The Blue Dogs missed their opportunity to stand up to the Pelosi Democrats.
For my father-in-law, World War II started when the Russians swept through his family's timber stands in Estonia as aggressors seizing land under the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939. The Russian troops, catching him on the family farm, impressed him into the Red Army after invading Estonia in 1939.
By June 1941, the Nazis launched Operation Barbarossa, and the impressed soldiers of the Red Army became the Russians' first line of defense. When they set up for battle, the impressed soldiers were always on the front line. When they were ordered to charge, they were told that if they did not, they would be shot in the back.
He was in several battles, survived, but he was not a soldier for the Russian cause. They had stolen his land and killed his friends and family. After several months, he found a moment when he could desert. He took to the forest and disappeared.
Many of the Blue Dogs in Congress now find themselves in the Red Army (figuratively). On the one hand are carrots: campaign funds, the promise of sinecures in any one of over 100 new federal health care agencies, ambassadorships, and federal district judgeships for brothers. On the other hand are sticks: MoveOn.org primary challengers, DNC and Organizing for America funding for their opponents if they don't play ball.
President Obama has said he won't provide any campaign appearances, and by implication funding, for any Democrat who does not vote for the health care bill. For a Congressman needing the critical initial several hundred thousand dollars that support provided in the past, this is definitely a loaded gun. If that support were given to a primary challenger, it would be a loaded gun pointed at their back.
But loaded guns can backfire. Many people wonder why the Democrats in general, and the Blue Dogs in particular, are pursuing health care reform when they know that it will lead to election disaster in the fall. Byron York used the analogy of bank robbery gone wrong. The Democrats are in the bank, the guns are out, shots have been fired, and one can already hear the police sirens.
In a House of Representatives so cowardly that it won't even take a direct up or down vote on the Senate bill, anyone with the independence to stand on his own will be embraced by the independents who are finally engaged and enraged.
Even with a "deemed passed" procedural approach, there will be overwhelming circumstantial evidence that the Democrats were responsible for this horror show, one which will have excruciating health care rationing, doctors quitting in droves and genuine, palpable loss of life.
What to do? If you are a Blue Dog, you don't need to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Give 'em a head fake on your vote. And you will emerge from this whole mess as a hero. Eighty-one percent of Americans think that Congress no longer is governing with the consent of the governed. They are starving for leaders with courage.
The genius of President Obama as a campaigner was to realize that with the Internet, he could raise hundreds of millions of dollars in small amounts from individual donors. He didn't have to rely on fat cats alone.
That is the lesson of Candidate Obama that the Blue Dogs should embrace. Yes, there is the Red Army, with millions of slave soldiers. But you don't have to be cannon fodder. Light out for the forest. There are people there. You won't starve.
My father-in-law survived the war, and did not have to kill. In time he came to America and raised a family, and had grandchildren. He died at the age of 91. The forest was good to him. It will be good to the Blue Dogs.
On the one hand are carrots: campaign funds, the promise of sinecures in any one of over 100 new federal health care agencies, ambassadorships, and federal district judgeships for brothers.
Well now, dontya think one carrot might be the satisfaction of preventing insurance companies from bankrupting hard-working Americans who happen to get cancer? The most common cause of bankruptcy in America is medical bills, I hear, even if they did everything right and had jobs and health insurance. (But they’re probably lazy, too.)
But I know here at IC, attributing any non-malignant motivation to Democrats is verboten. Sure, it’s all about getting an ambassadorship to Burma.
In a House of Representatives so cowardly that it won’t even take a direct up or down vote on the Senate bill
Oops, they faked you guys out. Now that they DID in fact take a direct up or down vote, instead of deem ‘n pass, I assume you’ll acknowledge their political courage?
one which will have excruciating health care rationing, doctors quitting in droves and genuine, palpable loss of life.
Well, good for you. You’ve made predictions that are potentially amenable to empirical verification. But I dunno, man, I suspect you’re wrong here – maybe you could nail down your predictions a little more.
Rationing, after all, already exists – what do you mean by ‘excruciating’, exactly? And by what mechanism will this ‘palpable’ loss of life occur? How will we measure that? What kind of ‘droves’ will doctors quit in?
What to do? If you are a Blue Dog, you don’t need to caucus with the Democrats or the Republicans. Give ‘em a head fake on your vote. And you will emerge from this whole mess as a hero. Eighty-one percent of Americans think that Congress no longer is governing with the consent of the governed. They are starving for leaders with courage.
