Political Gridlock or Political Theater

[Shatner]

While following the back and forth regarding the Obama administration's push for health care reform, I've come to wonder about some of the mechanics governing, well... government.

The situation I perceive is that the Democrats seem to want to push through some measure of reform and the Republicans want no meaningful change to occur; offering only token changes like tort reform. Despite a majority of seats in both the House and the Senate, the Democrats don't seem capable or willing to push through a bill that gets the okay from both assemblies so that the president can sign it into law.

Near as I can tell there are five non-exclusive possibilities to explain this situation and I'm hoping the more informed and politically savvy members of the Den can inform me which combination (if any) is correct.

1) The Democrats are unable or unwilling to push a bill through despite their seemingly superior position.

2) The Republicans are pulling out all the stops and preventing a coherent bill from being passed despite their seemingly inferior position.

3) The way the Senate and Congress work is that you actually need a huge majority to push through legislation, something the Democrats don't actually have.

4) It's not really up to Congress or the Senate but some behind-the-curtain force (shadowy cabal, lobbyists, whatever) and the back and forth between the parties is really just political theater to occupy people while whatever real agendas are pursued.

5) The Democrats aren't as unified as I give them credit and some of them are muddling the process for their own purposes.

This post isn't really about health care reform per se but about me not understanding how something as desired as health care reform by the seemingly dominant party can be stalled so effectively for so long. Consider this a question about the reality of the American political system, something I don't understand with any real detail.

[angelfromanotherpin]

It's mostly #2. Senate Republicans are abusing procedure and filibustering everything, even things they wind up voting for once they are allowed to get a vote.

[Username17]

We've allowed ourselves to become 18th century Poland. Minority parties technically have the right to be gigantic douche bags and slow the wheels of government to a crawl just by refusing to acknowledge normal procedure. And the Republicans are doing that. But the Healthcare bill is gong through on Reconciliation, and so all it really shows is that we badly need an overhaul of parliamentary procedure to be in line with the modern age where some people are effectively internet trolls. And in some cases, Actual Internet Trolls.

-Username17

[CatharzGodfoot]

What's wrong with 4? Couldn't it be that Democrats are merely sandbagging themselves because, for all their talk, they don't actually want to succeed?

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

What's wrong with 4? Couldn't it be that Democrats are merely sandbagging themselves because, for all their talk, they don't actually want to succeed?

That's really part of 5). Quite a few of the Democrats don't want meaningful healthcare reform to succeed at all - partly because they're in the pocket of the insurance lobby, and partly because the Democratic party includes a lot of people who just really aren't very liberal.

EDIT: My opinion on the whole mess-

Fourscore and seven years ago, our forefathers thought that the biggest threat to democracy was someone taking over from the inside. Accordingly, they set up the system so that no part of government could do much unless the other parts agreed. Unfortunately, they failed to forsee the rise of corporations that could just fucking bribe everyone. That, or they thought it was perfectly acceptable for minority interests to run roughshod over the democratically elected government.

For all of its hilarious inanity, this is probably the biggest advantage the UK political system has over the US. The whip is strong enough for the ruling party to compel its MPs to actually support their own fucking legislative agenda.

[RobbyPants]

I think it's a lot of 2 and 5. It's not that the Democrats aren't unified, it's that they aren't as unified as the Republicans.

That is one thing I have to hand to the Republicans...

[Gelare]

1, 2, 4, and 5 are all correct, and 4 is the most correct. 3 is demonstrably false, as Bush never had the kind of supermajorities that Obama had and does, and he still got nearly everything passed that he wanted to get passed.

[Psychic Robot]

Republicans are doing their best to be obstructionist, but the Democrats are being so arrogant that they think they can force through the Obamacare monstrosity despite the majority of the American people not wanting it. What you're looking at is part partisan politics and part policy (big government vs. small government).

The entire issue of "Republicans keeping the status quo" is, of course, a meme that has been perpetuated by leftists as a talking point. Republicans do not want to keep the status quo; they merely seek to provide insurance for everyone in an alternative manner. It is the difference between using abortion as birth control and using contraceptives as birth control.

