Commentary by Margaret Carlson

 

March 24 (Bloomberg) -- Democrats won their health-care victory ugly, after a yearlong, fractious, uninspiring process filled with rancid deals and worse compromises, redeemed only by the moment when they actually delivered reform to the country.

Republicans lost even uglier, not so much in opposition as in sullen, lockstep refusal to consider any reforms, even ones they were previously for, like cutting waste and fraud from Medicare.

Which would you rather brandish at a town hall meeting? A vote to contain the insurance companies, or a vote to let them have their way?

The fixes that will take effect before the midterm election include bans on excluding children from coverage because of preexisting conditions and on canceling policies when someone gets sick. Dependents will be permitted to stay on a policy until they’re 26. A favorite Republican constituency, small businesses, gets help purchasing insurance for their employees. Seniors get $250 toward closing a loophole in their Medicare prescription-drug coverage.

After voters have their say in November, Republicans may look back on all the dire warnings they issued about certain defeat and realize they were talking about themselves.

Obama should reserve one thank-you note for WellPoint Inc., which imposed a 39 percent rate increase on some policyholders in California. Until then, the focus had been on Republican predictions that the world would come to an end if Obamacare passed, not on the immediate hell should insurers continue on their merry way.

Wrong Prediction

As late as the Sunday morning television talk shows, hours before the showdown vote in the House, Republicans claimed they would prevail because of dug-in pro-lifers in the House.

What helped end that standoff were 59,000 nuns who came out in favor of reform, blunting the opposition of bishops just as the sexual-abuse scandal centered on the church’s male hierarchy returned to the news. Democrat Bart Stupak, who’d anointed himself king of the pro-life caucus by warning the new health- care system would subsidize abortions, sniffed dismissively at the sisters, saying he sometimes confers with bishops but doesn’t “call up the nuns” when he’s drafting legislative language.

At the very last minute, Stupak agreed to accept an executive order stating the status quo, a face-saving solution to his imagined problem.

Not for Kids

The debate over health care has left the body politic in critical condition. Congress has suffered such a steep decline in behavior that parents might want to leave their young ones at home to watch “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington” rather than take a spring pilgrimage to the nation’s capital.

Decorum has only gone downhill since Republican Representative Joe Wilson of South Carolina yelled “You lie” during the president’s address to Congress last September. It hit bottom with Republican Representative Randy Neugebauer of Texas shouting “baby killer” when Stupak spoke on the House floor.

At the Capitol, Republicans egged on militant crowds by waving “Kill the Bill” signs from a balcony. Thus inspired, some protesters spat on a black lawmaker and shouted a slur at a gay one.

Republicans are doubling down on their anger, vowing to challenge the legislative reconciliation process tooth and nail -- although their first challenge failed on Monday.

Burned at Stake

Republican National Committee Chairman Michael Steele accused the Congressional Budget Office of lying because its evaluation of the bill’s costs didn’t support his party’s line. Now the RNC is raising money through a Web site, www.firenancypelosi.com, that shows House Speaker Nancy Pelosi engulfed by flames like Joan of Arc burning at the stake.

Wilder than usual, conservative blogs and talk radio are comparing the bill to the Kansas-Nebraska Act of 1854, a proximate cause of the Civil War.

As for the most recent Republican standard-bearer, Senator John McCain told an Arizona radio station there’d be “no cooperation for the rest of the year.” After White House adviser David Axelrod called that attitude “OK on the sandlot,” McCain’s spokeswoman shot back, “that’s what strong, independent members do -- you’d know that if you had ever worked for one.”

Anger gives McCain a cover for dropping his effort at immigration reform, a cause that’s no longer helpful now that he’s got a primary challenge from the right. McCain is following the command of Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, who told his members to agree with nothing Obama proposed, even if they liked it.

Blinded by Anger

That stance blinded Republicans to the fact that Obama long ago ruled out the single-payer system loved by many liberals in favor of working through the existing private insurance system. Republicans could have chosen to play a role in it.

If and when they have to govern again, sane Republicans will find there’s a cost to being pulled down to the level of the haters, since it undermines the ability to lead.

The Harris Poll today releases the results of an online survey of 2,320 Americans as the health-care battle raged. As John Avlon reported yesterday on the Daily Beast Web site, it found that 67 percent of Republicans believe that Obama is a socialist -- and that’s one of the more benign results.

