I've been trying to keep one eye on CSPAN-2, watching the Senate debate healthcare.
One thing I've noticed is that just about every time a Democrat makes a speech, about a week's worth of blogging material runs through my head. Half-truths, misrepresentations and sob stories, but not a lot of honesty about what this bill would really do to healthcare in America.
It's a lot like what I see right here on the blog: I give a rational argument explaining why policies like the minimum wage don't accomplish what we'd like them to, and then some liberal lists all the injustices the policy is intended to correct, while completely ignoring my argument. In the end, we're both right about a lot of things, but only one of us is seeing both sides of the issue, looking at what the policy really does for the people it's supposed to help.
The Republicans have done a pretty good job, considering they don't have the votes to stop this. For one thing, they've stuck together very well. So far as I can tell, no Republican has cast the deciding vote on any amendment that's made the bill more likely to pass. And, of course, they've proposed some thought-provoking amendments and raised excellent objections to the bill.
I think it's been made clear that the bill will be making cuts to Medicare. Not surprisingly, it's been a lot like arguing with a liberal for Republicans to make this point. First, the Dems insisted that no "guaranteed benefit" would be cut. But eventually the Republicans got some sort of Democrat acknowledgement that "if you like what you currently have, you can't necessarily keep it," because whether those benefits are guaranteed or not, Medicare Advantage will be gutted.
Medicare recipients are a big voting bloc, but I think we're past the point where Democrats actually care that the public doesn't like the bill. This is socialtopia, and they're going to pass it.
Republicans have been hammering on the corruption in the bill, as well. They've pointed out the back-room deals, the vote-buying and the arm-twisting. Although "no guaranteed benefit" has been cut, for some reason four Democrat Senators' states have been targeted to receive money to make up for the Medicare Advantage cuts. Since these cuts are supposed to eliminate waste and overspending, I guess waste and overspending are important in those states.
It's a tough format for finding truth. It took days for Republicans to force a Democrat admission that you won't necessarily be able to keep coverage that you like. It's a chess game.
In reality, the insurance companies' attorneys get paid for every case they take, while plaintiffs' attorneys only get paid for the cases they win. If personal injury lawyers hammered the industry with frivolous lawsuits and the insurance companies won every one, you'd expect the company lawyers to be making a lot more money than those representing plaintiffs. In other words, Durbin's defense of the trial lawyers is built on evidence that they're bringing forth a lot of frivolous suits. And when you think about it, ending the lawsuits cuts the hemmorhaging to lawyers on both sides. Furthermore, tort reform isn't really about the direct cost of lawyers, anyway -- it's about a culture of costly defensive medicine.
My point is that traditional debate doesn't really permit Republicans to simply interrupt such an argument and challenge it directly. Instead, they have to wait till someone like Durbin is done grandstanding and then reply, often hours later, by first reassembling the faulty argument and then tearing it down. Invariably, every misrepresentation gets presented twice for each time it's corrected.
That said, the Republicans have done a good job of explaining this debate for what it really is. Like I said, they haven't provided the deciding vote on any amendments that advance the legislation -- so far. We'll have to see what happens with Nebraska Democrat Ben Nelson's abortion amendment. Republicans will want to vote for the amendment, but if they help lock in Nelson's vote for the overall bill with a simple abortion fix they'll likely do more harm than good. It's kind of encouraging to hear that the amendment simply doesn't have the votes to pass.
The headlines this morning say that Dems will offer a new public option plan similar to the federal government's own privately-run insurance. Note that this is not the same as saying that everyone in the federal plan will be put into this plan, or that this plan will be exactly like the federal plan. The government's own plan benefits a few at the expense of the entire population -- no such ratio is possible with a truly public plan. If such a plan gets proposed, you can expect Republican amendments to force the Congress and all government employees into it, in an effort to bring this impossibility to light. That should be fun.
In the end, Republicans don't have the votes to stop this. And Olympia Snowe and Susan Collins are fairly low-hanging fruit for the Dems to buy off if one or two moderate Dems simply refuses to be bought. But the debate will not make the bill any more popular, and when the Democrats finally do pass it, they will do so against the wishes of all but the most liberal voters.
Comments