One of the best parts about being in Chile for 16 days was the complete absence of American political news. I didn’t read a newspaper once and the only TV I watched was a five-hour CSI marathon with my kids over a couple of bottles of wine on a slow night in Cachagua. It was like being in an isolation chamber. It was heavenly. We pay too much attention to the clowns in Washington; it only encourages them. Reality returned quickly once we landed in Florida to hear that the Republicans were about to take over the House and their first order of business was going to be to repeal the latest health care legislation. I was initially worried but then they decided to read the U.S. Constitution out loud on the House floor first. This hipped me to the fact that a simple House majority wasn’t enough to repeal an already enacted law. Man, thank goodness that the rest of us are now in on the secrets that lie within the Constitution; it wasn’t good having only the Tea-baggers as the only Americans who understand the fundamentals of our democracy. Thankfully we all know now.
So then repealing health care legislation in the House sounded like a pretty unproductive exercise until I read David Brooks' piece in the Times this morning, and now I’m not so sure. While I pretty much hate the Republican party even more than the Democratic party, one has to be careful not to fall into the trap of thinking they are wrong 100% of the time. Just because the Republicans hate something doesn’t make it a good thing.
I had a great deal of ambivalence from the beginning. Any bill that starts with major concessions to Big Pharma and the insurance industry can’t be all good. Then throw in the Nebraska compromise and a few other bribes paid to various Senators to get them to vote “yea,” roll the whole thing up in a bill the size of Twain’s autobiography, pass it in the middle of the night before anyone has really read it, and just how good can it be?
Well, lots of people say “better than no bill” but what if it ends up costing the country hundreds of billions of dollars instead of saving similar amounts as promised? I say that is worse than nothing. Not only can’t we afford it, but it will poison the well for all future “progressive“ legislation of any kind because it will forever stand as a shining example of the Democrats’ unwillingness to consider the practicality and functionality of any legislation at the expense of liberal dogma. I highly recommend the Brooks piece if you haven't already read.
Posts
4 comments:
Chilling column by Mr. Brooks. I've always been of the opinion that anything short of abolishing the health insurance industry in favor of a single payer system was a waste of time. Republicans seems to think that saddling our businesses with the responsibility of providing health insurance for their employees somehow helps to create jobs. I don't get it.
A bit of perspective. The HCRL as it is was undermined both by lobbies for the current industry and arcane congressional rules, namely the 60 vote count. The latter abetted the former. Because of this magic 60 number, instead of a workable formula, we have a Frankenstein monster thanks to Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson as well as Blanche Lincoln. And that is what we can expect for future legislation thanks to the political system we are in Afghanistan fighting to defend.
Allowing that the GOP represents a laissez faire vision of business, do you think the cards will be dealt a better hand for Mr John Q Public in their hands?
This would not be the first time a poorly drafted law evolved into something workable. The possibility does exist, barring partisan politics.
And if any of you out there are harboring runaway slaves, you are un-American. Turn them in!
Have you read Twain's autobiography? would you recommend it as a read?
I have not read it. All I know is that it is long.
Post a Comment