Posted on 03/26/2010 7:32:39 AM PDT by IMissPresidentReagan
Early post because I have a rally to attend.
Which is dumber:
a. Box of Rocks
b. Bag of Hammers
c. These guys
Morton M. Kondracke, Roll Call Contributing Writer – Fri Mar 26, 12:00 am ET
The victory came ugly and it was narrow. But it was also sweet. It was historic and, politically, it was big.
The question is, will the passage of health care overhaul also prove a Pyrrhic victory for Democrats — one that will devastate the winners in the 2010 elections?
Republicans think so, citing polls showing health care overhaul to be deeply unpopular.
As former Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.) declared in an e-mail blast Wednesday — titled “This Will Not Stand” — “in every recent poll, the vast majority of Americans opposed this monstrosity.”
That was largely true up to the moment that the House passed the health care bill Sunday. But on Tuesday, the USA Today/Gallup poll showed that opinion had flipped and that, by 49 percent to 40 percent, those polled said it was “a good thing” that health care passed.
And, on closer examination, the most negative of the pre-vote polls showed a silver lining for Democrats.
The top line of the March 19-21 CNN/Opinion Research poll showed that by 59 percent to 39 percent, voters opposed the bill that the House was about to vote on.
But when asked why, 13 percent of those opposed said the bill was “not liberal enough.” Add them to the 39 percent in favor, and the balance came out 52 percent in support and 43 percent against, just about President Barack Obama’s margin of victory in 2008.
Almost certainly, Democratic voters will be energized by their party’s achievement of the long-sought goal of near-universal insurance coverage — for sure, compared to the demoralization that failure would have produced.
And, they may be further motivated by the ugliness demonstrated by Tea Party opponents of the measure — racist and homophobic slurs and threats of violence — and the condoning of misbehavior by some Republican leaders.
The chances are, with unemployment remaining high, Republicans will score major gains in the November election.
Moreover, seniors, who vote, remain opposed to health care reform, while young and poor people, who favor it, don’t vote.
But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) had it right in one major argument that she used to sway wavering members: You’re going to get attacked whether we win or lose, and if we lose, you’ll have nothing to show for it.
Now Democrats have something to show — 32 million people now without health insurance will have it, though not until 2014.
But almost immediately, insurance companies will not be able to deny coverage to children based on pre-existing illnesses, will not be able to cancel the insurance of those who are sick and will not be able to impose lifetime benefit limits.
Moreover, parents will be able to cover their dependent children up to age 26.
All this will come at huge cost, of course. As Republicans, led by Rep. Paul D. Ryan (Wis.), have demonstrated repeatedly, health care reform will balloon the federal deficit, not contain it, when all costs are figured in, especially the forthcoming $371 billion “fix” to protect doctors from Medicare cuts.
Insurance premiums will rise even faster than they would otherwise because the government is mandating increased coverage without guaranteeing that everyone will have to buy insurance.
The overall health care cost “curve” will bend even more steeply upward — contrary to Democratic claims — as 32 million more people have access to health coverage and a finite supply of doctor and hospital services.
Cost-containment mechanisms in the Democratic legislation are largely experimental, including changes in fee-for-service medicine, comparative effectiveness measures and a commission to impose Medicare cuts.
Nothing in the bill enlists patients to be cost-conscious consumers. In fact, to placate labor unions, the final version weakened the effect of the tax on “Cadillac” insurance plans, one of the few certain cost savers in the legislation.
Republicans are right in asserting that, instead of reducing unsustainable entitlement costs, the Democrats have created a massive new entitlement that will add to the burden of debt piled on the next generation, menacing the nation’s long-term well-being.
And they are right to say that health care was passed with special interest deals; in secret, Democrats-only negotiations; and with some votes “purchased” with state-specific benefits.
Independent voters, the Gallup poll showed, disliked the way Democrats in Congress handled health care by a wide margin, 37 percent to 22 percent.
Yet, at the end of the day, Democrats won and Republicans lost. Obama emerged stronger, not weaker. That may help Democrats avoid a wipeout in November.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/cq/20100326/pl_cq_politics/politics3632563_1
NOT MORK DAVIS!
