Gay Patriot Header Image

Obamacare Passage: Democratic “Suicide Pact”

Posted by B. Daniel Blatt at 3:55 am - December 21, 2009.
Filed under: Post 9-11 America

Articulating a point made by the Administration, various Washington Democrats and perhaps a pundit or two, one of our readers insisted that support for Obamacare “will only increase once it passes and the apolitical undecideds reward Obama for getting something done“.  Hardly.  Given the trend in polling showing that the more Obama promoted the Democratic overhaul, the more support declined, we know that the more Americans know about these reforms, the less likely they are to support them.

Opposition to Obamacare increased even as some media outlets were all but shills for the various Democratic plans.  A friendly media may have helped sway a Senator or two (or three or four), but it didn’t prevent the American people from turning on the plan.  Had the coverage been more even-handed, the numbers (from the Democrats’ standpoint) would be even worse than they are today.

Should this bill become law (and there’s still hope that it won’t), the Democrats will have a hard time hiding its details, you know, those “specifics” Sen. Bill Nelson of Florida faults Republicans for addressing.  The more people learn about those specifics, the less likely they are to support the bill.

And when Americans learn how the Democrats rammed this through, they’ll wonder why Senate Democratic Leader Harry Reid scheduled midnight sessions at a time of year when most people are paying little attention to politics, rushing through passage to meet some Christmas deadline set in Democratic back rooms.  Wonder why the Senate voted in the dead of night for cloture on an amendment which “had been public for about 36 hours” before people “had a single business day to examine it.” They’ll wonder about all those weekend votes (not just this time around) and will certainly ask about pay -offs to wavering Senators with federal funds at a time of increasing deficits.

In short, when the American people see how this was passed, they’ll see Democrats for what they are.  And the percentage having a negative opinion of the majority party will continue to increase.

No wonder some are calling the “Democratic health agenda . . . a political suicide pact.

Share

53 Comments

  1. Unbelievable. The Democrats are collectively like a village idiot who jumps off a cliff and congratulates himself on how “cleverly” he jumped….even as he hurtles to his doom.

    Comment by MarkJ — December 21, 2009 @ 7:57 am - December 21, 2009

  2. “The more people learn about those specifics, the less likely they are to support the bill.”

    Given that these issues have been argued about endlessly for the last six months, using up almost all the oxygen in political discourse circles, what makes you think that once the bill is actually passed, and the nation’s attention moves to other issues, that the apolitical undecideds are suddenly going to start to listen more to the anti-bill propagandists?

    If you haven’t reached them yet, what makes you think you will in the future? These people are, by definition, not policy junkies, and /or they have decided the specific details are not all that important to them.

    After the bill passes, the issue of health care will recede from the front pages – we will be arguing about jobs, the economy, global warming, or immigration. The politically apathetic will, if asked about health care, remember that Obama got something passed, and no, the world did not come to an end.

    In fact, if we guess that most of the apolitical ones are within the category of people who have insurance through work (the large majority of the general population) – they will see that Obamacare has done nothing whatsoever to their health insurance – and thus they will continue not to be too concerned about it (and will also see that one of the major GOP talking points – that their insurance will be negatively impacted) is just not true.

    Comment by Tano — December 21, 2009 @ 8:18 am - December 21, 2009

  3. I think the Democrats are afraid to oppose the first black President — their black President. I know that is childish thinking, but aren’t these people childish?

    Comment by Anonny-nonny — December 21, 2009 @ 8:54 am - December 21, 2009

  4. Quote of the day: “Socialism is workable only in heaven where it isn’t needed, and in hell where they’ve got it”. – Cecil Palmer

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2009 @ 9:45 am - December 21, 2009

  5. Another good one: “The State is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else.” – Frederic Bastiat

    Hat tip: http://www.kitco.com/ind/Turk/turk_dec212009.html

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2009 @ 9:48 am - December 21, 2009

  6. It is not a suicide pact if you think about it logically. They are doing what they have done for 70 years now – creating special interest groups, who they think will then vote for Democrats. That is the point of this, it will be the point of immigration reform, and anything else that they consider passing.

    It’s all about creating entitlements. And, Democrats very well know that Republicans will never even seek to repeal a government program because they have no backbone.

    And, in terms of 2010, Democrats realize a bloodbath is coming anyway, so they are just using the stupidity of Blanche Lincoln, etc.. against them to try to get a long-term majority.

