The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

It was a bit of playful hyperbole to make a point.



Um, no, I haven't. Or have you already forgotten this scatterplot I showed you just a week ago? There is a clear trend against this bill. I also noted back then that there's a distinct difference in polling between this bill, and a bill--a difference you apparently failed to notice when you posted that Gallup link.

Wait- so you are taking the position that a Gallup poll from January 12, taken within days of an expected final vote on the merging of the House and Senate health care bills, and which expresses support of health care reform 49%-46%, reflected voter opinion on passage of a bill but not on the bills which were actually being considered and very close to final passage? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Your scatterplot is also helpful to make my case. Note how many blue dots there are above 50% (representing approval). Why not look at those polls, if that's what you care about? Sure, we can average all those polls and come up with a trend, but that isn't necessarily right either. Each poll has phrased the question slightly differently, has a varying sample size, a varying margin of error, differences in technique (including live questioner versus robocall), etc. The one poll which has no margin of error is the one taken in 2008.

If the polls were very bad for the health care bill, I could accept an argument that the bill isn't representative of what people want, but with about 40% supporting the bill and another 13% opposing it because it isn't liberal enough, I feel pretty good in saying this bill is splitting the difference about right.

No idea. But if you're going to re-architect 1/6 of the American economy, you'd better damn well have some level of consensus on how to do it, rather than pounding it through with parliamentary tricks.

Language language.

Your consensus comment is addressed above.

Where were your objections with Medicare Part D, which had no funding mechanism whatsoever, has cost us well over $1 trillion, and passed only because Republicans kept the vote open until about 5:00 in the morning, several hours after the vote was scheduled to end, and refused to allow House members to leave (they literally posted "guards" at the doors to intimidate Republican House members to stay until they changed their vote)? Was reconciliation a "parliamentary trick" when it was used to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

Then you would be wrong, as usual.

That's just not polite.

It's hard to fault politicians who are listening to popular opinion. That's what they're there for. Indeed, I don't blame Obama and the Dems for wanting to tackle health care (their poor timing notwithstanding), since "generic" health care reform gets popular support. But this bill is a disaster. The American people know it, have communicated it in numerous ways, and the thick skulls in DC refuse to listen.

If you think pursuing health care reform will be devastating for Democrats, wouldn't you favor them pursuing health care reform? If, as you seem to suggest, they aren't required to follow the polls then there is nothing wrong with them taking a different approach- they may just be punished for it on election day. I am fine with that.

Then as I said at the beginning, stop whining about it.

I am holding out hope that my repeated mention of your refusal to answer questions will one day result in you answering questions more consistently, which is a better result for me.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Wait- so you are taking the position that a Gallup poll from January 12, taken within days of an expected final vote on the merging of the House and Senate health care bills, and which expresses support of health care reform 49%-46%, reflected voter opinion on passage of a bill but not on the bills which were actually being considered and very close to final passage? That doesn't make any sense at all.

Your scatterplot is also helpful to make my case. Note how many blue dots there are above 50% (representing approval). Why not look at those polls, if that's what you care about? Sure, we can average all those polls and come up with a trend, but that isn't necessarily right either. Each poll has phrased the question slightly differently, has a varying sample size, a varying margin of error, differences in technique (including live questioner versus robocall), etc. The one poll which has no margin of error is the one taken in 2008.

If the polls were very bad for the health care bill, I could accept an argument that the bill isn't representative of what people want, but with about 40% supporting the bill and another 13% opposing it because it isn't liberal enough, I feel pretty good in saying this bill is splitting the difference about right.

If, after all the evidence to the contrary, you think public support for this bill is "about right", then no evidence will ever be good enough. As far as I'm concerned, you live in a parallel universe.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Language language.

Your consensus comment is addressed above.

Where were your objections with Medicare Part D, which had no funding mechanism whatsoever, has cost us well over $1 trillion, and passed only because Republicans kept the vote open until about 5:00 in the morning, several hours after the vote was scheduled to end, and refused to allow House members to leave (they literally posted "guards" at the doors to intimidate Republican House members to stay until they changed their vote)? Was reconciliation a "parliamentary trick" when it was used to pass the Bush tax cuts in 2001?

I did not like the Medicare ram-through. But you are changing the subject.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you think pursuing health care reform will be devastating for Democrats, wouldn't you favor them pursuing health care reform? If, as you seem to suggest, they aren't required to follow the polls then there is nothing wrong with them taking a different approach- they may just be punished for it on election day. I am fine with that.

I know you are. You are one of those people who would abuse power when handed it.

The answer to your former question is no, because I still happen to love my country, and I think this health care bill would be bad for it. Contrary to numerous Bush Derangement Syndrome-afflicted liberals (such as yourself), I do not root for the country to fail so that my political wishes can succeed.

Politically, I'm not sure it matters much at this point anyway. Health care has become a symbol of failure for the Obama admin in the mind of the public, and even if they manage to squeak something through, it will be totally anti-climactic. Scott Brown has given the momentum to the R's, at least for the moment.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If, after all the evidence to the contrary, you think public support for this bill is "about right", then no evidence will ever be good enough.

For something as contentious as health care, yes. Any health care bill will be divisive (because opinions are scattered all over the place on the best way forward). To secure about 40% of the public even after all the lies Republicans have told about the bill isn't bad. Especially since much of the opposition (about 25% of it if polls are to be believed) comes from the left. If you move the bill more to the right, more on the left would oppose it. If you move the bill more to the left, more on the right will oppose it. Given that the left and right are almost equally split in general in the US, getting 40% on board with any proposal is pretty darned good.

As far as I'm concerned, you live in a parallel universe.

Again being rude.