Cool how you implicitly conflate opposition to health care with the eighty-one percent of Americans who (allegedly) think Congress is no longer governing, blah-blah.
Last I checked, America was pretty much evenly split on health care reform. Yeah, more than half are against it, but you must recall that of that group, lots of them are against it because it doesn’t go far enough.
The country, as usual, is about evenly split. Your fantasy that health care reform is widely, deeply unpopular is just more echo-chamber stuff. Half the country is pretty much on board.
The Dems will lose seats in November, as the governing party usually does in an off-year election. I doubt it will be catastrophic, though. It’s really all about the economy, anyway. If it picks up, nobody will remember all that ‘death panel’ bullsh*t you guys tried to sell. If it stays bad, the Dems are toast, with or without health care.
Oz
Well now, dontya think one carrot might be the satisfaction of preventing insurance companies from bankrupting hard-working Americans who happen to get cancer?
You mean because Congress is envious of the competition and wants more power to bankrupt Americans themselves? A 1.5 trillion dollar a year deficit for the next 10 years (bear in mind the previous record high deficit in the history of the country was around 450 Billion dollars) with 10% unemployment AND a mandate to purchase health insurance whether you want/need it or not too, at the risk of fines, increased taxation or imprisonment? WHY THANK YOU FOR SAVING US FROM BANKRUPTCY MISTER DEMOCRAT! I think you’re right – that’s quite a carrot for power-obsessed meddling control freaks who despise individual freedom and economic liberty. But promises of election support or political ruin might have been even more convincing.
I suspect you’re wrong here – maybe you could nail down your predictions a little more.
I’m assuming his predictions were based on a recent poll found in a New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that 46% of primary care physicians believe that current health care legislation would force them to quit practicing or would make them want to quit practicing medicine. I suppose we’ll have to see whether the 1,000 doctors who were polled are representative of the general population or not. Perhaps your insight into the American psyche surpasses professional polling organizations; at least there’s some data to support the author’s opinion though.
You mean because Congress is envious of the competition and wants more power to bankrupt Americans themselves?
Um, no. That’s not what I mean. I mean that the Dems and other HCR supporters honestly want to prevent hard-working Americans from going bankrupt due to the practices of health insurance companies. I think that’s basically what motivates them. Whether HCR will achieve that end is a separate question.
I’m assuming his predictions were based on a recent poll found in a New England Journal of Medicine article indicating that 46% of primary care physicians believe that current health care legislation would force them to quit practicing or would make them want to quit practicing medicine. I suppose we’ll have to see whether the 1,000 doctors who were polled are representative of the general population or not.
Again, I applaud the writer for making a prediction that is measurable and verifiable. The question, of course, is not whether doctors THINK they’ll have to quit, but whether they actually do (in ‘droves’). We’ll see. Also, what about the other predictions that the writer makes, such as that there will be ‘palpable’ loss of life as a result of HCR. How much loss of life, do ya think? By what mechanism? Care to make a prediction? Will the Death Panels be making house calls, or something?
Pfft.
Oz
Um, no. That’s not what I mean. I mean that the Dems and other HCR supporters honestly want to prevent hard-working Americans from going bankrupt due to the practices of health insurance companies. I think that’s basically what motivates them.
I knew what you meant, I only meant to highlight the comical-to-the-point-of-absurdity naivety of that viewpoint. Your sudden trust of those wielding unimaginable power is rather ironic considering the hideously sinister motivations you ascribed to politicians of the opposite persuasion. All the more so in light of the highly publicized insider-dealing and outright bribery that took place in the negotiations leading to the passage of the actual bill.
Whether HCR will achieve that end is a separate question.
A better question would be why it is better for an overarching government to bankrupt the small and medium sized businesses who employ the working class Americans for whom our ostensibly wholly altruistic overlords profess such undying concern than for an insurance company to do the same to individuals. A better question still would be why these politicians of such pure and wholesome motivation chose to leave in place anti-trust exemptions that eliminate competition for the insurance companies and huge payoffs for the pharmaceutical companies (including patent period extensions) who are ostensibly raping the American public. Pretend that a Republican majority in congress had passed this identical bill and you should easily be able to understand why people are suspcious of the purity of the motivations of the people who “saved” us.
The question, of course, is not whether doctors THINK they’ll have to quit, but whether they actually do (in ‘droves’). We’ll see.
