It really shows how deep we are in the bamboozlement when even the bamboozlers get tripped up in the nonsense.
Here's CNBC's Maria Bartiromo asking 44-year old Rep. Anthony Weiner: "If Medicare's so good, why aren't you on it?!"
Beutler (TPM): Bartiromo Asks 44 y/o Congressman "If Medicare's So Good, Why Aren't You On It?!"
And you wonder why people are confused about the health care debate.
What's particularly striking about this exchange is that, when offered the most clear and concise possible explanation for why 44-year old Anthony Weiner isn't on a government plan that's only open to people aged 65 and over, she just whoops it up as if she's caught him in some sort of damning contradiction.
Obviously, the real punchline is that many of the people criticizing the Democrats' health care plan don't have the foggiest idea how any of it works. And Bartiromo in particular reveals--however inadvertently--that she thinks elements of the proposal make perfect sense. Yes, she's wrong to assume Weiner could buy into Medicare, and she's wrong to assume that he chooses not to because the coverage is sub-par. But ironically, the idea that Weiner should be able to buy into Medicare seems totally uncontroversial to her. And that, of course, is the whole point of the public option.
Josh Marshall: "Minor Revolution"
Let's get out ahead of this. Republicans are saying that if Democrats go the 'reconciliation' -- i.e., 51 votes rules -- route there will be a "minor revolution." That's fine. Hyperbole is a bipartisan indulgence.
But I'm seeing more and more reporters referring to reconciliation as the "nuclear option." The reference is to the 2005 cycle in which Republicans threatened to abolish the filibuster to push through their Supreme Court appointments. As an aside, the Republican leadership didn't just threaten. They used the threat, in essence, to force the Dems to give away and accept President Bush's nominations.
In any case, the comparison is baseless. What the Republicans were threatening was to throw out the rule book mid-session to force through their agenda. (As a matter of substance, I think the filibuster might well need reforming. But it shouldn't be done mid-session. If it's done, it should be post-dated out into the future, far enough out so neither party will be sure whose ox will be getting gored.) What the Democrats are talking about is using an existing procedure which has been on the books for more than twenty years for use on certain budget-related legislation. And has been used repeatedly. Most notably in recent years for the Bush tax cuts.
There is a set of criteria for judging what can be pushed through the reconciliation process. And, as we discussed earlier today, a health reform bill may have to be significantly modified to have it pass muster.
Reporters who repeat this should be called on it.
DougJ: Anti-vax whacks
I haven’t shared this with you before, but I have a terrible fear that the in-school swine flu vaccinations will bring out the crazies. There’s so many ways to be crazy on this issue: you can be autism-vax crazy, you can be home-school wannabe crazy, you can be Obama-is-implanting-a-chip-in-my-child crazy.
And, remember, if a lot of nutty people resist the program, it just proves that Obama is the black Jimmy Carter. Time to bust out the cardigan!
Update. Good Lord, check out the comments on the article I linked to:
When is Obama AND HIS FAMILY going to have the H1N1 flu vaccine? They should be the first and it should be televised. He and the doctor administering the shots will also have to put their hands on the Quaran and SWEAR its the real untested vaccine.That’s right kids. Step right up and get your Kool Aid. Can’t start the brainwashing to early. Because the govt is your friend and here to “help”. Google “squalene”
Bodenner (Daily Dish): Christianism Watch
"This [health care reform] cannot pass…What we have to do today is make a covenant, to slit our wrists, be blood brothers on this thing. This will not pass. We will do whatever it takes to make sure this doesn’t pass," - Michele Bachman.
Benen: SHAMELESS...
After watching RNC Chairman Michael Steele's new television ad on health care, The Atlantic's Patrick Appel wrote, "Shoot me now." Describing Steele as having "the fake earnestness of a vacuum cleaner salesman," Appel added, "It's surreal witnessing how unprincipled the national GOP has become."
"Unprincipled" isn't the first adjective that comes to mind, but this is a family blog so it'll have to do. For those of you who can't watch clips from your work computers, Steele tells viewers, "When you disagree with Washington, how come they act like it's your problem? That's what the Democrats have done with health care. They say you're the problem." I have no idea what any of this means.
Steele proceeds to tout "a new Seniors' Bill of Rights," that would prevent lawmakers from taking a series of radical steps that exists only in the twisted imaginations of Republicans. The dimwitted RNC chairman concludes, "Oh, and President Obama, it's not too late to change your mind. Stand with us and stand with senior citizens. After all, they've earned it."
Anyone who can watch the whole thing without pounding your head against a hard surface is a stronger person than I am. An ad like this is so breathtakingly stupid, and is so shameless in its cynical assumptions about the gullibility of the nation, it's literally painful.
