I would think the Republicans would like to be seen as being friendly to a bill that is just that much closer to what they really want. It could give them a way to control the narrative. “Well you know, this is what we really want, but we also understand that it can only be done in steps.”

they’re playing the same game as the Democrats. I can’t blame them, when you play on someone elses rules you won’t win. Unless this bill guarantees zero tax increase (which it wont) Republicans should be categorically against it.

If the Dem’s think they can pass it on their own – bring it up to a floor vote and let it pass. That’s the bene’s of having a majority. The benefit to the minority is the major gain when it fails (which I suspect is why the dem’s are trying to please everyone at the same time).

I also have no problem with a Public Coop / or even public insurance provided it is not funded by taxpayers dollars and is autonomous from gov’t hand holding. Let them offer all the insurance they want – they can jack up rates on those with high wages to pay for the lower wage folks. I really don’t care.

However there is an easy path to get GOP onboard.

- Cut the excesses that they feel they can in the existing framework.

- then Cut from the Budget what Barney Frank said they could easily find for funding.

- then go through The Spender in Chief’s budget and see where they can cut.

- then go through Bush’s previous budget’s and see what additional cuts can be had not spotted with OB’s.

- then proceed with a public – non-taxpayer funded coop / insurance.

They are saying…….”WE cant afford this.”

Thats the truth. Simply the truth. We cant afford it. We can afford some legislation that reforms health care but we all know this is about democrats finally getting to railroad health care for all.

We cant afford it. We really cant.

where was the political up-side for Republicans to sign on to a genuine compromise effort?

So their rationale is “The Democrats are being mean, so we won’t play along along with any proposal”? Haven’t they been complaining that their concerns weren’t being taken into consideration. So when one bill comes up that might provide some real progress, they ignore it? I’d say that’s just about as bad as Democrats refusing to consider anything other than “public plan.”

I need to read more on the Baucus plan, but if the co-ops contain autonomy from government bureaucracy, then I think Republicans opposing it is just partisan posturing. If it is inherently linked to that bureaucracy, then they have a reason to protest.

the most logical route to winning elections is intransigence, not accommodation

I would think the Republicans would like to be seen as being friendly to a bill that is just that much closer to what they really want. It could give them a way to control the narrative. “Well you know, this is what we really want, but we also understand that it can only be done in steps.”

It is a high road approach that I think would allow Republicans to appear amenable to something that isn’t a government program. The Democrats will remain screaming “public plan,” and thus appear partisan and the Republicans will look like they just want to govern.

I might be a little optimistic here, though.

Edit: Read your other article. I do think you’re right that Baucus and co. need to tell the leftists, “Look, this is as good as it gets. Your partisan posturing is only resulting in people who could be allies becoming enemies because you don’t want to compromise.”

1. In addition to the two (general) competing voter/activist bases, whatever health care bill finally gets delivered will inevitably satisfy one set of various (more specific) constituencies, interest groups, lobbies, etc., while angering another set of constituencies, interest groups, lobbies, etc. That dynamic is simply unavoidable and is a large part of the reason why – in addition to the overall long-range trend toward crony corporatism – these bills (similar to the Waxman bill) get packed with give-aways and loopholes, but also result in the commitment of more and more government resources (trying to make as many groups happy as possible to offset the pain from a minoroty of ticked off “losers” from the process).

I would argue that this problem is always present in the American political system, but that it is more manageable when one of the two party bases gets a significant upper hand (e.g., Contract With America, briefly in 1994-95). Having a “mandate” doesn’t make the above problem go away, but it does give the ruling party more leverage to make tough decisions. Obama and the Democrats thought they had a mandate after the 2008 election, but they either overplayed their hands and/or overestimated their advantage (probably both).

From the beginning, American politics have nasty, partisan, divisive. On the other hand, the stalemate of the last 13-14 years probably has contributed to the gradually escalating divisivess (along with the internet, etc.). Until one side or the other gets an upper hand, things will only get nastier. You can put off this “battle” for a while, but eventually the ball has to be moved one way or the other. And accomodationism often just smoothes over fundamental disagreements only to have them simmer and come back later with even more vehemence. We’ve kicked the can down the road long enough as it is. By no means am I advocating aggressive partisanship, or even setting aside civility, but some real differences will have to hashed out.

