I am pleased that the seat went to an obvious inarticulate leftist who will be unlikely to convert any colleagues. A smarter choice could have done more harm.

I think that there is nothing Obama or the Congressional Democratic leadership could have done to get more than 5 Republicans to cooperate on a health care reform package that a majority of Democrats would vote for.

Posted by: MatthewRMarler

You could be right but I think it will be a fig leaf bill or nothing. We will see.

I too am suspicious of anything working off BWF; I sure hope CFC has really good stimulus effect. I would rather the cars be given to poor people than destroyed. However, most economists say well-targeting spending does more good than tax cuts, but targeting for best effect and not politics is hard to come by.

A is A! No, A.; most Americans *don't like the situation as it already is* and that motivates their, and most of our, attraction to something different - not inherent delight in taking orders from Chairman Obama. There's a lot more pragmatism around, "even here", than you realize.

Mike K: Are you aware of the "broken window theory " of economics ? This is an example.

Yes, aka "opportunity cost". I "guesstimate" the opportunity cost of cash for clunkers at about $225B, the total amount of money transferred into the immediate purchase of cars. (to be revised when all data are available) That's a lot of money spent to accelerate slightly the reduction of American oil imports.

For me, with a 10+ year old Jeep Cherokee Sport(18 mpg gasoline) , I could have spent about $23k for a VW Jetta station wagon (41 mpg diesel), for a net saving of no more than 340 gals per year, no more than $1360 in fuel costs. I mention the VW Jetta wagon because the engine has about the same horsepower as the Jeep engine and slightly higher cost than the Jeep initially. Considered over 10 years, that's $23k plus interest to save no more than 3400 gals of fuel and no more than $13600 in fuel. According to statistics I have seen so far, most improvements were not that dramatic (and, alas, VW Jetta wagons were already all sold out.)

For me, with a 10+ year old Jeep Cherokee Sport(18 mpg gasoline)

Who would be dumb enough to buy this vehicle? It astounds me that this country is so full of the walking clueless.

CMoC, PaulB, and others have written some excellent responses to Mike's mostly sincere but still warped perception of past events. However, I think it would be much easier to simy ask:

Why should anyone expect any sort of reasonable governance from people that can't stand government?

The GOP has become nothing more than power-loving corporatists who rule through fear and thriving on selling the faux wonders of the allmighty so-called "free market". There is no real competition in healthcare any more. The country has been divied up into chunks for 5 to 7 companies. The health plan "choices" offered to you by your employers Are nothing more than crumbs on the floor to keep you distracted from asking the right questions asking.

It's simply mind-boggling that the GOP think that keepring the status-quo in healthcare is going to translate into real electoral successes for them.

"This world where everyone has doctors they deal with directly and happily -- it doesn't fucking exist."

Uh, yes it does. Just not in the US of A.

"If Obama had really tried to get Republicans involved, he might have gotten a lot if not the "Public option."" There are more than 60 (or 80 or some big number) ReThuglican proposed amendments that made it into "the" bill. So how is that not letting ReThuglicans be "involved"?

It does not matter how much Congress and Obama let the ReThuglicans be involved, they will NOT vote for the bill. They're being punked, AGAIN, by trying to be "bipartisan."

Congress, Mr. President, just ignore the idiots on the right and DO the RIGHT THING.

mike k : Bipartisanship doesn't exist for the left.

GOP Bi-partisanship 2004: Go F*ck Yourself..

how'd that work out?

Ramesh: Who would be dumb enough to buy this vehicle?

I use it for hauling tools and construction materials and junk and mulch, and for driving on bad roads. I have twice towed loaded trailers cross-country with it. I have employed both the "S" and "U" capacity of the SUV. I have purchased CO2 offsets for the gasoline consumption, since they became available.