Some 38 percent of Republicans say that Obama is “doing many of the things that Hitler did.” A stunning 24 percent say that Obama “may be the Antichrist.”

Maybe they will see they’ve gone too far. I can’t picture John Boehner campaigning against an Antichrist who gave Grandma a $250 rebate or let junior remain on his parents’ insurance policy until he finds a job. I bet Republicans leave the repeal drive to Rush Limbaugh, newly ensconced in Costa Rica -- where, to his dismay, he’ll find there’s universal health care.

(Margaret Carlson, author of “Anyone Can Grow Up: How George Bush and I Made It to the White House” and former White House correspondent for Time magazine, is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are her own.)

7,385 views 24 replies
Reply #1 Top

That stance blinded Republicans to the fact that Obama long ago ruled out the single-payer system loved by many liberals in favor of working through the existing private insurance system. Republicans could have chosen to play a role in it.
End of quote

Carlson's a sucker & a fool.  Obama's 'ruled out' absolutely nothing & they have no intention of stopping there.  Sunday was just the first step in their push for single payer.  They admit it.  And anyone paying a lick of attention has known it all along, too.  The Republicans saw it for what it is and were right to oppose it.

Reply #2 Top

The truly shocking thing about the Harris poll, BTW, is that only 67% of Republicans think he's a socialist.

Reply #3 Top

Obama's 'ruled out' absolutely nothing & they have no intention of stopping there
End of quote

Is there, or isn't there a single-payer system?

Yes or no. Answer just by one word.

Reply #4 Top

Fail.

Reply #5 Top

Is there, or isn't there a single-payer system?

Yes or no. Answer just by one word.
End of quote

The answer is NO. Not yet. There is also no provision to cover children with preexisting conditions right now. They forgot to put that in the bill but said it was there. Well, it is in the bill but it does not take effect until 2014. So much for liberal compasion.

Reply #6 Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 3

Obama's 'ruled out' absolutely nothing & they have no intention of stopping there
Is there, or isn't there a single-payer system?

Yes or no. Answer just by one word.
End of Cikomyr's quote

The question is not "is there or isn't there", as that was not the statement made.  The question was "did he or did he not" rule it out, and the answer is no, he did not.

Daiwa is right again.  Maggie is an idiot.  I fail to see how the republicans lost.  They were never in the game (they were excluded, they did not refuse to play).  This is all a democrat train wreck and only they are going to answer to the american people.  It is about time they actually got some integrity (highly doubtful) and owned up to their own actions - without trying to be the victim yet again.

Reply #7 Top

Daiwa is right again. Maggie is an idiot. I fail to see how the republicans lost. They were never in the game (they were excluded, they did not refuse to play). This is all a democrat train wreck and only they are going to answer to the american people
End of quote

Look at your argumentation one second:

- If the Republican win the next election, it will be because the public have decided justly that the Democrats' healthcare reform was not acceptable.

- If the Democrats win the next election (or it's a tie. they loose by a small margin), it will be because the public have been brainwashed by the Democrats

It's win-win for you, right?

Reply #8 Top

It's win-win for you, right?
End of quote

Look at it this way, every country that has done this has gone broke. That is history, not talking points. Anyone with a clear thinking brain would see that such a thing would be more harm than good for the nation.

my own opinion is that Americans have a very short political memory, most of this will be forgotten by November. If not then it means Americans are really pissed and I fear for the nation. Any nut bag will say he or she is a conservative just to get elected and we will end up with worse than we have now. It is not brainwashing it is simple politics, the democrats are counting on short memories and fading anger. Conservatives are hoping it will be different this time.

Reply #9 Top

I think this issue has legs and will carry to the mid-term elections.  We'll find out.

Whether that means we end up with repeal is a different matter, but look at what has transpired over the past 12 months - no one could have sold the notion in February of last year that BO would be so unpopular so fast.  The few that were bold enough to predict so were ignored or laughed at.

Reply #10 Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 7

- If the Republican win the next election, it will be because the public have decided justly that the Democrats' healthcare reform was not acceptable.

