Health care reform? It’s just a matter of timing
“We’re going to do anything and everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law.”
--Mitch McConnell, Senate Republican Leader
You can certainly understand where Mitch McConnell is coming from.
A recession is an absolutely terrible time to try to ram through some job-killing, budget-busting, big-government health-care reform plan.
And because Mitch McConnell is the leader of the Senate’s Republican minority, he’s got the rest of his flock saying pretty much the same things he’s been saying: You don’t do health-care reform during a recession.
Republicans understand that health-care reform is only going to bring the tax hammer down on small businesses. And small businesses, as everybody knows, are the engine that drives the economy and will have to drive the recovery. Which hasn’t happened yet, in case you hadn’t noticed. Which, in case you were wondering, is all President Obama’s fault.
Now, if the recovery had taken hold by now—well, that would be a different situation altogether. In that case, Mitch McConnell and his fellow Republicans would still be opposing health-care reform, but they’d be saying that a recovery is an absolutely terrible time to try to ram through some job-killing, budget-busting, big-government health-care reform plan. Everybody knows you don’t mess with success, they’d be saying.
All of which might lead the unbiased observer (there must still be a few of those out there) to conclude that there are only two scenarios—bad economy, or good economy—and that the Republicans are going to oppose health-care reform in either situation.
Nonsense.
The Republicans are also going to oppose health-care reform if there’s a so-so economy. Or if the economy is starting to come around, but hasn’t quite gotten there yet. Or if the economy is starting to falter, but hasn’t yet gone completely down the toilet.
They’re also going to oppose health-care reform when they’re in the congressional minority and have virtually no say over the legislative calendar and no time to bone up on a bill’s details. And when they’re in the congressional majority and can set the calendar precisely to their liking.
Another key factor: Who’s the president? Because up to this very moment, the Republicans have opposed health-care reform under only two very specific presidential situations: when there’s a Democrat in the White House, and when there’s a Republican. In every other situation, they haven’t uttered so much as a discouraging word about health-care reform.
Odd-numbered years, of course, are a particularly difficult time to convince Republicans to support health-care reform. Likewise years that border on odd-numbered years.
The time of year matters, too. Call it the Oyster Rule: the Republicans are obliged to oppose health-care reform whenever the bill in question comes to the floor during a month that doesn’t have an “r” in it. Or does have an “r” in it. (You can’t be too careful.)
And finally, forget about any decade with a “5” in it. Republicans are incredibly opposed to passing health-care reform—or, for that matter, Social Security or Medicare or anything else that has to do with helping more people stay healthier—in a decade with a “5” in it. That ruled out the entire 1950s, as you may have heard. But also the 1930s—there was a 1935 tucked in there, wasn’t there?—not to mention the ’40s, the ’60s, the ’70s, the ’80s, the ’90s, and whatever they’re calling this current decade, which is almost over.
Not that I’d hold out much hope for the next decade either. Change is hard for some people.
They’re Republicans. They have their standards.
Rick Horowitz is a syndicated columnist. You can write to him at rickhoro@execpc.com.
Nov 25, 2009 at 7:14 p.m.
Suggest removal
"Simply because the government wants to set standards does not come close to a takeover."
I would like to see how many times the word "shall" and "require" are mentioned in this proposed healthacare bill. I am willing to roll the dice that it is mentioned a lot of times. To me, that means takeover.
Nov 25, 2009 at 3:38 p.m.
Suggest removal
Panama--That's fine that I'm paying for the health care of others now--but to ask taxpayers to contribute even more to cover the $1.2 trillion in ADDITIONAL health care expense isn't going to go over well.
Do you agree that the government should reform Medicare and prove to us that they are capable of ridding it of the over $500 billion in waste and fraud BEFORE they go on to reform national health care? Actually do it--not say they are going to do it? I'll be looking forward to your answer on this question.....
Nov 25, 2009 at 11:44 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Who can afford to front the minimum $1,200,000,000,000 expense that this thing is going to burden us with?"
Who do you think is paying that now 916WI? If you have health insurance, you are also paying for care of those who don't. The reform is designed to get EVERYONE paying something. Of course its going to be expensive. Much of the current expense stems from Insurance Companies making sure they maintain their profit margins that allow their CEO's to earn MILLIONS each year.
