Health care: A partisan vote was the only path to progress
By David Horsey

Health care reform has passed without a single Republican vote and some people think that's a bad thing.
In one sense it is. It's a bad thing that the Grand Old Party has so narrowed its ideological range that not a single representative or senator was willing to cast a vote for insuring 33 million additional Americans or banning the insurance industry practice of refusing to insure people with pre-existing conditions or dropping from coverage people with chronic diseases.
But, in the sense that bipartisanship is an important virtue, it's not a bad thing. It's simply irrelevant in today's politics.
Yes, past great pieces of social legislation, such as Social Security, civil rights laws and Medicare were approved with votes from both Democrats and Republicans. That happened in a different era when the parties were different animals. The Republicans who voted for those historic laws were, by today's measure, liberals. Their kind is no longer welcome in the Republican Party. The Democrats who voted against those laws were conservative Southerners. Today, their heirs have become Republicans. It's a simple point: Both parties, but the Republicans, especially, are much more ideologically uniform than the parties of the 1930s and the '60s. As a result, Congress is now much more like a European parliament. For the foreseeable future, we should get used to the fact that, if anything is ever to get done, the party in the majority must be willing to rule alone and take responsibility for the results.
Democrats have, at long last, acted on an issue that has been festering since my personal hero, Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, first raised the idea of universal health care. Republicans will try to make Democrats suffer for what they have done in the November election. They will rant about big government and taxes and the hardball politics it took to get this bill through. Democrats will respond by talking about all the people who no longer have to seek primary care in emergency rooms, all the kids with debilitating diseases who will no longer be denied health care and all the hard-working men and women who couldn't afford health care for their families who now can.
I think I know which argument is more likely to be a winner eight months from now.
Finally, a note to independent voters: Stop being so naive. I just saw a panel of disappointed independent voters on CNN who remain obsessed with the idea that politics is bad if everyone isn't holding hands and singing together in some bipartisan fairyland. Independents, ask yourselves a couple of questions: Are you glad the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the insurance industry lost this fight? Are you happy the uninsured, the chronically ill and the working poor won?
The way you answer those questions may help you finally pick a side.

 

Can't say that I agree with all of it. As a proud independent or centrist as some would call it, I don't consider myself naive nor do I care what someone thinks of me because they "just saw a panel of disappointed independent voters on CNN" and judge an entire group of people based on a few that were hand selected to create controversial content for a television program.

I don't identify with either party because it means ABSOLUTELY NOTHING what letter is beside a person's name. I vote for someone based on merit, not letters. I can call myself 2 Inch Jake (R) or 2 Inch Jake (Z) or 2 Inch Jake (W) and that means nothing, it doesn't change my opinion nor my beliefs and only a moron would care what letter is next to my name or decide to agree/disagree with me because of it.

 

Regrettably, I have to agree with him. I see no point in bi-partisanship in this political climate, and even if I did, there's no willingness on the part of Republicans to engage in it on major issues. Obama should do what he can do with his majority in Congress, and not worry about whether or not anyone on the other side breaks ranks. They probably won't.

I would point out, though, that the reverse was not true during the Bush Administration. Many Democrats went along with quite a few Bush initiatives, notably No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, and the War in Iraq.

 

I'm thinking about going back to grad school to work on this project next year. I want to study the history of bipartisanship from an ideological perspective. I'm not sure how the methodology would roll (it's tough pigeon holing someone to an ideology), but I think I'd like to take a look at members' voting history, rate them on degrees of "liberal" and "conservative" (as problematic as that is), and then redefine the Congresses of the 1960s by Ideology instead of Party. I'd like to see how much "bipartisanship" those big votes in the 60s would have gotten in today's partisan alignment.

 

Hey Whitey, can you say Waterloo?

 

It's ironic how the Reps are so concerned about bipartisanship. They didn't seem too concerned about it before...

 

Here we go again....

I for one agree with 2 Inch. I vote based upon who I think is the best and most qualified candidate for office. I don't care if they are Republican or a Democrat. I am saddened by all of the hysteria since Obama entered the race to the White House and his subsequent election. There is always an ebb and flow to poliitcs, and eventually we will see the Republicans back in office but until then I think it is truly un-American for Republicans to put their party aspirations first and the Ameircan citizen last.

 

Exactly, it's all a cycle, economics, business, politics, sex, everything is a cycle. It's a bit delusional to think otherwise.

I think everyone agrees with me, some are just afraid to admit it.

 

Tell me about it Super Fox. I thought the democrats got into just rubber stamping for awhile. Of course on my good days I think they just gave them enough rope to hang themselves with, And hang themselves they did.

 

As an independent myself, I don't agree with indepenedents, democrats, or republicans either. I do like President Obama, however. He has been trying some level of bipartisanship and proved that nothing could progress that way. Our country does need to make some changes. Everything as staus quo is not working.

 

Deidre,
Yes I can say waterloo. But I'd rather make love to you instead of defeat you.
Whitey

 

Also, tax cuts for the rich.

Republicans can't see beyond their ideological noses. They think that because they hate the Obama health plan, most Americans do, and will continue to, and that this vote will doom the Democrats to minority status for a long time to come.

I personally do not know what the political effects of this program will be. I am in favor of the health plan for reasons I have stated many times for a long time right here on XNXX. Everything depends on how well it works.

Up to now middle class entitlements have been successful. While Republicans have not liked them, they have been afraid to openly condemn them after they went into effect. In a recent column George Will said the problem with middle class entitlements is that they are in his words "addictive." Worse yet, Will said with alarm, they lead to higher taxes on the rich.

 

Horrors!!

 

Every Republican voted against the bill, so therefore the Republicans are more interested in their party than in what's best for America, right?

But I'll bet if every Democrat and a couple of Republicans voted in favor of the bill, you would all be saying, "See? The bill must be good because even some Republicans voted for it!"

 

Cao (R-Louisiana) voted for it the first time through the House. No, we didn't.

 

You're projecting. Republicans love to say things like this...about the War in Iraq and the Patriot Act in particular. But for my money, the fewer Republicans who vote for health care reform, the better I'll think it is.

 

Hi all. I'm from the UK, so certainly have no affiliation for either of your parties. however I do follow the US political situation rather closely, because it generally affects my country's foreign policy and because it amuses me.

The way I see it is the Republicans are Idiots, while the Dems are Pussies.

Republicans are rarely right when it comes to what they think, but they believe it so strongly that it doesn't matter to them, or there. They are also very good at winning elections, yet seem to have no interest in actually governing effectively. Generally their organization is also top notch with all of there people sticking to their talking points and their media (Fox News, talk radio, etc) are much better at "educating" the people into what they think.

Democrats it seems generally have better ideas. However they are sooooo bad at telling people those ideas that they are just as ineffective. With the health care debate began people were generally against it until you actually explain what was in the bill and how it would benefit them. Also they spend all this time trying to gather republican support, incorporating their ideas and removing the public option and they still didn't sway anyone. If Dems could hold their nerve and organize like republicans you might have an effective party.

Quite funny now how Republicans are now taking credit for all the stuff they like in the bill, yet none of them voted for it!!!

 

Yeah, I think you've pretty much got a handle on it.

 

I think there's a real danger in this argument that, "When they find out what's in it, they like it." Folks I talk to, who would otherwise be sympathetic and agree with the statement, say it sounds condescending. I like the President's new use of the "Seed" metaphor better.