Very succinctly put. What was interesting to me, watching the Cantor video, was that he addressed the question in his role as congressional representative. Instead of wearing his partisan hat and talking about how things ought to be, he had to address an actual problem, and in so doing got hung out to dry with the inadequacy of his own proposals. You can't acknowledge that government proposals are shame-free, useful, and necessary, yet continue to refuse to to fund them on ideological grounds.

I thought of a way for Democrats to demonstrate the urgency of passing health coverage reform while I was listening to the endless debate in the Senate Finance Committee markup.

Have the 'funeral march' (you know: Dum Dum daDum Dum daDum daDum daDummm) played over the speaker system every 12 minutes during the hearings.

This would remind people about the Harvard study that found that nearly 45,000 Americans (about one every 12 minutes) die early every year because they can't get good medical care.

http://www.reuters.com/article/healthNews/idUSTRE58G6W520090917

Show everyone how much the Republicans really care about the sanctity of human life.

Cantor (and many Republicans) seems to genuinely believe that private insurers, doctors, hospitals, and charities can come together, with government providing a facilitating role, to devise a universal coverage program. Remember, they aren't too smart.

duplicity is a hallmark of congressmen. his conflicting viewpoints/answers will have absolutely impact on his ability to get reelected

Republican lawmakers have adequately demonstrated that ideology is not their basic motivator - it is power. If growing government programs brought power to them, they would quickly align their talking points and fear ads.

In the health coverage reform debate, they are acutely aware that a moderately successful reform program means a long-term Democratic success, which is unacceptable. No matter what the reform consists of, what guarantees it includes, and how it is paid for, the Republicans will oppose it on the fear that it will reduce their electoral power and increase that of the Democrats.

For a group so unable to actually administer government programs, it continues to amaze me that they want to try. I guess power, and the money that goes with it, does that.

For a group so unable to actually administer government programs, it continues to amaze me that they want to try.

It's not so much that Republicans want to administer government programs, it's that they want to keep anyone else from administering them. Their experiences with attempting to dismantle Social Security taught them that benign neglect is their best approach to drowning the baby in the bathtub.

Cantor & Co. -- whose partisan opposition to allowing the Democratic majority to pass popular legislation outweighs practical solutions and common sense -- would still balk at the idea for political reasons.

Fixed it for you (including "whose" instead of "who's").

I wouldn't say ideology isn't part of the equation, but as many have pointed out, even if Democrats abandoned the public option or any other significant government role (beyond the role it already has, of course), Republicans would still find something to object to. We've already seen them declare that ideas they previously supported are suddenly death panels and socialism now that the Democrats are adopting them. And then they complain that the Democrats aren't allowing them to contribute any of their ideas to the bill.

Republicans had control of Congress for six years under Bush and they did nothing to solve our health care problems. In fact, they exacerbated the situation.

Maybe the way to get Americans to drop the David Broder "everything should be bipartisan" attitude is to remind them that they had the power and did nothing while things got worse. Republicans don't care about fixing health care, and their apathy (along with the press') should be all the evidence we need.

While we are quite rightly dumping on the Resistlicans for obstructing health care reform, keep an eye on "our" Democrats! They get corporate money too, and the public option is precarious even in their hands. Don't be tricked by a bait and switch here, you don't realize how deep the corporate gaming is in all this. The stab in the back happens so often because you weren't watching for it.

"...Cantor encouraged her to look to "existing government programs," adding, "No one in this country, given who we are, should be sitting without an option to be addressed."..."

Like OK Sen. Tom Coburn who denounced government run health care but instructed town hall attendees to come to his office for guidance in finding health care options-?
Anyone who wants to see The Worst Wingnut Health Care Interview Ever should really check out the NOW interview of Coburn in the PBS Health Care Reform Special Report that aired this week. His hopelessly archaic 'ask thy neighbor' approach to health care is simply not to be missed.

If we have to start from scratch, how about we really start from scratch, simplify it and go to single payer. Doctors and hospitals and drug companies will still be private. Health insurance companies can sell supplimental plans like they do with medicare, but all the bills are paid by medicare (or whatever the new plan is called) and everyone is covered, we all pay premiums according to our ability to pay and the savings are enormous because medicare doesn't have to pay multi-million dollar salaries or have to make any profit.

But I'm guessing Cantor wouldn't go for that plan either.

Chris,
It isn't apathy, it's willfull indifference.

The incoherence and weirdness in so much conservative and Republican rhetoric stems from the fact that they cannot talk openly about their real agenda. Like conservatives throughout history, America's right wing distrusts democracy and wants to transfer power upward to the financial and hereditary elites that support the GOP. Such an anti-democratic agenda is clearly untenable, and so conservatives must paint themselves instead as populist defenders of the little guy against a "new class" of liberal elites.