-
"...opposing a government takeover of health care is not an opposition to reform." Now you are the one who is confused RAF. Simply because the government wants to set standards does not come close to a takeover. The Insurance Companies have no incentive to change, thats why there has been no change. You tell me, why is it better to have for-profit companies setting the standards instead of not-for-profit entities setting standards?
Nov 25, 2009 at 11:10 a.m.
Suggest removal
bunbun
Did you really just equate access to health care/insurance to access to beer?
.
Obviously you just don't get it.
Nov 25, 2009 at 11:09 a.m.
Suggest removal
Well than let's get rid of the roads, police, fireman, schools and everything else the government shouldn't do according to your interpretation of the consitution.
.
it is 2010 (basically) and people are dying and/or going broke because of the cost of health care/health insurance.
.
How can anyone believe that is good enough? How can we, as Americans, tolerate that?
.
It doesn't, and never will, make sense to me. Create an option, run by the government so ladies like the one in the "countdown" video don't have to make decisions of food, rent of health care.
.
To me, this is a moral question. The government created public schools because all children should be educated, food stamps because all people should be able to eat,social security hoping the retired don't live in poverty and need to create a health insurance option so Americans don't die because of the cost of care.
Nov 25, 2009 at 9:58 a.m.
Suggest removal
"Where in the constitution does it say everyone should NOT get health care, and that the goverment CAN'T administer said benefit? HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM"
.
How about the part that says (I'm paraphrasing), powers not specifically granted to the Federal government are retained by the states and individuals. There is nothing that says everyone should not get a beer ration either. It is assumed that since it is not a stated power of the Feds and that the state of Wisconsin does not provide one that I should buy my own.
Nov 25, 2009 at 9:19 a.m.
Suggest removal
redder
Nov 24, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal Boy you talk about unreasposible journalist...wow..this guys nuts.
I ask but one question that all the lefties refuse to answer...Where in the constitution does it say everyone should get health care, and that the goverment should administer said benefit? HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
.
Where in the constitution does it say everyone should NOT get health care, and that the goverment CAN'T administer said benefit? HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Nov 24, 2009 at 5:16 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The ONLY purpose? Really? Uuuhhh, a LOT (majority?) of the retired/elderly receiving SS benefits are Republican, so that logic doesn't compute."
.
That depends on your OS.
.
The split of lib/conservative elderly is probably the same as the general population (1/3 lib, 1/3 conserv, and 1/3 fence sitters or there about).
.
Your point does not hold if you note the fact that whenever ANYONE tries to change SS to keep it solvent (other than taxing some 19 year olds Burger King paycheck at 97%), they get slapped hard enough that their mommas feel it. The entitlement trap knows no bounds when it comes to party alignment.
Nov 24, 2009 at 4:54 p.m.
Suggest removal
Boy you talk about unreasposible journalist...wow..this guys nuts.
I ask but one question that all the lefties refuse to answer...Where in the constitution does it say everyone should get health care, and that the goverment should administer said benefit? HHHHMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
Nov 24, 2009 at 4:29 p.m.
Suggest removal
"The only purpose to a governmet run healthcare program is to create a permanent voting block that will tend to vote to keep the benifet flowing (see social security)."
The ONLY purpose? Really? Uuuhhh, a LOT (majority?) of the retired/elderly receiving SS benefits are Republican, so that logic doesn't compute.
Nov 24, 2009 at 12:39 p.m.
Suggest removal
Our problem is that the "general welfare" clause has been so distorted from its intent to allow the Federal Gov't do anything it pleases. The only purpose to a governmet run healthcare program is to create a permanent voting block that will tend to vote to keep the benifet flowing (see social security). Republicans do not have a great track record in controlling the growth of government but currently they are the only group with the reach to derail this legislation. They (Rep's) seem to be listening (for the most part) to the people that do not want "reform" that changes controll of healthcare from uncaring insurance companies to uncaring DC bureaucrats.
Nov 24, 2009 at 12:35 p.m.
Suggest removal
Whythink--It shouldn't to the same because it hasn't proven itself capable of efficiently managing it's current "public option"--Medicare. Even the liberals concede that there is over $500 BILLION in waste and fraud in that current public option......and now you want to have them use their "expertise" to reform a market segment that totals 1/6 of the economy? When you get a chance, please come back to the real world.......:)
Nov 24, 2009 at 12:07 p.m.