    Comment by Chris — December 21, 2009 @ 10:17 am - December 21, 2009

  7. I think Chris is right. Unfortunately, America is being ruined in the process. Financially, morally, you name it. The Democrats are ‘progressively’ (haha) turning America into banana republic, and the only way out is a miracle: the Republicans growing some backbone.

    Comment by ILoveCapitalism — December 21, 2009 @ 10:34 am - December 21, 2009

  8. Tano proffers the liberal elitist view for how statism triumphs. The sheeple have a limited attention span and bread and circuses distract them every time. That, in short, is why the Roman Empire remains strong and rules to this day.

    Tano says the sheeple are anxious to get back to discussing jobs, global warming, the economy or immigration. You see, the sheeple have one track minds and can only focus their pea sized brains on one thing for a short period of time.

    Tano says the apolitical will quickly learn that if you call rape sex education that they will line up for it.

    Tano says there is nothing that the people will get off their couches for as long as they can watch car chases and Hollywood gossip on TV.

    Tano says that by November 2010 the sheeple will herd themselves to the polls where they will vote for much more of the same.

    Tano says there is a one time chance to get in on owning a part or all of the action on a toll bridge that runs from City Hall to Brooklyn.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 21, 2009 @ 10:44 am - December 21, 2009

  9. In fact, if we guess that most of the apolitical ones are within the category of people who have insurance through work (the large majority of the general population) – they will see that Obamacare has done nothing whatsoever to their health insurance – and thus they will continue not to be too concerned about it (and will also see that one of the major GOP talking points – that their insurance will be negatively impacted) is just not true.

    Yes, because imposing a massive tax on health insurance companies is not going to do a single thing to the price of health insurance.

    The infantile stupidity of Barack Obama and his puppets like Tano never ceases to amaze. Their own economic advisor has performed research that shows tax increases massively depress GDP, and they still insist, like the foolish children they are, that imposing massive new across-the-board taxes will not hurt the US economy in any way.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2009 @ 10:53 am - December 21, 2009

  10. don’t the republicans in congress realize their own senate and house seats are as much in the crosshairs as the democrats’?

    who among those up for reelection in 2010 doesn’t have an same-party opponent?

    Comment by ShyAsrai — December 21, 2009 @ 10:55 am - December 21, 2009

  11. Democrats are thinking long term, while Republicans are thinking next elections. Once they push this Gov takeover of HC momentum is on their side. How many Gov entitlements have ever been reverse since FDR? Here’s a hint…NONE

    Comment by Dee — December 21, 2009 @ 10:59 am - December 21, 2009

  12. Given that these issues have been argued about endlessly for the last six months, using up almost all the oxygen in political discourse circles, what makes you think that once the bill is actually passed, and the nation’s attention moves to other issues, that the apolitical undecideds are suddenly going to start to listen more to the anti-bill propagandists?

    When they see the tissue of lies spun by pro-bill propagandists torn to shreds. It won’t even be that difficult because spin all you like there is no way in hell this will not increase the already massive national debt, nor will this do anything to improve health care especially for middle class folks. In fact, the opposite will happen and all of this together is what will make the Dems pay at the hands of a very pissed off electorate. Besides, do you really think it’s over, assuming this monstrosity even survives reconciliation to be signed into law? No. If the GOP gains control of one or both Houses of Congress in 2010, the real fun begins with the yearly appropriations. A straight-forward attack on Obamacare isn’t even necessary. Wait for the death of a thousand cuts…

    Comment by John — December 21, 2009 @ 11:05 am - December 21, 2009

  13. what makes you think that once the bill is actually passed, and the nation’s attention moves to other issues, that the apolitical undecideds are suddenly going to start to listen more to the anti-bill propagandists? …they will see that Obamacare has done nothing whatsoever to their health insurance

    So they’ll just bite on a pillow when the taxes and abortion fees hit? You have that same elitist contempt for the American people that your arrogant SOBIC has.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 11:11 am - December 21, 2009

  14. Unbelievable. The Democrats are collectively like a village idiot who jumps off a cliff and congratulates himself on how “cleverly” he jumped….even as he hurtles to his doom.

    For example:

    They are desperate to break this president. They have ardent supporters who are nearly hysterical at the very election of President Barack Obama. The birthers, the fanatics, the people running around in right-wing militia and Aryan support groups, it is unbearable to them that President Barack Obama should exist. That is one powerful reason. It is not the only one.”

    Sen. Whitehouse (d, RI)

    But he denies saying “Aryan”.

    WTF is the point of Rhode Island again?

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 11:14 am - December 21, 2009

  15. [...] I just can’t accept that. This is not a victory for Democrats, not really. As RedState and GayPatriot are pointing out, this is political suicide. They’ve given us the ammunition to fight them, [...]

    Pingback by Defeat is Only for the Defeated « From the Rust Belt — December 21, 2009 @ 11:15 am - December 21, 2009

  16. Robert Byrd was unavailable to comment on whitehouse’s remarks.

    Let’s not forget that the Pharma companies just got their knife in the back from the administration, and that the governemtn has allowed policies to limit the amount of coverage for stuff like Chemo.

    Not counting the stuff that Medicare doesn’t cover already, this bill is going to do for health care what Amtrak has done for rail.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 21, 2009 @ 11:20 am - December 21, 2009

  17. Chris & Dee, given that opposition to Obamacare is so strong, this may be the bill that breaks the back of the American people and will give the Republicans some backbone. And perhaps, when they find the courage to repeal this monstrosity, they’ll realize it’s possible to repeal other such federal behemoths.

    Let’s hope the Tea Party folk give them moral and grassroots support and we bloggers help challenge media misrepresentations.

    With limited means to get the small-government message out in the past, those seeking to repeal federal programs in the past were beholden to the mainstream media who distorted our message. That is no longer the case.

    Bear in mind how quickly popular support for reform crumbled despite media cheerleading. Let us hope that Republicans of the 112th recognize the new media reality.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 21, 2009 @ 12:04 pm - December 21, 2009

  18. Tano finally admits it….the liberals rely on the public being and remaining in the dark. Then the liberals and socialists triumph.
    Nice to hear some honesty.
    ROUT THE LIBERALS IN 2010

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 21, 2009 @ 12:26 pm - December 21, 2009

  19. Guess I’ll have to go back to being an EMT and join the PCEMS union so I can be immune from this.

    I just worry how long Tano’s masters will allow my folks to live.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 12:38 pm - December 21, 2009

  20. And what’s really funny is that Talking Points Tano is repeating, almost word-for-word, the babblings of his masters in the Obama Party.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2009 @ 12:41 pm - December 21, 2009

  21. Independent pollster rasmussen has Obama at his lowest even after they announced the passing of obamacare. A stunning 43% STRONGLY disapprove of Obama. Not disapprove, but STRONGLY disapprove. Only 26% strongly approve.

    Comment by Gene in Pennsylvania — December 21, 2009 @ 12:46 pm - December 21, 2009

  22. Given that there are several years of tax increases before any of the alleged benefits begin, it might not be so hard for Republicans to roll this back before the sheeple become addicted.

    Comment by Polly — December 21, 2009 @ 2:16 pm - December 21, 2009

  23. Daniel:

    You are correct that there will be backlash which will lead to Republicans gaining majorities by 2012. However, history has shown us that Republicans are always afraid to repeal government entitlements. They reform them, but never repeal them.

    And, let’s remember repealing this will be next to impossible. Once 30 million people get used to getting something for nothing, no Republican will want to endure campign’s that say they are anti-entitlement programs. Also, to repeal this bill (assuming the Supreme Court does not declare it unconstituional), the Republicans are going to need 60 votes. That either means getting 60 votes in the Senate, or convincing “moderate” Democrats to vote to repeal this. And if Democrats have taught us anything this year, they have taught us that they might talk tough, but at the end of the day they are all about spending and creating new entitlement programs. So, that means Republicans need 60 seats in the Senate, and Obama to lose in 2012, so they can repeal this before 30 million people get their “entitlements.”

    So, while I hope you are right that the Tea Party movement will lead to significant change, I am not optimistic. For, it’s much easier to pass bad legislation than it is to repeal it – especially when it is designed to favor Democratic constituents.

    Comment by Chris — December 21, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - December 21, 2009

  24. Olbermann going to the Big House?

    There was a Bill Cosby comedy album many moons ago.

    He spoke of cocaine abusers who claimed the drug “accentuates your personality.”

    Bill Cosby’s reply, “Yeah, but what if you’re an asshole?!”

