Posts Tagged ‘health care’

GOP strategy: Come up with ideas not good enough to persuade the Democrats; anything else is good

October 6, 2010

That’s the lesson to learn from Mitt Romney, who Jonathan Chait notices was endorsed by the National Review until the Democrats decided he made good policy ideas. Once Obama, Reid, and Pelosi adopted Romney’s health care plan, it was considered anathema and pretty much killed Romney’s chances of winning the Republican primary in 2012. Maybe that’s why the Republicans seem to be bereft of ideas. If they somehow persuade the Democrats to adopt them, they will be dirty. Or something.

Why should the Democrats trust Republicans?

March 14, 2010

Look, the GOP is clearly setting itself up for November’s elections, right? They’re not really contributing to the legislating being done in the chambers. So if their MO is one that seems to be to win at all costs, then why would the Democrats listen to them? For instance, when Sen. McDonnell warns the Democrats that passing this bill, or ramming it down the American people’s throats, will result in the Democrats losing in November, why is he giving the Democrats advice? (more…)

Abolish the Senate!

January 20, 2010

From the Village Voice:

Scott Brown Wins Mass. Race, Giving GOP 41-59 Majority in the Senate

Did some quick calculations and found that, theoretically, a coalition of 41 senators representing roughly 11% of the U.S. population could block any bill from passing. Take the population of the 21 least populous states and that adds up to less than 11% of the U.S. population. Of course, you could also add the next 9 least populous states and have a supermajority in the Senate representing 25% of the U.S. population. Talk about a miscarriage of justice.

How crazy is it that the Democrats have an 18 vote majority and are now considered doomed since the GOP won’t vote for anything they want to pass while in Canada, the Tories are running things with less than 50% of the seats in parliament?

I think that we tolerate the Senate because senators, for the most part, seem so reasonable (bar Jim DeMint). The wackos in the House give the less democratic chamber a lot of buffer. It’s easy to tolerate the injustice of Wyoming having the same number of votes in the Senate as California when Michelle Bachmann and that guy who called Obama “uppity” in Georgia are more accurately representing the people.

Doesn’t Brown’s win in Mass. just prove that voters are selfish?

January 20, 2010

I think it’s way overblown to think that Brown’s win (a.k.a. Coakley’s f-up) is a referendum on health care reform. If the only good reason for MA to vote for Coakley was because she would maintain the supermajority in the Senate so as to pass the current health care bill, then the good people of Massachusetts were expected to be entirely selfless. After all, they already have health care reform in a fashion very similar to the current bill. Would there be benefits in the current bill passing? Sure. But there’s way less incentive for them to vote that way than people in other states with more serious problems. (more…)

If you want single-payer health care, vote Republican!

January 16, 2010

This only applies to people in Massachusetts, who already have universal health care. (more…)

Chuck Norris should just go back to kicking people

December 18, 2009


It’d be a lot more effective and make a lot more sense. Here is a ridiculous paragraph from an article by Walker, Texas Ranger:

Lastly, as we near the eve of another Christmas, I wonder: What would have happened if Mother Mary had been covered by Obamacare? What if that young, poor and uninsured teenage woman had been provided the federal funds (via Obamacare) and facilities (via Planned Parenthood, etc.) to avoid the ridicule, ostracizing, persecution and possible stoning because of her out-of-wedlock pregnancy? Imagine all the great souls who could have been erased from history and the influence of mankind if their parents had been as progressive as Washington’s wise men and women! Will Obamacare morph into Herodcare for the unborn?

It’s probably not productive to address this weird mess, but it does remind me of why I don’t really get the socially conservative problems with universal health care. By legislating against abortion but not providing universal coverage, the right’s goal seems to be to beat the sin out of apostate women. But that seems to me to be a cowardly copout. I, as a man, can make it more difficult for a woman to have an abortion by making abortion illegal. However, by doing this I still don’t make it easier for the woman to have the child.