I did not like the Medicare ram-through. But you are changing the subject.

No, just pointing out the inconsistency of the Republican position.

I know you are. You are one of those people who would abuse power when handed it.

Again being rude.

The answer to your former question is no, because I still happen to love my country, and I think this health care bill would be bad for it.

So even if the bill was very popular, you would vote against it because "you love your country." YOU wouldn't require yourself to follow the polls. Why, then, can you not understand someone voting for the bill now regardless of public sentiment (which isn't even all that bad)?

Contrary to numerous Bush Derangement Syndrome-afflicted liberals (such as yourself), I do not root for the country to fail so that my political wishes can succeed.

Again being rude.

Politically, I'm not sure it matters much at this point anyway. Health care has become a symbol of failure for the Obama admin in the mind of the public, and even if they manage to squeak something through, it will be totally anti-climactic. Scott Brown has given the momentum to the R's, at least for the moment.

If you don't think it matters politically to pass the bill, why did you cite the polls in the first place as a reason Democrats shouldn't pass it?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

For something as contentious as health care, yes. Any health care bill will be divisive (because opinions are scattered all over the place on the best way forward). To secure about 40% of the public even after all the lies Republicans have told about the bill isn't bad. Especially since much of the opposition (about 25% of it if polls are to be believed) comes from the left. If you move the bill more to the right, more on the left would oppose it. If you move the bill more to the left, more on the right will oppose it. Given that the left and right are almost equally split in general in the US, getting 40% on board with any proposal is pretty darned good.

If the best you can get is 40%, then maybe you shouldn't touch it at all.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

No, just pointing out the inconsistency of the Republican position.

It's not inconsistent, but it is irrelevant.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

So even if the bill was very popular, you would vote against it because "you love your country." YOU wouldn't require yourself to follow the polls. Why, then, can you not understand someone voting for the bill now regardless of public sentiment (which isn't even all that bad)?

This is bizarre line of thinking. I don't hold public office.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

If you don't think it matters politically to pass the bill, why did you cite the polls in the first place as a reason Democrats shouldn't pass it?

Because people still don't want it, and basing a decision this important on mere politics is a mistake. But I think the political damage has mostly already been done.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If the best you can get is 40%, then maybe you shouldn't touch it at all.

Right. Instead we should just linger on with uncontrollable growth in health care costs and leave over 30 million people uninsured, because polls don't get to an unspecified level of support. I don't know why you keep going down this path, given that you have admitted that no matter how high public support got, you wouldn't support the bill. Quite clearly, you aren't interested in what the public says on the issue, you are just saying you do because you think the numbers support your position.

It's not inconsistent, but it is irrelevant.

How is it consistent?

This is bizarre line of thinking. I don't hold public office.

Would your reasoning change if you did? Why?

Because people still don't want it, and basing a decision this important on mere politics is a mistake. But I think the political damage has mostly already been done.

Isn't basing a decision on poll numbers "basing a decision on politics?" If you think it is right to pass the bill, shouldn't you then pass it regardless of the politics? This seems contrary to your entire premise. And if you think politics should play a role, but the "damage has mostly already been done," then what is the political harm of passing it anyways? Shouldn't that lead a Congressperson even more in the direction of doing what they think is right, regardless of the polls?

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Right. Instead we should just linger on with uncontrollable growth in health care costs and leave over 30 million people uninsured, because polls don't get to an unspecified level of support. I don't know why you keep going down this path, given that you have admitted that no matter how high public support got, you wouldn't support the bill. Quite clearly, you aren't interested in what the public says on the issue, you are just saying you do because you think the numbers support your position.

Would your reasoning change if you did? Why?

Isn't basing a decision on poll numbers "basing a decision on politics?" If you think it is right to pass the bill, shouldn't you then pass it regardless of the politics? This seems contrary to your entire premise. And if you think politics should play a role, but the "damage has mostly already been done," then what is the political harm of passing it anyways? Shouldn't that lead a Congressperson even more in the direction of doing what they think is right, regardless of the polls?

You've been trying very hard to prove some inconsistency between how I feel a politician should treat public opinion vs. his own judgment, without much success.

I'm starting to have to repeat myself as you continue that fruitless effort, making this discussion increasingly tedious particularly with the multiple blocks of quotations. I'm pretty sure I've responded to most/all of these questions already, so I refer you to my previous comments.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

You've been trying very hard to prove some inconsistency between how I feel a politician should treat public opinion vs. his own judgment, without much success.

I'm starting to have to repeat myself as you continue that fruitless effort, making this discussion increasingly tedious particularly with the multiple blocks of quotations. I'm pretty sure I've responded to most/all of these questions already, so I refer you to my previous comments.

It honestly hasn't been all that hard.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It honestly hasn't been all that hard.

Explains why you've done so poorly.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Tex

If the Dems end up using your model to pass health care (2 bills at the exact same time), I'll change my avatar to a pro-Obama picture of your choice for a week.

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

Thank heavens for reconciliation.

Things continue to look worse for reconciliation. Obama followed up his disingenuous comment in the SOTU by calling on Republicans to offer up their ideas on health care (oh, sure, NOW he wants to hear them.)

And then just yesterday he all but admits health care's not gonna make it:

"And it may be that ... if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," the president said. "And that's how democracy works. There will be elections coming up, and they'll be able to make a determination and register their concerns."

Warms my cold, icy Republican heart.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Likely? By that definition, BYU is "likely" to win a National Championship in football this year too.

Getting the House to swallow the Senate bill is no picnic. Bart Stupak said today, "There is no way that bill is going anywhere. . . . I bet it wouldn’t get 100 votes."

Maybe you should shoot him a quick email and tell him how likely it is.

Bump.