The strategy is straightforward enough: Steele thinks he can kill the reform the nation needs by scaring the hell out of seniors with ridiculous lies. If Steele were a sane, responsible person, he'd choose a different path. After all, just last week, Steele said -- within a 24-hour timeframe -- that Medicare is a) a great government program that Democrats are trying to undermine and the GOP is trying to protect; and b) a terrible program that doesn't work and should probably be privatized. And this only came after Steele ran one of the all-time dumbest op-eds to ever run on health care policy.
A lesser man might think it'd be a good time to let someone else run with the ball for a while. But not Michael Steele. He's not very bright, and he's counting on you to be equally unintelligent.
In terms of substance, the Media Matters Action Network fact-checks the ad, point by point. In terms of politics, the RNC is running the "Medi-scare" ad on national cable and in Florida, which not incidentally, is home to a lot of seniors.
Steele is counting on a lot of elderly Americans to be just foolish enough to believe a weak con job. We'll see if he's right.
Benen: 'GO BE A GROWN UP'...
Rep. Lynn Jenkins (R) of Kansas has, all of a sudden, started making quite a name for herself. Last week, the far-right lawmaker said she hopes to see a "great white hope" step up to defeat President Obama and congressional Democrats. Now a clip is making the rounds with Jenkins sharing her thoughts on the plight of the uninsured.
In this clip, taken at a July town hall meeting, Jenkins is confronted by a constituent named Elizabeth Smith -- a full-time waitress with two young kids. Smith's employer doesn't provide insurance, and she can't afford private coverage. Smith's not looking for a handout; she's looking for an affordable choice.
"I want an option that I can pay for," Smith told her representative. "I work. I pay my bills. I'm not a burden on the state. I pay my taxes. So why can't I get an affordable option? Why are you against that?"
Jenkins responds, literally chuckling at the question, "A government-run program is going to subsidize not only yours but everybody in this room. So I'm not sure what we're talking about here."
Jenkins went on to tell Smith that "people should be given the opportunity to take care of themselves with a refund, or an advanceable [sic] tax credit, to go be a grown-up and go buy the insurance."
"Be a grown-up"? The taxpaying constituent Jenkins was blithely dismissing works full time and takes care of two young kids. She is a "grown-up." Indeed, tens of millions of Americans are lacking coverage -- some due to pre-existing conditions, some because their insurers dropped them through rescission, some because they can't afford it -- and it's not because they haven't "grown up."
I'm trying to remember the last time I saw a member of Congress take such a condescending attitude towards struggling American families. Nothing comes to mind.
Later, Smith explained she hasn't been able to take her two-year-old son to a doctor in 21 months, except for emergency room visits for ear infections. "I am frustrated," she said. "In a functioning, civil society, people take care of each other."
I keep wondering if there might be one game-changing moment in the debate, a turning point in which one person stands up and becomes a symbol for the larger cause. That's probably not realistic, though I thought we might have seen such a moment recently when Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) callously rejected the concerns of a woman whose husband is a brain-injury victim. It got a little attention, but in general, people didn't care.
Maybe Elizabeth Smith's plight will gain more traction? She doesn't want charity; she wants an affordable choice for her and her family. Democrats want to give her one. And yet, here we have at least one Republican lawmaker who finds the idea of giving struggling families a choice laugh-out-loud funny. Indeed, she'd like to see Americans who can't afford coverage do more to "go be a grown-up."
Benen: CANTOR'S IDEA OF 'MAINSTREAM'....
House Minority Leader Eric Cantor (R-Va.) uses a lot of words he doesn't really understand. The latest is "mainstream."
Cantor chatted yesterday with the CNN editorial board and addressed the idea of the congressional majority passing health care reform on an up-or-down vote. (via Matt Finkelstein)
"If they use ... the reconciliation option, it would necessarily mean that a bill proceeding under those rules is not a bill representing the mainstream of this country," Cantor said, adding such a move would make it harder for Obama to make further progress.
I see. Barack Obama ran for president, and health care reform was the signature domestic issue of his agenda. He won 365 electoral votes. Congressional Democrats made health care reform their signature domestic issue, and they too won large majorities in the last election.
Now, if a reform bill wins the support of a majority of the House and a majority of the Senate, Cantor believes it's outside the "mainstream of this country" unless it has 60 votes to overcome Republican obstructionism.
I don't know what Cantor means by "mainstream," but if most of Congress, representing most of the country, supports a bill that was debated at length in the last election, it seems difficult to get more "mainstream" than that.
For that matter, reconciliation has been applied to everything from health insurance portability (COBRA) to nursing home standards, Medicaid eligibility to the EITC, welfare reform to S-CHIP, tax cuts to student loans. Does Cantor consider these issues outside the "mainstream of this country," too?
Cantor added that President Obama "was elected to bring people together, to bring a divided nation back together." Well, maybe, or perhaps he was elected to enact a policy agenda he took two years to present to the country. Meanwhile, what is Cantor doing to "bring a divided nation back together"? Other than running a scorched-earth campaign against anything deemed unhelpful to the failed and discredited Republican Party?
No comments:
Post a Comment