I know this is probably a foreign concept for you, but what doctors THINK usually informs what they actually do. As you said, we’ll see. There’s actual data to support the author’s contention while you’ve offered nothing more or less than your opinion. There’s no certainty either way, but with all due reverence for your opinion, I’m more inclined to think the data is closer to correct.
Also, what about the other predictions that the writer makes, such as that there will be ‘palpable’ loss of life as a result of HCR. How much loss of life, do ya think? By what mechanism? Care to make a prediction? Will the Death Panels be making house calls, or something?
What about the contention that this bill will save Americans from being bankrupted by corrupt insurance companies? How many bankruptcies will be forestalled, do ya think? By what mechanism? Care to make a prediction? How many Angels can dance on the head of a pin? Pfft.
Patrick:
the hideously sinister motivations you ascribed to politicians of the opposite persuasion.
When, Patrick? I usually try to avoid that kind of thing. If I did not live up to my ideals, please point to it and (if warranted) I shall make amends.
Oz
Patrick:
I know this is probably a foreign concept for you, but what doctors THINK usually informs what they actually do.
It’s actually not foreign at all. In fact, stated intentions and later actions are only modestly correlated, under the best of circumstances. Plenty of research on that, just Google it. Throw in the fact that the doctors in question have real-world reasons to make HCR seem like a bad idea – and you have a set-up for intentions that fail to materialize. Doctors are rational actors, and they may well see that the downside of quitting far exceeds the upside. I’m not predicting anything, I’m just pointing out that ‘we’ll see’ means ‘we’ll see.’
After all, Rushbo said he was going to move to Costa Rica if HCR passed, and it looks like his butt is still warming his chair. Maybe he’s still in negotiations with Two Men and a Truck.
Oz
What about the contention that this bill will save Americans from being bankrupted by corrupt insurance companies? How many bankruptcies will be forestalled, do ya think? By what mechanism? Care to make a prediction?
No, Patrick, I don’t care to make a prediction.
Evidently I have to reiterate – I was talking about their motivations, not making any independent forecasts. I cheerfully admit they could be wrong on the outcome, I just see no reason to float bizarre and unfair motivational theories.
The writer, on the other hand, quite clearly predicted a ‘genuine, palpable’ loss life as a result of HCR. I’m just curious how that is supposed to happen. What indicators should we watch to see if that turns out to be accurate? Overall mortality/life expectancy? Medical errors? Euthanasias? What?
Oz
Patrick proposes a counterfactual:
Pretend that a Republican majority in congress had passed this identical bill and you should easily be able to understand why people are suspcious of the purity of the motivations of the people who “saved” us
Interestingly, it is not that hard to imagine. From what I’ve heard, and I’ve made no in-depth analysis, the fundamental tenets of the current HCR – individual mandates, high-risk pools, etc – have been previously proposed by respected Republicans. I could spend time finding references, but my time is short, but I am going to gamble that is a widely-known and uncontroversial point.
You make a valid point, though. Had Republicans passed this bill, many on the Left would have accused them of being beholden to big insurance companies. That is the vitriolic nature of today’s American politics, and I’ve made the point – repeatedly – that the Far Left is little better, if any, than the Far Right. I’ve got no use for either extreme.
(Neither does Obama, as far as I can see. He has seemed, thus far, to govern as a pragmatic and moderate liberal. Which is, of course, what the American electorate voted for, decisively).
Oz
These little kerfuffles seem to drain my time. Feel free to take the last word, I probably will leave it here.*
*A statement of Intention, but not a firm prediction of behavior :-)
Oz
When, Patrick? I usually try to avoid that kind of thing. If I did not live up to my ideals, please point to it and (if warranted) I shall make amends.
I think the year-long troll session known as “Ozzie’s Torture Blog” pretty much speaks for itself.
the doctors in question have real-world reasons to make HCR seem like a bad idea
Randomly selected doctors who were polled by the New England Journal of Medicine (not exactly a right-wing publication) have a reason to besmirch health care reform? Could you elaborate on what that reason might be? Or is this just another of those Ozzie-isms that is so “widely known and uncontroversial” that it is unnecessary to verify it with data, even if it contradicts a known-sum?
I just see no reason to float bizarre and unfair motivational theories.
If ascribing an altruistic desire on the part of congressional Democrats to ruin health insurance companies because of their deep concern for poor people (and by implication, ascribing a sinister desire on the part of congressional Republicans to bankrupt poor people because of their deep concern for corporate cronies) is not bizarre, it’s difficult to imagine what might fit the definition.