In general, the entire debate over health care is obfuscated by name-calling that sidelines actual discourse in favor of playground pettiness.

[Cielingcat]

It is the difference between using abortion as birth control and using contraceptives as birth control.

So you're saying that the Republicans are completely against all forms of health care then?

[Gnosticism Is A Hoot]

Republicans are doing their best to be obstructionist, but the Democrats are being so arrogant that they think they can force through the Obamacare monstrosity despite the majority of the American people not wanting it. What you're looking at is part partisan politics and part policy (big government vs. small government).

If you think the Republicans want small government, you have not been paying attention.

The entire issue of "Republicans keeping the status quo" is, of course, a meme that has been perpetuated by leftists as a talking point. Republicans do not want to keep the status quo; they merely seek to provide insurance for everyone in an alternative manner.

That, of course, is why they haven't proposed any remotely plausible alternatives. IT'S ALL PART OF THEIR PLAN, obviously.

It is the difference between using abortion as birth control and using contraceptives as birth control.

Correct! Nationalised healthcare with proper provision for preventative treatment would be the equivalent of contraceptives. Private health insurance is not at all dissimilar to using abortion as birth control.

EDIT THE SECOND: I feel like expanding on this point, because you've accidentally hit on a great analogy here.

One of the biggest problems with the private health insurance model is that it neglects long-term, low-level preventative treatment. Also, the fact that emergency treatment is free at the point of delivery encourages people to ignore illnesses for as long as possible, and then to dump their problem on an already overstretched emergency room.

Using contraceptives for birth control means making regular, small expenditures to ward off future dangers. In this way, it is like getting regular checkups on the NHS in the UK.

Using abortion for birth control means ignoring the problem until it can't be ignored anymore, and then using drastic, dangerous and expensive measures to fix it. In this way, it is exactly like the current American healthcare system.

I hope that's sufficiently clear.

In general, the entire debate over health care is obfuscated by name-calling that sidelines actual discourse in favor of playground pettiness.

Sarah Palin accused Obama of setting up death panels to abort Downs' fetuses.

What's the leftist equivalent?

EDIT: Let me be clearer. Your false equivalence is false. Please provide some examples of Democratic name-calling and playground pettiness.

[K]

Republicans are doing their best to be obstructionist, but the Democrats are being so arrogant that they think they can force through the Obamacare monstrosity despite the majority of the American people not wanting it. What you're looking at is part partisan politics and part policy (big government vs. small government).

The entire issue of "Republicans keeping the status quo" is, of course, a meme that has been perpetuated by leftists as a talking point. Republicans do not want to keep the status quo; they merely seek to provide insurance for everyone in an alternative manner. It is the difference between using abortion as birth control and using contraceptives as birth control.

Wow, you are ill-informed. Every poll shows that 70-80% of Americans want government health insurance.

The Republicans have been very clear in their position that the government should provide no social programs, including Medicare. They want more tax on the middle and lower class, and less taxes for the wealthy.

The neat trick is that Republicans have convinced 20-30% of Americans that somehow getting government insurance means we lose Medicare coverage (government health insurance), or that somehow the government can't provide good health insurance (even though Medicare provides more coverage at less cost than any private provider).

Personally, I expect health care reform to end in failure. Its was the failure for Clinton, and he actually was in office during a time of huge economic growth, so a President facing the near collapse of the world-wide economy doesn't really have the clout to face-off with an industry that basically prints money and no longer has laws to prevent it from buying politicians willy-nilly.

[Psychic Robot]

What's the leftist equivalent?

How shall I count the ways? Republicans are in the pockets of Big Insurance and lobbyists. Republicans support the status quo; they will leave you to die. Your insurance provider will drop you and you'll die horribly and destitute. Lamar Alexander is racist. The economy will not recover without health care reform and the United States will plunge into chaos.

Wow, you are ill-informed. Every poll shows that 70-80% of Americans want government health insurance.

No. Don't lie.

The Republicans have been very clear in their position that the government should provide no social programs, including Medicare.

Stop lying.

[Crissa]

Don't like that it's only two to one that the public wants Health Reform? And how come not even NPR will tell its listeners that Republicans are flat out lying about their constituents?

