Good Morning America, how are you ...

[Pilgrim]

The bill is far from perfect and probably contains some horrible cock-ups that will have to be rectified later. Any legislative project of this magnitude would under any government.

Even though I supported the direction this issue went, I quite agree.  That bill is umpty-hundred pages long, and I'm sure it's full of stuff that needs revision.  Now that it is about to put in place, the revisions will begin.  And I'm confident that the "discussions" around that process will be just as polarized, heated and full of misinformation as the original discussion was.

I won't be a bit surprised if there are some issues in there which rise to the level of constitutional challenge.

[Denis]

I will spew as if idealism meant something in the US today.
Part of the whole idea behind the health care bill was to get more people covered by insurance. More people paying in means that there's more money and since many people don't need much health care by luck or good genes, etc., more of the money can be used to cover those who do need more healthcare. The obvious argument against this point of view is "well, if that person chooses not to have healthcare, then why should I pay for it if he needs it?". That's all well and good except that we ARE paying for it anyway. Those people without healthcare often go to the ER if they need it and the ER is the least cost effective place to get it. They can't be turned away even though they can't pay and yet someone has to cough up the dough. That "someone" is anyone who already has health insurance. Why not try and get more people into the system? More people = lower prices. (Well, hopefully. Insurance companies are in it for the money, as is big pharma.)

And don't get me started on my belief that over the past 30 years a bizarre mentality has become prevalent in the US that we just don't have to pay for anything, no matter how good it is.

[Lightyear]

........I won't be a bit surprised if there are some issues in there which rise to the level of constitutional challenge.......

Yes sir - 30+ states are sabre rattling about suing the feds!  I think once the constitutional lawyers start disecting this thing it will be never ending.

George couldn't have said it better so I won't beat a dead horse.  

However, the thing that grinds my gears the most is the sleazy, back room mumbojumbo, hoodoo voodoo that this thing went through to pass when one party controls the entire show.  If it was such a great thing you think they could have done this in the light of day - just doesn't pass the smell test.

[Pilgrim]

However, the thing that grinds my gears the most is the sleazy, back room mumbojumbo, hoodoo voodoo that this thing went through to pass when one party controls the entire show.  If it was such a great thing you think they could have done this in the light of day - just doesn't pass the smell test.

Neither party has a sole claim on that sleazy, back room process - it has been used by both in the last few years.  But it does make good theater for each party to accuse the other without pointing out that it has recently done the same thing.

Good theater is good theater, regardless of fact.

[Lightyear]

I will acknowledge that there's plenty of sleaze to be spread around.  That said, with one party in complete control of the house, senate and the executive branch you would think that this would have been a slam dunk not a knock down, drunken, bar room brawl

[Freuds_Cat]

The problem with all this is that Nancy Pelosi is about as far from Otto von Bismarck as the Monkees are from Cream. 

I'm sorry that didn't work for me. I'm in a band that plays both Monkees and Cream tunes. New analogy please?   

[Freuds_Cat]

To say we have been 'against' reform is a lie. Conservatives are mostly against the government model for health care, not health care reform itself. Big difference.

This was the same way the Howard govt here in Oz managed to hijack the referendum on weather or not to remain a constitutional monarchy with the Queen of England as our head of state OR change to a republic with a president as head of state.

Most people wanted to change to become a republic but the model (only option) the govt put up was the same as the USA. This scared a lot of the more conservatives who felt the president would then have too much power. Remembering that our country is run by the Prime minister not our head of state ie the Queen of England.

[Chaser001]

I'm sorry that didn't work for me. I'm in a band that plays both Monkees and Cream tunes. New analogy please?   

Maybe Gary Lewis and the Playboys. 

[Dave W]

I suspect it will be awhile before we know everything that's in the bill, but it's not a government takeover of anything. Private insurers will be forced to do more than they have to now, but they will still be private, profit-making companies.

I also suspect that no one will be forced to buy coverage or else forced to pay a fine. That won't stand. OTOH most of the state AGs who say they will sue over certain mandates are just blowing smoke. Every state has mandates, forcing insurers to cover certain people and conditions is established law, for better or worse. And I see no way they can win by claiming it's a states rights issue, that's almost always a losing proposition.

[godofthunder]

We as a nation have been sold into servitude.

[Denis]

Neither party has a sole claim on that sleazy, back room process - it has been used by both in the last few years.  But it does make good theater for each party to accuse the other without pointing out that it has recently done the same thing.

Good theater is good theater, regardless of fact.

I heard an interview on NPR the other day in which it was stated that Republicans used reconciliation 39 times the last time they controlled both houses and the Dems a few more times than that. I can't stand it when one party points fingers at the other while denying that it's done exactly the same thing. Those bastards in Washington need to realize that they are no there for THEIR job security.

[nofi]

a gigantic +1 from here. you nailed my thoughts on this particular aspect of government perfectly.

[uwe]

We as a nation have been sold into servitude.

Scott Dasson, ever the undramatic observer. 

[Pilgrim]

I heard an interview on NPR the other day in which it was stated that Republicans used reconciliation 39 times the last time they controlled both houses and the Dems a few more times than that. I can't stand it when one party points fingers at the other while denying that it's done exactly the same thing. Those bastards in Washington need to realize that they are no there for THEIR job security.

Denis, that sums it up nicely.

There is no exclusivity to the tactics being used at the state or federal level - both parties use whatever's available to them, and then wait for the other party to do the same - at which time they point fingers and condemn their opponents for doing the same thing they've done.

This situation is the kind of thing that inclines the people to pursue such things as term limits, so that elected officials have less reason to focus on re-election.  Unfortunately, that often turns into a focus on perpetuating their party's viewpoint rather than doing what's best for the country long-term.

Of course, single-issue electorates don't help.  When a rational vote that makes sense long-term is characterized as "not conservative enough" or "not liberal enough" by members of the representative's party, then something is broken.  The voters ALSO need to let go of ideology and think about long-term outcomes of legislation, and I see little prospect of that happening.

The net result is increasing polarization of viewpoints and reduction of thoughtful discourse.

[uwe]

That seems to be a tendency in the US. While in many European countries moderate right and moderate left become centrist over time (making it hard for the electorate to discern what is what, which can become an issue too), Democrats and Republicans seem to grow apart more and more, finding little they can agree on, even on such fundamental and long-reaching things such as a healthcare reform. It's not a good thing if half of the population always feels subjugated if it is ruled by the party elected by the other half. I didn't vote for Frau Merkel and probably never will, but I don't believe that she is set on destroying Germany for me.

I don't know why this US party radicalisation is - it defies expectation that as a state system matures everyone moves towards the middle - and why it is so pronounced in America. You've been a democracy for more than 200 years and contrary to some prophecies no Democrat or Republican administation has yet brought about the downfall of your great country. All Americans I meet seem to be neither Michael Moore nor Rush Limbaugh, but somewhere in the middle between the two, which appears to be a sensible political position for an adult with an acceptable IQ and not under the influence of drugs. Yet it seems to be the fringe constituencies that are pampered.

In Germany, parties certainly do lip service for their fringe constituencies, but they know that elections are won in that huge amorphous grey in the middle, populated by that evasive creature called the swing voter. And it is largely for him that policies and laws are made.