- If the Democrats win the next election (or it's a tie. they loose by a small margin), it will be because the public have been brainwashed by the Democrats

It's win-win for you, right?
End of Cikomyr's quote

Actually no.  (But I do love your analysis).  I guess my statement above taken at face value could be construed that way.  But I have made no secret in my conversations of my lack of faith in the electorate remembering things past 2 weeks.  There is a possibility that it will continue to resonate well enough for a decidedly big republican victory in the fall, but I do not hold my breath on  it.  So A republican sweep (and I am talking LOTS of house seats and at least 9 Senate seats) would be a repudiation of the democrats.  But again, I do not hold out my breath for that.  By then, Jobs will probably be on the top of everyone's minds as the law is a job killer.  But people are not going to connect those dots for several years to come.  And the democrats can buy their way out of that mess (I think their current game plan will not do it, but they still have time to wise up).

Regardless of what happens, though, it is not a win-win.  It is a lose-lose as the abortion is now law (except for congress and the president)  and we will all lose.  I cant see how that is a win?  And regardless of the november elections, it will not be repealed (even a massive win by the republicans will not get Obama out of the White House and he has veto power).

Reply #11 Top

I cant see how that is a win? And regardless of the november elections, it will not be repealed (even a massive win by the republicans will not get Obama out of the White House and he has veto power).
End of quote

In that case, I think you are needlessly defeatist. A massive win of the republicans in the White House would not make a veto-breaker, BUT you still could legislate a modification bill that would take out some of the bad parts you hate the most and add parts that you feel it would be best.

It's not like you would have won here and now, but it still something that should be considered if you really care about saving your country from what you believe is the end of the world.

Reply #12 Top

In that case, I think you are needlessly defeatist. A massive win of the republicans in the White House would not make a veto-breaker, BUT you still could legislate a modification bill that would take out some of the bad parts you hate the most and add parts that you feel it would be best.
End of quote

There are not enough seats up for grabs that would be able to overide a Veto from the President. It is nowt defeatist it is reality.

Reply #13 Top

I was at the Glenn Beck Revival tour yesterday. Judge Andrew Napolitano had an interesting observation. The Mustang Ranch in Nevada was taken over by the IRS for non-payment of taxes. The IRS bankrupted the place in less than a year. Think about this. The government could not sell hookers, and booze in a desert to truckers and make enough money to pay the tax bill but we are expected to believe that this same government can take over the entire health care system and do it better than the private sector while saving money and reducing costs.

Reply #14 Top

Quoting Paladin77, reply 12

There are not enough seats up for grabs that would be able to overide a Veto from the President. It is nowt defeatist it is reality.
End of Paladin77's quote

Unfortunate and true.  This is the year with the lowest democrat numbers running for re-election in the senate.  At best, should a miracle occur, the republicans could squeak out a majority in the senate (51) but that would mean another Brown style win against a LIVING incumbent democrat (ala Boxer).  not likely.  More likely is the republicans will pick up about 8 seats in the senate, and take the house.  Which means no more abrogation of rights by law - just by executive order and recess appointments.

So nothing will get done, but that also means nothing will get undone either.

Reply #15 Top

Quoting Paladin77, reply 13
I was at the Glenn Beck Revival tour yesterday. Judge Andrew Napolitano had an interesting observation. The Mustang Ranch in Nevada was taken over by the IRS for non-payment of taxes. The IRS bankrupted the place in less than a year. Think about this. The government could not sell hookers, and booze in a desert to truckers and make enough money to pay the tax bill but we are expected to believe that this same government can take over the entire health care system and do it better than the private sector while saving money and reducing costs.
End of Paladin77's quote

That is surprising.  The one thing the government is expert at - screwing you - they cannot even make a profit at!

Reply #16 Top

Unfortunate and true. This is the year with the lowest democrat numbers running for re-election in the senate. At best, should a miracle occur, the republicans could squeak out a majority in the senate (51) but that would mean another Brown style win against a LIVING incumbent democrat (ala Boxer). not likely. More likely is the republicans will pick up about 8 seats in the senate, and take the house. Which means no more abrogation of rights by law - just by executive order and recess appointments.

So nothing will get done, but that also means nothing will get undone either.
End of quote

Aren't all representatives get voted on every 2 years?

Reply #17 Top

Aren't all representatives get voted on every 2 years?
End of quote

Nope, only a third at a time.

Reply #18 Top

Nope, only a third at a time.
End of quote

Are you sure that this isn't the Senate?