Can’t believe he’s not talking about n/s korea.
Not sure he has the capacity.
The Party of “NO”???
How about the Party of “Hell No”!!
WSJ
Persistence Is the Key
How about the party of “hell, no”?
By BOBBY JINDAL
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704094104575144361145435600.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADSecond
After forcing through a massive health-care overhaul that the public does not want, the president and Democratic leaders in Congress are threatening us with yet another PR campaign to make us like it. Good luck with that.
Meanwhile, some level of handwringing has broken out among GOP strategists. Should we push for repeal? Will it work? Is there some danger in that strategy?
Well, let’s see. We just spent 13 months arguing against the Democrats’ top-down approach to health care, contending that it must be stopped for the good of our country, the health of our citizens, and the future of our nation’s economy. So, should we try to repeal it? Only in Washington is this a hard question.
The arguments against repeal are the following:
1) It’s next to impossible. Nothing of this magnitude has ever been repealed.
2) Even if Republicans take control of Congress this fall, the president would veto repeal.
3) It will be hard to take things away from people once the government starts giving them out.
4) There are parts of the bill that the public will like.
5) We don’t want to be labeled the party of “no.”
Let’s take them one at a time.
1) It’s impossible. Wrong. There is a first time for everything. It’s similarly “impossible” for the son of Indian immigrants to get elected in the deep South. It’s impossible for an African-American to get elected president. You get the picture.
2) President Obama would veto a repeal bill. Yes, he sure would. Do it anyway. And do it again after he is gone. (By the way, President Clinton vetoed welfare reform twice before he signed it into law.)
3) It will be hard to take things away. Probably so. But the reality is that growth of federal entitlements is strangling the economic engine of our country. Someone has to draw the line somewhere. Do we want to go the way of Western Europe? If not, we better get moving in the other direction immediately.
4) There are parts of the bill the public will like. No doubt about it. There are parts I likethough I have yet to read the fine printsuch as allowing parents to keep kids on their policies until they are 26 years old. And there’s bound to be more good policy in there: 2,409 pages can’t be all bad. But the overall direction of the bill is to empower government, not patients.
5) We don’t want to be labeled the party of “no.” As it pertains to this bill, how about “hell no”? Newt Gingrich is saying we should “repeal and replace.” That works.
Mr. Jindal, a Republican, is the governor of Louisiana. bttt
Not sure he’s gotten the news, yet. After all, Dallas is an hour behind... ;-)
“crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality”
State of Illinois
92nd General Assembly
Regular Session
Senate Transcript March 30, 2001
Page 87
http://www.ilga.gov/senate/transcripts/strans92/ST033001.pdf
Obama “And if we’re placing a burden on the doctor that says you have to keep alive even a previable child as long as possible and
give them as much medical attention as — as is necessary to keep that child alive,
then we’re probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality.”
Got Drudge?
Allowing Obama’s logic for a moment;
‘placing a burden on the doctor to keep alive even a previable child is probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality’
^
‘placing a burden on the citizen to pay even a health insurance policy is probably crossing the lines in terms of unconstitutionality’
unconstitutionality
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/unconstitutionality
un·con·sti·tu·tion·al (nkn-st-tsh-nl, -ty-)
adj.
Not in accord with the principles set forth in the constitution of a nation or state.
Someone must be. The price of gold is soaring.
Mark Davis but, but, but, but, but...... But what? Just say No.
McCain? Just say No!
Yep- this can’t be good. .
Scary times...Israel has lost its oldest and strongest ally- North Korea is torpedoing South Korean ships..we have a Marxist in the White House as CiC.
What could go wrong..
Rush's sub will discuss Sarah Palin vis-a-vis McCain very shortly.
Leni
One small tidbit on Palin in Arizona.....(flame suit on....check)
Saw a headline on a lib local newspaper online site. “Palin and McCain 2.0” My fear is that Palin will tour Arizona with McCain, McCain will lose and the papers will go into a frenzy with headlines of “Palin loses campaign for McCain....TWICE!”
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.