The same dynamic holds true in the health care debate. Since there are no good reasons, really, for opposing plans that would make health care both more accessible and affordable, Republicans must change the subject by avoiding specifics and moving the debate to vague abstractions like "freedom." In so doing, today's Republicans are following the well worn rhetorical path of reactionaries throughout history who protect their vested interests against popular reforms: First, embrace the need for reform without ever endorsing the means to achieve it; and two, recast your own reactionary anti-democratic objectives into the liberal and democratic ideals of your opponents so that, for example, a campaign to narrow public options can be conducted as an effort to actually expand choice and freedom.

KazooGuy jerks a bit in presentation, yet encapsulates the argument:

How can the opposition favor individual health care while supporting corporate health systems?

The succint answer is money, major money, paid into campaign accounts.

The actual answer comes from watching Sen. Kyl read from text he never wrote (or read). When questioned, his only response and defense was to yell.

When there are hundreds of millions of Americans and only 100 senators, some of whom are completely bonkers or whose health requires constant EMT attention, the nation itself is on life support.

I double-dare any reader to prove otherwise.

Obama would take the challenge, will you?

OK, Ted Frier on September 26, 2009 at 10:33 AM wins.

When the Republican party, known for its wealth and power, are party to these extreme whacked out events - it is not hard to realize why our country has fallen into dire straights. These are the same people ran our country until just recently - who would have known they were all ready for the mental ward?

Then again, they were able to take away our constitutional freedoms, start 2 wars and ruin our economy - We should have known they were crazy!

[L]et's reset the health care debate and start from scratch.

That is all there is to the Republican health care reform "plan".

I scared to think what the implications are if the Republicans feel that the average wo/man is expendable, not worth saving. Putting this in contrast with waging war, it makes me extremely nervous with the thought of the GOP ever regaining power.

If the population is so expendable - what is the deterrent in nuclear holocaust. If citizens lives are so worthless, what does war mean besides money, power and politics?

Why would I want to support anyone that doesn't deem my life precious?

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if this weasel is the Great Hope of the House GOP, they are seriously f__ked. He likes to think he's the second coming of Gingrich, but he's not half the savvy thug Gingrich was (or at least was until he become Speaker and seemingly lost all his senses and became Clinton's usefull clown).

And this may just be me, but when I see Cantor in action, he always comes off to me like an evil version of David Wallace, the coporate boss on "The Office." Maybe it's the glasses.

"He can't provide a full-scale Republican plan because it's simply not possible to provide universal coverage without the government taking a big role in things."

Yes it is - provide tax cuts to the rich then we'll all be able to afford our own coverage. What is so hard about that?

Please... Just how many people die daily while Republicans delay being part of the process and instead - oppose the process.

The sickest part is that everyone knows a solution has to be found for social and economic reasons and it is in both parties best interest to find a common solution.

"We should start from scratch" ranks right up there with the assertion that "On a bill this large and this important, it should take 80 Senate votes to pass it."

The Stooopid.....it is the GOP.

I believe this would help Washington regain the public's trust...

Pssst! Dude, according to recent polls, the public distrusts Republicans the most, so why should we listen to you?

That's nothing compared to the lies that Obama tells.

We don't need to make sense. We're on a mission from God!

Eric Cantor is a great man. Oh, I heard that al gore gave corzine a boost. well, I guess if your dumb enough to believe in global warming then i feel sorry for the state of NJ. hell, i've worked this earth for many years and it was far hotter 30 or 40 years ago then it is now. matter of fact it only hit a high of 93 where I am. 30 or 40 years ago we averaged 95 for most of the summer. well, the democrats public schools dumbed down NJ democrat liberals. I mean when I was a kid we were number 1 in the world in intelligence and education, we are now number 62 just behind bangladesh and above kartune.

Yes, as someone suggested above, do check out the Tom Coburn PBS interview. The guy is really a vile piece of work - small minded, willfully ignorant, uncharitable, mean spirited, homophobic...you name it. Also a physician and a church deacon Christian. And of course he lives in the infamous The Family building in DC.

I mean when I was a kid we were number 1 in the world in intelligence and education, we are now number 62 just behind bangladesh and above kartune.

To be honest, I don't think America was ever #1 in intelligence; we just have more guns than anybody else.

The premise of your entire story is flawed. If the sister of that woman had a lucrative career until two weeks ago, she is indeed covered by an existing program known as COBRA that would enable her to remain insured for 18 months and have that operation next week.

That's the problem with liberals. There are so many government programs already in effect, you don't even know what they are as you scream to add more.

And how did this "friend" get into such an awful position, no job, no insurance, no ability to care for herself in a time of great need?

IT SURE WASN'T BECAUSE SHE WAS DEPENDENT ON GOV'T.

In her case, gig business is the bad guy. She's not a victim of gov't mismanagement, but corporate mismanagement. Not that either produces any different "effect" on individuals.

When profits are down, businesses start dumping employees. Companies, whose board of directors no doubt get bonuses for "balancing" the books, repeatedly do so at the expense of people.

So...whether you depend on greedy corporations or a callous gov't...

you're STILL DEPENDENT!