Reply #19 Top

Cikomyr -

You are correct.  The entire House stands for re-election every 2 years, along with one-third of the Senators.

Reply #20 Top

You are correct. The entire House stands for re-election every 2 years, along with one-third of the Senators
End of quote

Good. I was worried for a second, Paladin77 claims to know so much, I was surely doomed to be wrong.

So, if ALL representative are up for re-election, then what's the problem with possibility that the the Republican reclaiming the lower house with a strong majority? If you have really the people's support, and you carry your election well, then it's not out of your reach.

The Senate is another matter, obviously. Since this year's senators will be the one that won their seats during Bush's 04's landslide election, it will be very hard for you to win a majority. But with the lower chamber in your hand, you still will be in a position to influence a lot the political climate, and keep the budget and democrats in check.

That is the point of the House, after all.

Reply #21 Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 20
Good. I was worried for a second, Paladin77 claims to know so much, I was surely doomed to be wrong.

So, if ALL representative are up for re-election, then what's the problem with possibility that the the Republican reclaiming the lower house with a strong majority? If you have really the people's support, and you carry your election well, then it's not out of your reach.
End of Cikomyr's quote

I do not think anyone was actually contesting this point (republicans gaining control of the house).  I think Paladin was just confused since I did say senate, and you then changed it to House.  My original statement still stands however.  The repubicans have a very good chance of picking up seats in Arkansas, Colorado, Indiana, Nevada, North Dakota, and Pennsylvania.  If they hold all their own, that is a net gain 6.  Since Health care was passed, the senators in California (A formerly very safe seat), Connecticut (ditto), Illinois (that one is more about the scandal in that state than health care), Delaware, New York (Gillibrand) are in play.  So best (if the stars and planets and moons and asteroids alligned) is they could pick up 6-12 seats there.  So at best, they would have 53 seats.  Far form a veto over-ride majority.  In addition, while they probably can expect good gains in the house,and possibly (some would say probably) a majority, they would have to pick up 115 to get to the veto over ride limit in the house - a much more remote possibility than winning the senate.

The Senate is another matter, obviously. Since this year's senators will be the one that won their seats during Bush's 04's landslide election, it will be very hard for you to win a majority. But with the lower chamber in your hand, you still will be in a position to influence a lot the political climate, and keep the budget and democrats in check.

That is the point of the House, after all.
End of quote

Just a couple of points.  Actually, not all have been in there for 6 years (Senate).  3 of the iffy seats are by appointees that were just put in when Obama won (Delaware, NY, Illinois).

But even with one house, yes, they could stop future boondoggles, but not roll back any thing done in the last 2 years.  Again, that would take winning 26 senate seats (impossible) and as inidcated earlier, 115 house seats (almost impossible).

Reply #22 Top

Again, that would take winning 26 senate seats (impossible) and as inidcated earlier, 115 house seats (almost impossible).
End of quote

Just win the majority, it's gonna be more than ennough, and you will work WITH the president to reduce the budget, like done under Clinton.

Funny that Clinton was the only president to reduce the budget in the past 40 years.

Reply #23 Top

Quoting Cikomyr, reply 22
Just win the majority, it's gonna be more than ennough, and you will work WITH the president to reduce the budget, like done under Clinton.

Funny that Clinton was the only president to reduce the budget in the past 40 years.
End of Cikomyr's quote

No, the republican congress was.  Clinton was too busy with Blue dresses. ;)

But I acknowledge your point and disagree with it.  clearly the discussion now down here is how to toss what has been done (and as we can agree, that aint going to happen).  But given they get a majority, it will still not work.  Obama is not clinton - not as smart or politically savvy.  Clinton did not go after a major news organization publically because they disagreed with him (he sure swore their name in private). 

I never thought I would say this, but I sure do admire Clinton's political savvy when it comes to the average democrat.  I hated what he did to the office, but he knew how to get things done (Better than Bush even).

Reply #24 Top

Obama is not clinton - not as smart or politically savvy.
End of quote

That remains to be seen. In retrospect, I have a lot more respect for Bush than he ever had while in office. I am sure you have a different perspective on Clinton now than in the 90s

You cannot really judge Obama's savyness after on year in office. Just wait for him to get beaten or retire. Then you will judge.