In what way have Republicans done anything to ensure that Medicare functions in any way that isn't just a payout to their donors? Remember our discussion about what they 'say' and what they 'do'?

-Crissa

[Ganbare Gincun]

Republicans are in the pockets of Big Insurance and lobbyists.

Given the fact that the amount of campaign cash given to Republicans by the insurance industry was nearly double the amount that was given to Democrats until the 2008 election cycle, I would have to agree with this assessment. And given the fact that the top contributors from the insurance industry - UnitedHealthCare, Blue Cross/Blue Shield, and Aetna Inc. are opposed to health care reform, it doesn't take a genius to figure how the Republican Party is going to vote on health care reform legislation. The primary difference now is that the insurance industry is buying off the votes of "Blue Dog" Democrats now to protect their obscene profit margins.

Republicans support the status quo; they will leave you to die.

Republicans had eight years to reform health care during the Bush Administration. They could have passed all the tort reform, malpractice lawsuit reform, and insurance purchase reform that they wanted with minimal opposition in Congress. And yet they did nothing. I think that's indicative of the fact that they are pretty comfortable with the status quo, which results in 45,000 deaths every year related to lack of insurance alone. That's as if 9/11 happened 15 times a year. And that's not even factoring in those that died because they had health insurance and were denied care. At the end of the day, the question is this: is the Republican Party paid off by the insurance industry, or are they merely inured to the deaths of average Americans? Either way, I don't think that we can count on the Republican Party to honestly participate in the healthcare reform process.

Your insurance provider will drop you and you'll die horribly and destitute.

People believe this because it's true. Forget Sarah Palin: the death panels are already here. And we don't even know how many people that they are killing per year by denying medical care. As per Salon:

A study by the American Medical Association found the biggest insurance companies in the country denied between 2 and 5 percent of claims put in by doctors last year (though the AMA noted that not all the denials were improper). There is no national database of insurance claim denials, though, because private insurance companies aren't required to disclose such stats. Meanwhile, a House Energy and Commerce Committee report in June found that just three insurance companies kicked at least 20,000 people off their rolls between 2003 and 2007 for such reasons as typos on their application paperwork, a preexisting condition or a family member's medical history. People who buy insurance under individual policies, about 6 percent of adults, may be especially vulnerable, but the 63 percent of adults covered by employer-provided insurance aren't immune to difficulty.

Lamar Alexander is racist.

I don't even know where you're coming from on this one. The article in question doesn't mention any kind of racial connotation to the term "medical ghetto". The only people yelling that he is a racist are people that are posting in the comments section of the article. And if you take comments from internet trolls to be a somber reflection of the thoughts and feelings of the electorate, I can understand why you have such a difficult time understanding why people don't exactly trust Republicans anymore.

The economy will not recover without health care reform and the United States will plunge into chaos.

Given the fact that health care expenditures in the United States surpassed $2.2 trillion in 2007 (more than three times the $714 billion spent in 1990, and over eight times the $253 billion spent in 1980), it's quite understandable why this is a concern. Businesses throughout America - big and small - are increasingly less able to make capital investments, hire employees, and provide wage increases to current employees due to the exploding costs involved with providing health care. Those funds could be flowing through the economy, but instead, it ends up in the pockets of insurance companies.

Wow, you are ill-informed. Every poll shows that 70-80% of Americans want government health insurance.

No. Don't lie.

More false equivalency. K is stating that 70% - 80% of Americans want government health insurance, which is born out by many reputable polls. The poll that you are linking to specifically refers to the current healthcare plan that's on the table (which has been dragged through the mud by the Republican Party and their media buddies). You can't equate disapproval of the current plan as being identical to rejection of a public-run health care plan, as opinion polls actually show that the majority of Americans want a publically run health care plan.

The Republicans have been very clear in their position that the government should provide no social programs, including Medicare.

Stop lying.

Really? Is that why Republican luminaries such as Barry Goldwater, Bob Dole, and Ronald Reagan have all called for the destruction of Medicare? I especially love Reagan's take on it:

If you don’t stop Medicare and I don’t do it, one of these days you and I are going to spend our sunset years telling our children and our children’s children what it once was like in America when men were free.