I believe FREEDOM should mean:

FREEDOM to expect I may need to provide my own income, and save accordingly!

FREEDOM to protect myself and my family from financial disaster by PROVIDING MY OWN GOLDEN PARACHUTE!

FREEDOM from dependence on ANYONE ELSE to secure MY well being, my financial security, my health, or that of my family.

We've become a nation of "entitlement" babies, whether it be gov't programs or cushy private sector jobs.

Neither gov't nor the private sector feels the slightest sense of guardianship or responsibility toward us.

We ARE their bottom line, and if they don't like the numbers, we pay the price.

WE ABDICATE OUR FREEDOM TO PROTECT OUR SECURITY AND INCOME AT YOUR OWN PERIL.

Jayne, COBRA is a joke - the premiums are incredibly high, and the whole point here was the woman's trouble *affording* health insurance, not things like being rejected for a PEC. You're a joke too, and it figures, considering your political orientation.

BTW, Cantor faces an infinite hall of mirrors on this issue (and inside joke.)

To Neil:

You said

Jayne, COBRA is a joke - the premiums are incredibly high, and the whole point here was the woman's trouble *affording* health insurance, not things like being rejected for a PEC. You're a joke too, and it figures, considering your political orientation.

BTW, Cantor faces an infinite hall of mirrors on this issue (and inside joke.)

---------
The article stated the woman had just lost her "very lucrative job". There is no reason she shouldn't be able to pay an extra few hundred dollars per month for COBRA insurance to get surgery if that is the case. Facts simply aren't on your side here.

And you're the joke to claim COBRA premiums are incredibly high. COBRA premiums are BY LAW what the policy cost the employer and the employee, so the increase to a terminated employee depends TOTALLY on how much the employer used to pay. But regardless, considering the average policy is $13K per year for a FAMILY OF FOUR, I rather doubt someone just losing a "lucrative job" can't afford that for a few months in order to obtain life-saving surgery.

I guess it's easier for some like you to claim victimhood than notice the obvious solution right under your nose.

The article stated the woman had just lost her "very lucrative job". There is no reason she shouldn't be able to pay an extra few hundred dollars per month for COBRA insurance to get surgery if that is the case. Facts simply aren't on your side here.

That doesn't follow at all. Firstly, "lucrative" is an inexact and relative term: for that individual it could have meant $45,000/year. You have no idea what they were making, but whatever it was the obviously can't afford COBRA because it's very well known as an option.

Secondly, there could be many reasons that person doesn't have an extra "few hundred dollars per month, crushing debt and lack of savings being among them.

The average COBRA premium alone eats up 84% of average unemployment benefits nationally (in nine states the cost of COBRA actually exceeds unemployment benefits). If an unemployed individual is relying on unemployment payments -- and they probably are, since our country has been at a negative savings rate for the past few years -- then COBRA is simply going to be unaffordable.

Trex said:

That doesn't follow at all. Firstly, "lucrative" is an inexact and relative term: for that individual it could have meant $45,000/year. You have no idea what they were making, but whatever it was the obviously can't afford COBRA because it's very well known as an option.

Secondly, there could be many reasons that person doesn't have an extra "few hundred dollars per month, crushing debt and lack of savings being among them.
----------

And AGAIN, considering the average insurance policy for a FAMILY OF FOUR is $13K ($7K for an individual), how can someone who's made $45K per year not afford the $600 per month in premiums? And whose fault is it if someone making that much has "crushing debt" and can't afford their health insurance after having had a "lucrative career"??? I'll also note that $45K per year is not generally considered "lucrative".

I find it interesting to read all of these attacks on Cantor and not once do you ask such pertinent questions about that lady's situation to determine whether or not his answer did indeed have merit...to take advantage of an ALREADY EXISTING federal program to solve her problem. Instead you make the assumption she has crushing debt and only made $45K per year and can't afford $600 per month for premiums.

Excuse-making simply comes naturally for some people I suppose.

Instead you make the assumption she has crushing debt and only made $45K per year and can't afford $600 per month for premiums.

Actually, you're the making the following assumption that the word "lucrative" guarantees that this woman can afford COBRA, irrespective of any other circumstances.

Instead you make the assumption she has crushing debt and only made $45K per year and can't afford $600 per month for premiums.

I'm assuming she can't afford COBRA because 1) her employer will have made it very clear that she's eligible for it and yet she doesn't have it despite a life-threatening illness, and 2) everyone else in her life will have told her about it because it's as well known as sidewalks and yet she has a life-threatening illness and still doesn't have it.

how can someone who's made $45K per year not afford the $600 per month in

Because they're not making $45k per year any more. I used to be a millionaire but weirdly I can no longer afford a private jet. Go figure.

Excuse-making simply comes naturally for some people I suppose.

And ignoring the financial struggles of the seriously ill simply comes naturally to others, I suppose. What kind of screwed-up fuck must you have to be to be able to do that?