« Today in Ridiculous Republican Amendments | CarlBentham's Blog | Memo to MSNBC: Learn from FoxNews to save health care reform »
Dems should shun Republican amendments
So the Senate health care bill made it through committee on a party-line vote, with zero Republican support. Not one vote, even though they added 160 amendments. I haven't read the amendments, but if they conform to Republican health care philosophy, they likely weakened the bill significantly.
I think when this bill gets to the floor, it needs to be made clear that if Republicans aren't going to support the bill anyway, they shouldn't be allowed to touch it. If they're going to hold health care reform hostage by refusing to compromise, then Dems need to counter by completely shutting them off. If a Republican proposes an amendment on the floor, it should be voted down as a matter of principle. It's like saying 'if you're not going to play ball with us, we're not going to play ball with you.' Any of their amendments are probably just going to weaken the bill anyway. And if some democrats like the idea, they can propose it themselves. But in an environment in which a 60-40 party-line divide is already an assumption, there's no reason to let Republicans have any say in this bill at all. When Democrats have the clear upperhand, there must be consequences for refusing to compromise.
I think when this bill gets to the floor, it needs to be made clear that if Republicans aren't going to support the bill anyway, they shouldn't be allowed to touch it. If they're going to hold health care reform hostage by refusing to compromise, then Dems need to counter by completely shutting them off. If a Republican proposes an amendment on the floor, it should be voted down as a matter of principle. It's like saying 'if you're not going to play ball with us, we're not going to play ball with you.' Any of their amendments are probably just going to weaken the bill anyway. And if some democrats like the idea, they can propose it themselves. But in an environment in which a 60-40 party-line divide is already an assumption, there's no reason to let Republicans have any say in this bill at all. When Democrats have the clear upperhand, there must be consequences for refusing to compromise.
Advertisement
That would make sense, if the Democrats were all on board. Unfortunately, not all Democrats like the idea of going to their constituents this election cycle having drastically increased the mandates imposed on them by government, and in many cases, the taxes and costs as well.
Since the Democrats will probably need votes from a Republican or two, they need to avoid making enemies.
Not to mention that amendments sponsored by members of both parties have been known.
July 15, 2009 4:02 PM | Reply | Permalink
I'm not sure about that one. I'm pretty sure they're going to try to get it through the Senate with zero Republican support. In that case, I think it would be easier to get nearly all democrats to oppose all Republican amendments as a matter of principle, rather than agreeing to a particular policy idea. I suppose you could make an exception for Olympia Snowe or Susan Collins.
July 15, 2009 4:20 PM | Reply | Permalink
Let's see if Snowe and Collins wised up since Porkulus.
The best thing that could happen to GOP is if they can manage zero republican votes for this proposal, with an eye on mid-terms.
July 15, 2009 5:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
The worst thing that could happen to Dems is if they don't pass healthcare reform, with an eye on mid-terms.
July 15, 2009 6:44 PM | Reply | Permalink
Dems should shun Republican amendments
Amen!
July 15, 2009 5:27 PM | Reply | Permalink
YES
July 16, 2009 3:45 AM | Reply | Permalink
The two arguments at work here bear examination.
When republicans held control of congress they used that control to push through their agenda. Having done so, we find their agenda produced an undesirable result.
Democrats are now in a similar position. It would be incorrect to assume that the same degree of control which is now in the hands of democrats will produce a good outcome. Democrats are no less subject to all manner of influence which may produce a different but still undesirable result.
July 16, 2009 7:28 AM | Reply | Permalink
Sounds like you think all results would be undesirable. Life sux but it beats the alternative.
July 16, 2009 10:46 AM | Reply | Permalink
I suppose I'm pessimistic about this. Democrats have a chance to actually do something for the general public here but a fair number of them are trying to craft a compromise that isn't really there. There has to be a real reduction in healthcare costs and a start at getting some standardization rolling to make this pay off.
It may not be sensible to some people but you have to make some general comparisons to costs of other developed countries as a sort of benchmark. And I don't mean detail for detail but shooting for a rough equivalence is not unreasonable. Right now our costs are roughly double other developed countries. That places the U.S. at a huge disadvantage over every other economic unit.
Big business insists on cutting wages and benefits but doesn't want to budge on the outsized executive salaries and the drive for profits. We can't continue shrinking middle class incomes and increasing incomes on the high end like we've been doing. I see all the crazy hollering about redistribution of wealth because of the proposals to increase taxes for the top wage earners but don't see much recognition of that very thing having been going on for two decades in just the opposite way.
July 16, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink