GOP introduces bill to repeal HCR law

The vast majority of the bill's provisions haven't even taken effect yet, but the GOP is already jumping on the repeal bandwagon:

House Republican leaders introduced a bill Thursday to repeal and replace the sweeping healthcare law adopted in late March.

According to Rep. Roy Blunt (R-Mo.), the measure would repeal the current law and replace it with the alternative the minority party offered to the original healthcare legislation last November.

You know, why didn't they just replace it with the bill that they put forward in 1993?

Of course, in 1993 the bill was the conservative alternative to the bill created by Hillary's task force. Today it is a socialist scheme to pay for health care for illegals and kill grandma.

Two thirds of Americans want Congress to continue working on HCR bill

Even better, they place more blame on Republicans for the stalemate:

Nearly two-thirds of Americans want Congress to keep trying to pass a health care reform bill, according to a new national poll.

The ABC News/Washington Post survey released Tuesday afternoon also indicates that the public spreads the blame when it comes to a lack of bipartisanship in the nation's capital.

Fifty-eight percent of people questioned in the poll say that congressional Republicans aren't doing enough to seek compromise with President Barack Obama on important issues, with 44 percent feeling that Obama is doing too little to forge compromise with the GOP.

The survey indicates that 56 percent of independent voters say congressional Republicans aren't doing enough to try and work with the president and Democrats in Congress. Half of independents see the president as too unwilling to compromise and 28 percent feel both parties are not doing enough when it comes to bipartisanship.

According to the poll, 63 percent of Americans think federal lawmakers should keep trying to pass a comprehensive health care reform plan, including 88 percent of Democrats questioned, 56 percent of independents and 42 percent of Republicans. Fifty-five percent of Republicans feel Congress should give up on health care reform.

Wow! So will the GOP keep chanting, "Kill the bill!"? It looks like the White House push to paint the GOP as obstructionists is actually working!

Seriously? Conservative bloggers oppose HCR summit in order to protest WH stagecraft.

President Obama has invited the Republicans over to the White House for a health care summit. This comes after a.) the president has rightfully been criticized for not keeping his promise regarding televising the health care proceedings, and b.) his laying down of the law on House Republicans at their retreat a few weeks ago.

Well, of course, Republicans will attend because they don't want to appear obstructionist. However, methinks that some conservative bloggers smell a trap. Of course, they will never admit it.

See Michelle Malkin's post today (no, not the one where she somehow encourages her readers to honor the memory of Rep. Murtha while at the same time taking pot-shots at him over his comments regarding the Haditha incident). I'm talking about the one where she gets hyped up over Obama's use of stagecraft (or "Kabuki theatre," as she calls it) and then uses that as an excuse for the Republicans not to attend the health care summit:

Republicans should feel zero obligation to participate in yet another White House health care dog-and-pony show:

Just say no.

If Obama really wants to learn about GOP health care reform plans, he can look them up online, where they have been for months.

...Obama has enough human stage props to feed his ego and advance his agenda.

Republicans should not be a party to it.

You see, Mrs. Malkin believes that Republicans should boycott the summit out of principle, because Republicans should never support the use of stagecraft. Oh wait...

NYT: Keepers of Bush Image Lift Stagecraft to New Heights [May 16, 2003]

Officials of past Democratic and Republican administrations marvel at how the White House does not seem to miss an opportunity to showcase Mr. Bush in dramatic and perfectly lighted settings. It is all by design: the White House has stocked its communications operation with people from network television who have expertise in lighting, camera angles and the importance of backdrops.

On Tuesday, at a speech promoting his economic plan in Indianapolis, White House aides went so far as to ask people in the crowd behind Mr. Bush to take off their ties, WISH-TV in Indianapolis reported, so they would look more like the ordinary folk the president said would benefit from his tax cut.

"They understand the visual as well as anybody ever has," said Michael K. Deaver, Ronald Reagan's chief image maker. "They watched what we did, they watched the mistakes of Bush I, they watched how Clinton kind of stumbled into it, and they've taken it to an art form."

But Michelle Malkin is right, dammit. I mean, come on. Obama's so over the top that he might as well appear on top of an aircraft carrier in a flight suit with an ironic, patriotic banner hanging in the background.... oh... wait... that's right. That's already been done. But I just can't seem to remember which party that president belonged to.

