Monday, March 22, 2010

Democrats sure have a lot of nerve!

Acting like they have a right to pass laws just because more of them got elected and they make up more than half of Congress! It's like they think they're some kind of majority or something!


  1. And other people sure have a lot of nerve! Just because they're not elected officials or in the majority is like they think they've got the right to express an unfavorable opinion or something!

    This was an internal party battle all along, and it has been interesting to watch -- now that _something_ has been passed, comes the job to turn that _something_ into _something workable_. This will continue to be an amazing spectacle, in which the minority party will continue to be spectators -- and is it so incredible that the people watching in the stands might comment on the action on the court?

    Besides, as has been clearly demonstrated, it's not like what they think matters on this thing at all. Or anyone else.

  2. No problem with expressing opinions -- I could wish more of them were informed opinions, like those of Frum or Larison, to name a couple of non-hysterical conservatives -- but no problem with that at all.

    What amuses me though, is the people who act like it's somehow undemocratic for the majority party to actually pass legislation now that the majority party no longer starts with an R.

    It amuses me that some people apparently think that "bipartisanship" means "pass Republican legislation."

    And it amuses me that people can think that a bill that is well to the right of what Nixon (FFS) proposed in 1968, roughly equivalent to the Republican counter-proposal to Clinton in 1993, and almost identical to what Romney got in Massachusetts is some sort of socialist apocalypse.

  3. I'm still grumpy about not seeing my dream come true -- rational dialogue based on shared understanding/definition of the problem, research-based solutions with time-tested data support creating an overall functional system that addressed the multiple problems with the status quo, and reasoned participatory discussions with the American people about costs, benefits, and the future.

    Instead, as several people have commented (including in the sites you linked to), with complete control of House and Senate and the presidency, huge presidential popularity, and an unambiguous popular mandate for change, we get RomneyCare (and cut Medicare to do it.) And we've polarized Washington to a fever pitch and lowered respect for all members of Congress even farther below its previously abysmal levels.

    I wish I could find something to cheer about. But I strongly suspect we're now even farther away from dealing with the bigger issues than we were before, and the disruptive unintended consequences (whatever they may be -- but we all know there will be some) will leave us in a more difficult position that before.

    Some people will undoubtedly be better off. Some will remain left out. Some will suffer (unintended consequences bedevil all public policy). But none of us, really, can say that the problems in the American health care system have now been fixed.

    (And it will still have been cheaper to cover all the uninsured by a combined Medicare/Medicaid/VA government healthcare system, which was the simplest option to begin with.)

  4. I can't really disagree with any of that. I don't love the new law. Not at all. It kind of sucks, actually, because it doesn't go nearly far enough. It doesn't blow up the stupid Rube Goldberg system we have now. But it's a start, a step in the right direction, or at least in the general vicinity of the right direction.

    And I think this is something to be cheerful about, for now: somewhere between 18,000 and 45,000 people die in America every year because they don't have health insurance. That doesn't have to happen anymore. (Starting in 2014. And not including illegal immigrants.)

  5. And yet that number pales in comparison to estimated iatrogenic deaths (here's an estimate of 750K+ annually -- -- bit steep, but I think makes the point that the problem is bigger than access to insurance.)

    Grumble again. And I suspect with immigration reform apparently next on the agenda we'll have another round of brow-beating and hyperbole ending up with stopgap efforts that fail to deal with another systemic issue.

    It's not a party problem, it's a process problem, and I don't know how that's ever going to get fixed -- but it's getting worse every year.


What do you think?