Sometimes, people without their own ideas will pretend to have them in order to force those with ideas to address their figments and thereby delay any meaningful action. They create a false controversy by putting forth "alternatives" that exist only in opposition to the ideas of others, and then they complain loudly if a decision process moves on without them, claiming that the issue isn't settled yet.
I've encountered this recently in my professional life, and we see it in politics all the time. We saw it in the run-up to the Iraq war: France and Germany suddenly developed strong opinions about the use of sanctions and of force in Iraq when they had been perfectly happy letting their American and British allies enforce international law and police no-fly zones for them for a decade.
We're seeing it now in the U.S. Congress, where Republicans are opposing health care reform.
Congressional Republicans say the Senate bill was "rushed" through. Bullshit. The votes were held in the early morning -- with a week's public notice, so don't pretend this was snuck by -- because of Republican parliamentary maneuvers. And this process has been going on for a full year. Anyone who doesn't know by now what the issues on the table are hasn't been paying attention.
As a refresher: The process began with the president taking off that table something that the Democratic base dearly loves: single-payer health care. Then he put on the table something that Republicans love: malpractice litigation reform. Republicans ignored these concessions, but that doesn't mean the Left got its way. Today, any government-run system of any stripe is dead in the water and the Senate and House bills both contains vigorous anti-abortion language. Republicans should be happy about these compromises.
Instead, congressional Republicans say the process didn't include their ideas. Bullshit. Yes, it's true that some Republicans put forth some ideas for how to reform our system. Some of these ideas, like giving the same tax break to individuals purchasing insurance that employers get, were good ones. Here's the rub: not many of their fellow Republicans actually backed these bills.
Its not like these people have no access to the media. If there were a comprehensive bill, with the support of the majority of the Republican caucus, and the Democratic leadership refused to take it up, do you think that might make the news? But we haven't heard that story, have we?
Republicans, my friends: You had six years in charge of both the White House and the Congress. For another six year before that, you had the Congress, and the White House was held by a Democrat who was extremely interested in health care reform. You did nothing. Today, someone else is doing the job for you, and suddenly you're full of innovation and righteous indignation. Give me a break.
I’m deeply disappointed by this post, and don’t feel your caricature of the bill’s opponents (among which I count myself) is fair or accurate. I also dispute a majority of your "facts". You ignore that some opposition is based on a belief that it is not the federal government's position to "do the job" of health care, and you ignore the corruption and abuse of process embodied in this bill - the latter evaluation which is bipartisan in substance. No breaks here.
ReplyDeleteWhich of the facts mentioned do you dispute, in particular? Frankly, the notion that "the majority of the facts [are disputable]" is something that's been raised over and over again by parties opposed to the legislation, but always with the same lack of (or surplus of) specificity. Some ringer example is found, or some appeal to nazism or communism made, and the overall point is lost. That point? There must be reform, and we (as an entire country!) are on tap to work together and design the best one we can.
ReplyDeleteRick's contention is (appears to be) that there is a lot of whining right now from certain corners that their contributions have been ignored, or their concerns haven't been addressed, when in fact those contributions and concerns were not raised in good faith. Indeed, there are no shortage of examples of just that sort of thing happening, so I agree with him.
On the other hand, those who are of the opinion that we should have no reform simply because the government should never be involved in health care are not the subject of this post. Likewise, the desirability or necessity of using budget reconciliation, filibusters, vetos or other congressional procedures which we may or may not like. Surely one may comment on one aspect of the situation without covering all others?
Hi Kevin,
ReplyDeleteI'm not attempting in this post to address the merits of the current Senate bill, for or against. I am not without reservations, but those have been the subject of other posts. Since you're a recent reader (welcome! by the way), may I suggest some of my posts from the summer and fall. Looking back, I believe my first on this subject was "Things That Are True About American Health Care" from August 9, 2009. A number more followed.
My concern right now is less that some oppose the current bills on their merits (which they are welcome to do) but that others, who may or may not be more numerous but are certainly louder, are I believe pretending to oppose them on their merits. In fact, they are opposing them either (a) generally, as they would any alternative bill of any other merits, and/or (b) for political purposes.
I believe that the health care crisis is real, and that the best outcome will come when all those with knowledge, passion, and creativity put forth their ideas and seek tough compromises in civility and good faith. We are not well served by those, of any political affiliation, who put the advancement of their party over the advancement of their country.