2. If a politician’s main goal is to win elections, why would the Republicans take even partial ownership over ANY health care bill in this climate? If Republicans in fringe districts/states had been convinced that the Dems really had a “mandate,” many of them probably would have siddled over, of course.

3. I can’t speak for the Republican Party, but most classical liberals like myslef would like to move in the direction of a more market-oriented, patient-centered system. Right now, we’re already very, very far from that. I’ve seen very little coming from Congress that will help us move back in a better direction. Again, not everyone wants to choose between more corporatism and socialized medicine. Why would economic conservatives/classical liberals support moving further away from what they think are the better approaches just for the sake of compromise? Who would really be compromised by such a deal?

On the other hand, I expect that lots of conservatives and classical liberals would be willing to make immediate compromises on TARGETED reforms that do not entail a net increase in government resources.

4. Finally, even if you accept many of the policy arguments coming out of the Congressional committees – given the complexity of health care and all the inter-related elements – isn’t there sort of a rough policy formula that would need to be engineered in order to improve the system? I mean, if the way to “fix” health care via more government actions is (A + B + C) – (F – S)*V, and at the very end of the process of comromise, the B and the S variables are removed to get a deal done, does the equation still work?

I recognize that you called the Democrats out some during the summer, but my point here was that in your conclusory post, that was all gone and the Republicans stand alone as the black hats. And having just read yet another of Kathy Kattenburg’s outright hateful rants and her continuing refusal to even acknowledge (let alone respond to) the repeated attempts by more moderate writers such as Pete Abel and Jazz Shaw (even just limiting it to those at her own site) to build a more substantive debate about health care policy, I’m pretty primed to see a broader picture of two-sided polarization and demonization.

While I share your frustration about Republican intransigence and the tendency of so many to cry “socialism” and use other pejorative labels as a replacement for problem-focused policy development, what I think you don’t recognize is that those positions are at least partially created in response to political incentive structures rather than existing ex nihilo. Specifically, the origins of Republican intransigence go back to the roots of the non-debate when it quickly became clear that they would not be able to gain any new political allies by adopting a compromising position. Since it was obvious that the angry purists like Kathy who control the debate within the Democratic Party would lump them in with birthers and far-right purists anyway, where was the political up-side for Republicans to sign on to a genuine compromise effort? Their reasonable calculation is that doing so would only result in getting them targeted from BOTH sides instead of just one.

Put another way, the answer to your question about what Republicans want is simple: They want to win elections, just like Democrats do. And because of the incentive structure to which Democrats have contributed in equal part, the most logical route to winning elections is intransigence, not accommodation. Because Democrats’ base is just as purist and extreme as Republicans’ right now, there is no up-side to compromise. So your demanding it from them just comes off as unfair.

So, yes, a huge part of the blame lies with an ideologically rigid and intolerant Republican base, but a part also lies with an equally rigid and intolerant Democratic base that instantly and decisively short-circuits any temptation towards pragmatism anyway. There simply is no benefit in compromising in the current political environment, and Democrats have contributed their share to building that depressing incentive structure. The bottom line is that polarization is a construction that requires equal contributions by extremists on both sides and when you react by blaming one side, you inadvertently grant cover and concealment to half the problem.

I also don’t buy the attempts to just limit it to talking about the politicians for two reasons. First, politicians operate in a broader context of discourse in civil society, not a vacuum. And in the current political context, the blogosphere, for better or worse (almost always worse), sets the tone. And that tone has been overwhelmingly hostile towards Republicans and conservatives generally (exceptions are not made) as well as towards any Democratic heretics who might even consider interacting with Republicans and conservatives with anything less than absolute hostility. Second, it is simply not true that Democratic politicians have generally been as earnest as Max Baucus on this subject. Nancy Pelosi quite eagerly sought to sign up for the effort to link all single-payer skeptics to birthers and Nazis, for example. And with very few exceptions, Democratic political leaders have consistently refused to even admit to the existence of legitimate concerns about health care reform, let alone allow for a substantive debate. They marginalized Baucus a long time ago and they should not get a pass for it now just because Republicans have reciprocated.

It took both sides to create this situation and trying to make it exclusively or even mostly about one side will only wind up guarenteeing that it keeps happening this way again and again and again.