Anyway... Obama is just so egotistical, that he might as well just give a speech at Mount Rushmore and strategically sequester photographers in an area where they are practically forced to get a shot of his profile aligning with the stone visages of his predecessors. Oh wait...

Malkin has been screaming about "Kabuki theatre" for months, and criticized Obama town hall events as staged and filled with plants. Of course she never criticized Bush for his "carefully choreographed" rallies:

The Bush campaign carefully limited admission to such events, including "town hall" meetings where Bush answered questions from the audience. Tickets were required for all events, and they were limited to the party faithful. Priority was given to those who had actually worked for the campaign (whether it be volunteering at a phone bank or just putting up a Bush sign in their lawn), and at some rallies those admitted had to sign an affidavit that they supported the president in order to get in." [Pika and Maltese, pg 410, The Politics of the Presidency, 6th ed]

Maybe Mrs. Malkin should own up to the fact that she doesn't want the GOP to get laughed at again. We know that the president can hold his own in front of over a hundred Republicans on their own turf. Just imagine how ridiculous they could be made to look when they are guests at the White House.

They can complain about stagecraft all they want, but at the end of the day this comes down to the issue of ideas. The Republicans have a complete paucity of them. In fact, they only have one: do nothing. Oh sure, they talk about tort reform and tax credits, and buying insurance across state lines. However, we know that if they were in power they would enact none of those proposals because in reality, they prefer status quo. In a majority of instances, that is all that conservatism is. Defense of the status quo.

I wouldn't wait around for conservatives to acknowledge this.

You really want to go there? Really?

WOW is all I can say about this report:

ABC News - Incentives within the U.S. Senate health care bill designed to encourage healthy lifestyles unfairly target the poor, elderly, overweight and disabled, and could be exploited by insurance companies for financial gain, advocacy groups claim.

Dozens of health, justice, and disability organizations have signed a letter urging senators to remove a provision in the health care reform bill that would allow insurers to provide reimbursements or incentives to workers who meet certain fitness goals laid out in workplace wellness programs.

In rewarding healthy people for making good choices, those who don't meet fitness goals would be unfairly penalized, the groups said.

Excuse me?! What do you mean, "unfairly penalized"?! If you don't meet fitness goals, then tough luck, buddy. We need to have these incentives in order for employers to encourage their workers to be healthier.

Another thing, you're not being "penalized" if you don't meet the goals. You just don't get whatever benefits the employer is handing out if you don't participate.

I don't think that the people who wrote this report even understand the idea behind these wellness programs. They are largely designed to make employees more aware of the unhealthy choices that they are making in life and give them suggestions on how to change. It's not like they get a football coach to force employees to run laps. These aren't basketball tryouts.

Lastly, these incentives WORK. Besides making the workforce healthier, they help to slow the rising cost of premiums. I don't know if the folks at ABC News know this, but when people are healthier, they tend to go to the doctor less. Which means that insurance companies have to pay for less medicine.

Get it?

Jim Cooper's (stock) email to me regarding his "yes" vote on HCR bill

Thought others would be interested. Doesn't say anything new, though.

Dear Mr. XXXXXX:

Thank you for contacting me in regards to H.R. 3962, the Affordable Healthcare for America Act. I am grateful to the thousands of Nashville-area residents like you who have shared their opinion on health care reform with me. Everyone feels strongly because health care is so important to our lives.

Having read the bill and taught health policy at Vanderbilt for twelve years, I made the decision to vote yes on H.R. 3962. On November 7th, 2009, the House passed the legislation 220-215.

I voted yes to advance the cause of health care reform by forcing the Senate to act. Without passage of this House bill, the Senate could delay reform indefinitely. That would be the worst possible outcome because our current health-care system is not sustainable. Congress needs to pass good health legislation for the good of the country.

My vote is not an endorsement of all the provisions of the bill because I find much of the bill to be deeply flawed. Passing legislation is a little like writing a term paper in school. The first draft is usually not very good. The second draft is better - H.R. 3962 is the second draft. The bill that the Senate will vote on will be the third draft, which I expect to show major improvement. The final draft will be written afterward, if we get to that point, when the House and the Senate will vote on the same bill.

I will continue to work hard to make sure that the final legislation helps all of our families get quality, affordable health care.

Sincerely,

Jim Cooper
Member of Congress

See how your representative voted on last night's health care bill (HR 3962)

The New York Times has a great interactive map here.

