Tales from the Other Side

Sometimes I wander around the Right blogosphere for as long as I can stand it- usually I make it out with only minor flesh wounds and a few dead brain cells.  Today I came across this in the National Review blog, The Corner:

The Only Question About Obamacare That Matters

By Michael Walsh

March 26, 2012 4:07 P.M.

Comments

0

Does anyone — on either side — really think that the Patient Deflection and Unaffordable Care Act is about health care?

For if it’s about “health care,” aren’t there a myriad of ways in which the system could be improved without a “comprehensive” top-down solution? At a time of extreme economic dislocation, was there a nationwide clamor to make “health care” the top priority of the new administration?
Or is it really about the exercise of raw governmental power, to teach the citizenry an object lesson about the coming brave new world, one that surely will get even worse once Obama is safely past the shoals of his last election?
To believe in the “good intentions” of the former — as soft-headed conservatives are sometimes wont to do when crediting the hard Left with anything but sheer malevolence toward the country as founded — is to have to pretzel one’s mind around the internal contradictions of the bill itself (it’s a tax! It’s not a tax!) and the way in which it was imposed just a couple of years ago by a one-party Congress that no longer exists, having been rebuked and sent packing by an outraged electorate.
Far easier to believe in the latter — that Obamacare is just the canary in the coal mine of what’s coming next. That, once having established the hammer, the administration will use Obamacare (should the law be found constitutional) as the anvil upon which to smash the Republic once and for all. And the “progressives’s” Long March through the institutions will finally end in the all-powerful centralized government for which they’ve long yearned.
Does the Supreme Court still read the election returns? We’d better hope so.

I want to just leave this without comment, but then again I have to remember that this was on the main blog of one of the most prestigious and serious journals on the Right.  This isn't some loser like me in his spare time, this is presumably a serious political thinker who gets to post at National Review!  People must be buying this stuff! ObamaCare was the least invasive way possible to get close to making health insurance universal in the US.  To paraphrase Churchill, the only thing less invasive that accomplishes the goal is everything else. The ACA was the final big social program the Left has been yearning for in public, out loud, since the 1960s.  To see it as the thin edge of the totalitarian wedge is so paranoid that it really shouldn't even require refutation.  But here it is in National Review! What are these wack jobs in tin foil hats going to say if Obama wins four more years and does what he says he'll do: more of the same center-left incremental change?  I guess they'll just move right along screaming about something else.  Conspiracy theorists can't be satisfied.

False Equivalency Watch

It's always good to wake up in the morning with some politics to really get the blood boiling.  Today I was watching Up With Chris Hayes on MSNBC, and there was a woman on the show from one of these "budget responsibility" centers (I didn't catch the name of the woman or the organization, and it's not up on the web yet).  They were talking about the Affordable Care Act, often referred to as ObamaCare.

The "responsible" woman made the point that when Republicans took over Congress they passed their tax cuts first and did nothing about the deficit, so Democrats were understandably uninterested in tackling the deficit under their watch.  And she said that the Democrats went ahead and passed health care without concern about the deficit, so Republicans understandably "didn't want to play".

At this point I was screaming at the television.  Fortunately, MSNBC has liberals on its panels to guard against these mushy centrist arguments that become Common Wisdom.  So a man named Starr, who had worked in the Clinton administration, pointed out that the ACA is fully paid for and does not increase the deficit.  He even called the previous statement "false equivalence".

So at least this morning justice was served.  But in how many other forums do these mealy-mouthed and lazy "centrists" do this?

Look, if you want to be honest and still argue from a centrist perspective, I guess you can say that the Republican party has been a terrible steward of responsible budgeting in the past, but that there is real indication that things have changed with the advent of the Tea Party.  I'm not sure I buy it, but it's really the only way to be honest and still give conservatives the benefit of the doubt.  Then, when we look at the 2008 Democratic congress and administration, one can certainly criticize the Keynesian deficit spending they initiated in the form of the Stimulus package.  But when we look at the signature big accomplishment, the ACA, it should be acknowledged that it is paid for.  Criticize the taxes that pay for it, that's fair game, but to call it "fiscally irresponsible" is dishonest.