That just SCREAMS Medicare support, doesn't it? He repudiated it when he ran for President, of course. Republicans support Medicare when it is politically convenient, but they've always taken steps to either whittle it down or eliminate it whenever they think they can get away with it. And this little shell game continues to this very day with GOP Chairman Michael Steele. It's practically become a Republican tradition!

So who's the one being intellectually dishonest here, hmm?

[Cielingcat]

PR has never cared what they, or anyone does. He only cares about what people say they do, or rather, what he says they do. Remember when he threw the hissy fit over bad posting behavior in the Den, when he was the only one doing the things he was complaining about?

'Cause he did that.

[Ganbare Gincun]

PR has never cared what they, or anyone does. He only cares about what people say they do, or rather, what he says they do. Remember when he threw the hissy fit over bad posting behavior in the Den, when he was the only one doing the things he was complaining about?

'Cause he did that.

Didn't he also say that he was going to leave The Gaming Den?

[Cielingcat]

He did say that. He was gone for like, maybe 2 days or something.

[Psychic Robot]

EDIT: Nevermind, Gunbare. You and I are going to have to agree to disagree. You are correct in that there is some truth behind the Democrat mud-slinging--and I was incorrect about the general consensus on a public option--just as there is some truth behind the Republican mud-slinging. I figure that it's easier to shake hands than it is to do a nitpicking back-and-forth for five pages.

[Cielingcat]

I did make an account on WotC because people were slandering our entire board based on you trolling them, so yeah, that happened.

I mean, your history here can basically be summed up in 2 periods: blatant trolling, followed by 'OMG UR SO MEAN!' whine-fest, then the polite trolling you're doing right now. I'd actually venture to say you are a worse poster than Roy, in that he at least seems to actually believe what he's saying, while you're obviously and consistently nothing but a troll.

[Psychic Robot]

then the polite trolling you're doing right now.

Could you elaborate on how debating the veracity of someone's claims is "trolling"?

[CatharzGodfoot]

then the polite trolling you're doing right now.

Could you elaborate on how debating the veracity of someone's claims is "trolling"?

[Jacob_Orlove]

Democrats are being so arrogant

Obamacare monstrosity

a meme that has been perpetuated by leftists as a talking point.

In general, the entire debate over health care is obfuscated by name-calling that sidelines actual discourse in favor of playground pettiness.

???

[Ganbare Gincun]

EDIT: I will honor Psychic Robot's request to close our discussion of the issue.

[Koumei]

Remember when he threw the hissy fit over bad posting behavior in the Den, when he was the only one doing the things he was complaining about?

Good times. Him leaving, that is. But to be fair, Roy was also big on drawing trouble towards the Den back then. The two were hard to tell apart.

Also, I'm pretty sure it's not that Republicans don't care about the deaths of Americans, it's that they actively like it and the thought gets them hard at night.

[Neeeek]

Though due P_R being completely wrong and incredibly ignorant on the issue has made the thread go to hell, I thought I'd brief address the original question.

2) The Republicans are pulling out all the stops and preventing a coherent bill from being passed despite their seemingly inferior position.

5) The Democrats aren't as unified as I give them credit and some of them are muddling the process for their own purposes.

These are basically correct. the Republicans are actively trying to stop anything from passing at all and the Democrats aren't nearly as lockstep as the Republicans. The comparison isn't even close, in fact.

Here's the deal: In the Republican Party, going against the party line means the party will actively try to have you replaced on the next ballot by someone else. That is to say the party will back someone else against an incumbent. By and large, that means even getting to the final ballot means toeing the party line nearly all the time.

The Democrats, on the other hand, will almost always back an incumbent member of their party, even when a candidate who is as or more likely to win the general election as the incumbent and is closer to the general party line than the incumbent.

Which is why people should be utterly terrified when the Republicans get power. The Democrats, at worst, will argue amongst themselves which will curb the worst abuses. The Republicans will strong arm their reluctant members into going along with things that are terrible ideas. If you don't believe me google the phrase "The majority of the majority".