Here's how Tennessee's congressional delegation voted (click for larger image, based on NYT map):
TN-1: Phil Roe (R) - NO
TN-2: John Duncan Jr. (R) - NO
TN-3: Zach Wamp (R) - NO
TN-4: Lincoln Davis (D) - NO
TN-5: Jim Cooper (D) - YES
TN-6: Bart Gordan (D) - NO
TN-7: Marsha Blackburn (R) - NO
TN-8: John Tanner (D) - NO
TN-9: Steve Cohen (D) - YES

"Get a Job"

One of the reasons why conservative ideology has stood the test of time is because of its deceptive simplicity. Think about it. I can sum it up in less than a few sentences: Government = bad. Free markets = good. Everyone can succeed if they just work hard enough. If you aren't successful, then you're just lazy and worthless. Stop stealing my money to enable the moochers.

So of course when dealing with a complex issue such as health insurance reform, conservatives view the issue through the same rigid framework. Don't have insurance? Tough shit.

Recently Southern Beale blogged about a pro-HCR rally she attended a few weeks ago outside of Senator Lamar Alexander's office:

Reaction at this busy intersection was mostly positive. There were quite a few horn honks and thumbs up, a couple of thumbs down, but not as many as I had expected. One person, predictably, shouted "get a job!" There's always one asshole who has to remind us of the country's unemployment rate. I'm not being sarcastic here, either: I have yet to attend a rally or visibility event where there wasn't one person shouting "get a job!" Probably the same guy, too.

You see that? Conservatives have a simple solution for the health care crisis! Apparently if we want health insurance, all we have to do is get a job! If only I had known this sooner! I forgot all about how easy jobs are to find! I can't believe I didn't realize that employers are willing to offer all their employees great health insurance benefits! Wow! Jolly gee wiz, Rush!

Of course, when I said that the conservative ideology was "deceptively simple", I was damn serious. I would even go as far as calling it nefariously simple. To illustrate my point, let me tell you a story about a guy I knew named Rory.

I spent my later teenage years as a cook at Pizza Hut. Rory was about ten years older than me, and he worked the same position. The job paid close to minimum wage - around $6.00 per hour. He was a nice enough guy. He had a short fuse, but was able to keep himself in check most of the time. During the several months that we worked there together, we became comfortable enough with each other to be considered "workplace friends".

One day Rory came to work with a broken finger. It was wrapped up in bandages, making it look twice as large as his other fingers. I asked him if he went to the hospital to get it fixed up. His response? "Hell no".

You see, Rory didn't have health insurance. A visit to the emergency room would have cost him at least $300. That would have eaten up 75% of his bi-weekly paycheck. Because he couldn't afford care, he was forced to treat himself. He took his finger, which had been snapped backwards to his wrist, and had to set it himself by (very, very painfully) snapping it back into its proper position. He described the process in excruciating detail. I stared at him in disbelief as he recounted his story.

Even though he didn't have insurance, Rory wasn't worthless or lazy. He had a job and worked full time. However, the mere fact that he was employed doesn't mean that he had meaningful access to health insurance.

It wasn't that Pizza Hut was mean, it's just that the company made it especially burdensome for it's non-managerial employees to get access to the health insurance benefits. Among the requirements? First, you had to work full time - forty hours a week. Second, you had to have been working there for at least a year. That's an entire YEAR you're supposed to go without access to employer-provided (and therefore, cheaper) health insurance. Thirdly, the "cheaper" employer-based coverage that Pizza Hut provided cost around $200 a month. Imagine working at job at $6.00 an hour, pulling in about $800 a month. Now imagine $200 automatically being deducted from your check, leaving you with around $600 a month. How the hell are you supposed to be able to afford that? $600 a month isn't even enough to cover the bare necessities.

Put yourself in Rory's shoes. You can take part in a health insurance plan that eats up a quarter of your monthly pay OR you can pay the rent and buy yourself food. You can't do both. Make a choice. Rory did.

It's so easy to throw around pithy sayings like "get a job". In the black and white world of conservatives, "get a job" makes total sense. Their false dichotomy of "wealth producers" vs. "wealth moochers" allows them to blithely ignore the real stake that millions of Americans have in meaningful health care reform. Those down on their luck become society's "losers". Single mothers on welfare become "parasites". We can safely put on our blinders, comfortable in the assurance that our sense of empathy and our ability to relate won't be awakened.

I'm sorry, but things just aren't that simple.