“What is impeding comprehensive immigration reform
is any floor time to do it,” Reid told reporters. “I think we have the floor votes to do it.”

President Barack Obama has expressed his commitment to comprehensive immigration reform, and on Thursday he will host a group of House members and senators to discuss how to move a bill forward. Dated 7/1/09

See Just be honest. No politician is ever willing to be honest. The CBO. Bacchus can only work with the numbers they have now. The cost will go up considerably once these 10-20 million are granted amnesty.

NO this is not an idictment against Illegals…Its just facts in the health care debate that no one wants to discuss till later when their is a mandatory, budget neutral bill in place that MUST be funded.

There are two things going on right now. The GOP is trying to recover from a president who ran budget deficits like a drunken democrat.

The second thing that is going on is that the government has never, ever in the history of Mankind started a program that pays for itself or in this case will reduce the budget deficit.

I wished someone would explain to me how spending 1 trillion dollars is going to reduce the budget. How are the democrats going to pay for this?

From Obama’s own summary and his own website……..He points out he has identified several areas in the government where we can save billions in waste, fraud and abuse. The infamous Waste, Fraud and Abuse. How many times have we heard from the GOP that we can cut the deficit if we just recoup this waste, fraud and abuse??

Secondly…oh and we can not raise taxes but we will let the tax breaks expire. Actually I have no problem with them even raising taxes at all. Our deficits are SO HUGE that something has to be done.

The problem is the Democrats are selling us a bill of goods. They are trying to now convice us our budget deficits IS HEALTHCARE.

BS….calculation……Healthcare will cost 1 trillion over 10 years. Estimated savings from Medicare…..500 billion. From the CBO…estimated budget deficit for the next 10 years…7.9 trillion.

Someone please explain to me how this is going to work?

See this is the GOP’s problem and mine….The democrats are lying to us. Being budget neutral and a mandatory program this MUST pay for itself or we will have triggers in place to make sure it does.

Nice and cute way to fool the people and to get triggers in place.

What are those triggers? TAXES. let me repeat….TAXES.

And in the meantime we are still…still….still 20 trillion dollars in DEBT 10 years from now even by raising taxes.

Thats whats wrong with this whole thing.

Its nothing but democratic gimmicks to get the American people duped into buying into free health care.

However NOTHING is free……..read the bill…..it says up to 4x the rate of poverty and the government will PAY for or assist in paying for health care….Nothing is free.

Thats what the GOP is opposed to. Government option OR NOT….this is not free healthcare…its going to cost us a fortune.

Thats what the GOP is upset with and myself as well.

Baucus’s bill doesn’t have a public option. There is ZERO government run health care in this. Instead there are privately run, not-for-profit co-ops that have sunset clauses. Not only that, the CBO is saying it’ll contain costs and reduce the budget deficit. So I ask you…what exactly what do Republicans want? Because at this point I genuinely don’t know.

Also, have you read the liberal blogosphere’s reaction to the bill? They’re calling Baucus a shill, in the pocket of health care interests, etc. Well, then I guess I’m a shill too since I’ve pronounced the public option dead, questioned if it was ever viable, told Dems that they need to drop the public option and even consider other alternatives.

Oh, and yes, I’ve called Dems out on their demagougery too.

In other words, the idea that my posts are emblematic of the problem instead of trying to find solutions just doesn’t square with the record of what I’ve been writing all summer. And although I take you at your word that you’re writing this post in good faith, you’re still lumping me in with bloggers who DO NOT share the tone or tenor of my opinions. Is this not the same “guilt by association” you’re claiming I’m doing to Republicans? Seems to be a pretty clear double standard there and you can’t have it both ways. Moreover, to claim I somehow own responsibility for calling out the extremists on the left is your invention, not mine. I’ve never claimed this as my mission nor will I ever. Long story short, I’m tired of you trying to hang that around my neck…so please…STOP doing it.

But yes, I have serious doubts that Republican lawmakers are operating in good faith on this, and I outlined the reasons above and in my post. Baucus did not follow a partisan script. Sorry, he just didn’t. Again, the left loathes Baucus’ bill…so I urge you to take another look at it and ask yourself why Republican lawmakers don’t think this represents a very real, bipartisan compromise.