The New York Times has a handy graphic detailing key provisions of the Senate bill passed by the House last night, in addition to proposed changes in the reconciliation measure. Similarly, The Daily Beast has a breakdown of what is and isn't in the health care bill. Very helpful, straightforward stuff.
As far as the reaction from less-than-thrilled Republicans . . . I read on Rachel Maddow's blog earlier this afternoon that congressional wannabe Gunner DeLay (cousin to The Hammer) is calling the GOP effort to repeal the health care bill "a new civil rights movement." One commenter responds:
"Civil Rights? Civil Disobedience? What are they going to do? Sit-in at their insurance company and demand to be denied coverage for a pre-existing condition? March and sing "We shall overcome the extended coverage for our children?"Well played, JoJerome. Well played.
It seems that the notion of the GOP triumphantly reclaiming power this year and immediately repealing the health care bill is becoming an increasingly prevalent idea among both crazy (I'm looking at you, Michele Bachmann) and mainstream Republicans (e.g. Mitt Romney, John McCain). Yes, historically, the incumbent party does not usually fare well in the midterms, and yes, Tea Party-esque hysterics get a lot of play (and thus more visibility) in the media. But among the many reasons that such a repeal would be unlikely, there's the fact that the math just doesn't add up. Republicans would require 67 votes in the Senate to override a presidential veto, and even if they won every seat held by a Democrat in the upcoming midterm elections, they would still be 8 senators short of the number needed for a two-thirds majority. And now that health care has turned into a story of policy, would it be smart politics for the Republicans to run against the tangible benefits that many Americans will see from this bill?
2 comments:
Amen to you both. Yeah, I've heard this "new civil rights" thing thrown around a little too much in recent years. For example, defending marriage (but only for straight couples) is the new civil rights movement; or perhaps defending marriage for same-sex couples is the new civil rights argument. Oh, and giving corporations the same rights in campaign contributions as individuals is also the new civil rights debate. Or the other side.
I just love to watch conservatives try to out-black Obama with their civil rights talk. Not that they would ever say that out loud...
I keep trying to find descriptions of what will actually change with this new legislation and I just never find anything that makes me want to grab a pitch fork and tricornered hat. I'm confused why some of this stuff (like employers required to provide health insurance, or expanding coverage by 30 million) makes people so angry, since that is what we all want for ourselves.
The only thing that I wonder about is the financing, and it seems like that might be a mixed bag either way. So what's with the mobs? Do they even know what they're mad about?
Post a Comment