This is the area in which the Mainstream Media fails us so badly.  And it's where "centrists" fail us too. 

A little Health Care reminder

An email correspondent wrote me:

You still believe that ACE [sic- he means ACA] is going to rein in health care costs??? Knowing that one can make numbers do anything one wants them to, and that all the ACE calculations are based on hypothesis and not fact, I find it unbelievable that you keep espousing the party line. Granted ACE will be affordable for those who don’t pay taxes and who don’t have healthcare, but for those of who do and have to pay for those who don’t????

Here's my response:

I think it's reasonable to be suspicious of any numbers, but just because a study (or, studies) by the CBO supports a liberal position doesn't mean it's necessarily wrong either.


Here's what is indisputably true: the ACA does something to slow the growth of health costs in Medicare. It may not be enough. It may be overturned by a future congress. It may be swamped by unrelated increases from a now-unthought of corner. But it will definitely introduce cost controls that would not be there without it. That's why the Republicans were able to gin up senior citizens with misleading stories about how their Medicare would be cut- because there actually are Medicare cuts.

I'm continually frustrated by the Right's refusal to understand something: they reason that because the ACA raises health care spending by extending it to the uninsured, it can't possibly reduce the deficit. But for those of us who took 1st grade Math, I would point out that spending can be offset by increases in revenue- the ACA raises revenues through various taxes that pay for the increased benefits. So to criticize the ACA for raising our taxes is perfectly legit- it does. To criticize it for increasing the deficit is just wrong- it doesn't.

It's like conservatives have decided that spending and deficits are the same thing. Similarly, they scream about out of control spending even though the current deficits were largely caused by the Bush tax cuts, not spending.

Health Care Repeal

Well, it looks like the Republicans are determined to push for full repeal of "ObamaCare" and have no intention of doing any sort of negotiation to improve the law and insert some of their own priorities.  This is no surprise of course- their base would destroy anyone who tried to compromise in any way. 

I could imagine an alternate universe in which Republicans proposed getting rid of the individual mandate or inserting tort reform in return for dropping plans for repeal and/or dropping attempted lawsuits.  In this world, however, they can't do it.

So what's going to happen?  Republicans are clearly going to fight like hell, with every weapon they can think of at their disposal, to destroy health care.  They'll use the courts, they'll use the filibuster, they'll use the budgetary process, and of course they'll continue to lie and demogogue it.  We know all this.

What we don't know is what Democrats will do.  Will they fight back?  Will they huddle in the corner sucking their thumbs?  Will they whine about how Republicans are abusing the filibuster?  Or will they stand up for what they supposedly believe in?

I wish I were more optimistic.  This fight isn't over yet.  The other side is bringing it- are the Democrats ready to keep fighting?

As an addendum, I'll just note that the Democrats are apparently making no changes in filibuster rules, so I fully expect Republicans to stall court nominations among other things.  Then I fully expect Democrats to express lots of predictable outrage while doing nothing about it.  Then, when Republicans are in charge of the Senate and the presidency, I fully expect them to eliminate the filibuster themselves without a second thought when Democrats start to use it, in the face of more Democrat outrage.  Republicans play hardball, and good for them- at least they believe in what they want enough to actually fight dirty for it.  If only their policies weren't so moronic....

Ugly Is as Ugly Does (posted by AS)

From today's politico.com:

The only thing worse than winning ugly is losing uglier.

The Democrats’ ungainly march toward a victory on health care reform Sunday night provoked a graceless response from angry House Republicans, who shouted insults across the chamber, encouraged outbursts from the galleries, brandished “Kill the bill” placards from the Speaker’s Balcony and, apparently, left veiled threats of electoral retribution on the benches of undecided Democrats.

And that all came before Texas Republican Rep. Randy Neugebauer shouted “baby killer!” as anti-abortion Rep. Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) spoke on the House floor.

That incident followed an even uglier series of events outside the chamber Saturday, when tea party protesters reportedly shouted the N-word at civil rights hero Rep. John Lewis (D-Ga.), spit on Rep. Emanuel Cleaver (D-Mo.) and hurled an anti-gay insult at Rep. Barney Frank (D-Mass.).


Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34838.html#ixzz0j16ixe1c