The writer, on the other hand, quite clearly predicted a ‘genuine, palpable’ loss life as a result of HCR. I’m just curious how that is supposed to happen. What indicators should we watch to see if that turns out to be accurate? Overall mortality/life expectancy? Medical errors? Euthanasias? What?
You’d have to ask the author, not me. My answer would be: I could spend time finding references, but my time is short, but I am going to gamble that is a widely-known and uncontroversial point.
From what I’ve heard, and I’ve made no in-depth analysis, the fundamental tenets of the current HCR – individual mandates, high-risk pools, etc – have been previously proposed by respected Republicans. I could spend time finding references, but my time is short, but I am going to gamble that is a widely-known and uncontroversial point.
From what I’ve heard, Obama is a secret Muslim who was born in Saudi Arabia and is leading a global movement to annihilate infidels. I could spend time finding references, but my time is short, but I am going to gamble that is a widely-known and uncontroversial point.
Henceforth, my answer to all questions or requests for verification of claims I make shall be: “I could spend time finding references, but my time is short, but I am going to gamble that is a widely-known and uncontroversial point”. It’s irresistibly simple and way easier than wasting brainwaves on actual thought.
Sigh. OK, Pat, you win. I’ll spoon-feed you references to stuff that has been widely discussed, all over the place.
Here’s something from the first link:
Yesterday, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA) admitted that he supported the individual mandate before he realized it was unconstitutional and now, Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) has conceded that he too endorsed a policy that would have allowed the government “to tell you what you have to buy, even if you don’t want to buy it.” In 1993, Hatch, along with 20 other GOP senators — including Grassley, Bennett, and Bond — introduced a health care plan that would have required everyone to buy coverage, capped awards for medical malpractice lawsuits, established minimum benefit packages and invested in comparative effectiveness research
http://www.onepennysheet.com/2010/03/hatch-i-supported-the-unconstitutional-individual-mandate-in-1993-to-derail-hillarycare/
From Frum’s now notorious article:
Could a deal have been reached? Who knows? But we do know that the gap between this plan and traditional Republican ideas is not very big. The Obama plan has a broad family resemblance to Mitt Romney’s Massachusetts plan. It builds on ideas developed at the Heritage Foundation in the early 1990s that formed the basis for Republican counter-proposals to Clintoncare in 1993-1994.
http://www.frumforum.com/waterloo
You might not like those guys, but they’re all Republicans.
Another link on the similarities to Romney-care:
http://www.startribune.com/politics/national/president/89273697.html?elr=KArks8c7PaP3E77K_3c::D3aDhUec7PaP3E77K_0c::D3aDhUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU
Miscellaneous stuff:
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/02/five_compronises_in_health_car.html
http://ynative77.wordpress.com/2010/02/22/republican-ideas-included-in-the-presidents-proposal/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/27/republicans-were-for-obam_n_515743.html
http://www.examiner.com/x-15870-Populist-Examiner~y2010m3d24-Republicans-once-supported-the-individual-mandate
http://www.onenewspage.com/news/Politics/20100329/9591667/Individual-Mandate-Now-Vilified-By-GOP-Was-Supported.htm
Of course, you’ll claim these are all just a bunch of liberal views. I’ve no investment in persuading you otherwise, but I stand by my comment that in mainstream, centrist discourse (in which I am admittedly ensconced), this is not terribly controversial. In IC circles, I imagine it’s just freakin’ outrageous.
Oz
By the way, I don’t think I ever attributed any ‘heinous’ motivations to anyone on Ozzie’s Torture Blog (TM).
I invite anyone to check.
http://www.intellectualconservative.com/2009/04/06/danners-fury/
I may be wrong, but either way it will increase my page views, which is important to us bloggers.
Oz
RomneyCare was a state initiative. I know it’s a foreign idea in modern America, but the state and federal governments are, in fact, separate entities. Those ideas are absurd boondoggles at any level (as RomneyCare has aptly demonstrated), but it is worth noting the difference from a legal and constitutional perspective.
If you’re waiting for me to defend policy initiatives from 1993 that I don’t agree with today, I’m afraid you’re going to end up disappointed. As I pointed out to you in another discussion here at IC, this bill would be immoral and unconstitutional regardless of who had proposed it or what kind of public support it had. That was kind of the point I was making: if you understand the mistrust you have exclusively for the Republican party, you will understand the mistrust that those who oppose this legislation have for centralized government power in general.
As I said, I think your antics in that discussion pretty well speak for themselves. I’m sure the administrators of IC appreciate you driving hits to their advertisers though.