Suggest removal
Is it just me or does the Gazette only print editorials from lefties?
.
kraut
Bill O'
are two off the top of my head that don't fall in the "lefty" camp.
.
Nov 24, 2009 at 12:04 p.m.
Suggest removal
Just wondering, did government take over our public education system?
.
Was there a debate about that? Were people accused of being anti-American?
.
watch this video...it makes some sense.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RkYr5i02q...
(the point is at the end with about 2 mins. related)
.
yes, this will be expensive and difficult but isn't it time for this country to enter the 20th Century and eventually the 21st Century and ensure that nobody goes without health insurance, nobody goes bankrupt because of a medical issue. That no US Citizen needs to stress about the cost of receiving medical care.
.
Government gives me an option to Private Schools...Why can't it do the same for Health Insurance? Why shouldn't it do the same?
Nov 24, 2009 at 11:23 a.m.
Suggest removal
The flip side to Rick's piece is that if you're a Democrat, there's never a bad time for a tax increase. For that matter, there's never a bad time for a new entitlement that's not fully paid for (like this one isn't), unless there's a Republican in the White House (e.g. Medicare Part D).
Is it just me or does the Gazette only print editorials from lefties?
Nov 24, 2009 at 8:48 a.m.
Suggest removal
good morning,first if you can remember along time ago...we were exposed to a trickle down economics scheme...and a scheme it was...where the industries needed to restructure and become lean and they would pass the profits down to the worker...but because of greed it never happened...then we have a congress who can be pursuaded with thier votes by lobbiests for industries;so congress as a whole has been siding with industries along with deregulation and weeee...what we now have is a big ugly corrupt ship...in every industry sector there is massive corruption that has been going on for too long...this is why we are where we are at...the worker has been fleeced every which way...this new administration has much work on thier plate to undo all the corruption that has taken place...it is to the point where it is starting to look like we the people need to vote out all of congress and start afresh..with untainted honest citizens who will be fair and balanced when they create laws...so that this ugly situation never occurs again..while we the people are at it...we need to set time limits for all of congress who serve..so that corruption doesnt take place..ever again..the healthcare industry is very corrupt...we are recieving poor services because of it...its congress as a whole that is corrupt and will continue to drag thier feet on every issue...if it doesnt serve thier industry friends well...after all thats where congress gets thier extra money for campaigns for re-election purposes..so how can we the people ever get a voice heard...lets take back the other 1/2 of washington D.C. CONGRESS IS
THE PROBLEM ...YEARS AND YEARS GO BY..WITH DEBATES..INTENTIONALLY STALLING ANYTHING AND EVERYTHING...SO THE INDUSTRIES CAN GO ON AND CONTINUE TO FLEECE THE PEOPLE...DO YOU GET IT NOW?
Nov 24, 2009 at 6:51 a.m.
Suggest removal
Horowitz is an idiot. Who can afford to front the minimum $1,200,000,000,000 expense that this thing is going to burden us with? All the talk about streamlining Medicare to use the waste and fraud recovered from that program to fuel this reform. RECOVER THAT FIRST!!!! Don't say you're going to do it--DO IT! Prove that you can make Medicare viable and efficient and then these people screaming reform would have a leg to stand on.....
Nov 24, 2009 at 1:55 a.m.
Suggest removal
This shows how little horowitz understands...opposing a government takeover of health care is not an opposition to reform.
Nov 23, 2009 at 8:41 p.m.
Suggest removal
Dem's created many of the problems and they have used it as an excuse to get re-elected saying they would do something but for some strange reason they never have. Yes they really cared for the little people and yet have spent years do nothing also. The blame belongs in both camps.
Social Security was in the hole before it even made it's first payment.
Medicare/Medicade was let run amok with minor attempts to fix but if it did get fixed, they would lose a vote getter subject.
The current plan will only increase the problem if the real truth be known but that will never happen until after the fact. And then, the blame game is on again and the parties will use it as an excuse to get votes so they can stay in office to fix the problem. It never stops-------it is just continued on year after year...
Before you post a comment, consider this:
Note: GazetteXtra.com does not condone or review every comment. Read more in our User Policy AgreementPost Comment
Commenting requires registration.