    That’s exactly how I feel about Keith Olbermann.

    http://blessedistruth.wordpress.com/2009/12/16/love-is-gonna-win/#comment-878

    Comment by sisterrosetta — December 21, 2009 @ 2:24 pm - December 21, 2009

  25. If this becomes law, it could be years before we find out what’s in it.

    Once the 100,000 pages of rules appear in the CFR; once the courts have worked it over to cure it of inequities; once it’s met the law of unintended consequences – only then will we know what was bought.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 21, 2009 @ 3:10 pm - December 21, 2009

  26. I wanted to make a couple of other points this morning…

    “when Americans learn how the Democrats rammed this through…”

    blah, blah, blah. Sorry Dan, but no one in America gives a hoot about these process issues. First off, of course, you can hardly claim it is rammed through when it has been debated endlessly for over six months. Who isn’t sick of dealing with this issue already….
    And if you remember back when the GOP controlled Congresss, and truly abused their power in outrageous ways, that Nancy and Harry don’t even dream of…like holding 15 minute votes open for hours while they twisted arms and brokered deals to get a majority – and you know what? Despite our best efforts to call attention to that, no one cared.

    :”No wonder some are calling the “Democratic health agenda . . . a political suicide pact.“”

    Some? You mean Kim Strassel of the WSJ? A totally hardright anti health-care reform advocate? Big deal she calls it a suicide pact. Its not like she is some kind of independent analyst She is a shrill partisan spinning out a fantasy.

    Comment by Tano — December 21, 2009 @ 4:10 pm - December 21, 2009

  27. Well, well, well – New CNN poll has Obama gaining 6 points in the last few weeks and now with a job approval at 54%. i.e. back over the percentage of votes he got last November. LINK

    And an AP-Roper poll from a couple of days ago had him up at 56% LINK

    I wonder what you guys are gonna do if this is the start of a rebound already – it would be pretty amazing given that he barely dipped below 50% (compared to Reagan for example, who went down to the mid thirties before he rebounded).

    Comment by Tano — December 21, 2009 @ 4:19 pm - December 21, 2009

  28. Yes, Tano, but Rasmussen has him down–and they accurately predicated the results of the last two presidential elections as well as the more recent gubernatorial contest in the Garden State.

    And CNN’s polls have a record of unreliability.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 21, 2009 @ 4:30 pm - December 21, 2009

  29. oh, and your comment #26 has as much basis in reality as your commitment to civil discourse. As to the process issues that supposedly matter. Well, you do fault the GOP Congress for their abuses of power, and, well, guess what, they’re not longer in power!

    And look, you plead for civil discourse while calling a level-heading conservative pundit a “shrill partisan” who is “hardright.”

    ’nuff said?

    Tano, you just need start post a comment to help educate us about the narrow-mindedness of liberal trolls obsessed with our blog.

    Thanks.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 21, 2009 @ 4:33 pm - December 21, 2009

  30. When I read “Atlas Shrugged”, I told myself that no US government could be so stupid as to systematically dismantle the entire economy. Now, I am starting to think that Ayn Rand was a prophetess.

    Comment by Siergen — December 21, 2009 @ 4:55 pm - December 21, 2009

  31. And if you remember back when the GOP controlled Congresss, and truly abused their power in outrageous ways, that Nancy and Harry don’t even dream of…like holding 15 minute votes open for hours while they twisted arms and brokered deals to get a majority – and you know what?

    Actually, they not only dreamed of it, they actually did it.

    Republicans, backed by 18 Democrats, thought they had won a parliamentary vote prior to consideration of the new ethics office, a victory that would have derailed the proposal. But Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the Democratic leadership held the vote open for 16 minutes beyond the alloted 15-minute deadline and, in that period, convinced several Democrats to switch their votes. The final vote on the parliamentary procedure was 207-206. The Democrats who changed their votes were Reps. Sanford Bishop (Ga.), G.K Butterfield (N.C.), Emanuel Cleaver (Mo.) and Bart Stupak (Mich.), according to Democratic and GOP members and aides.

    The final vote, which changed House rules in order to implement the OCE, was 229-182. Almost 30 Republicans, fearing that they would be caught on the wrong side of the issue come Election Day, threw their support behind the Democratic plan at the last moment, giving Democratic leaders a solid margin of victory on final passage.

    But Republicans, and some Democrats, charged that Pelosi and the Democratic leadership “stole” the vote on the parliamentary procedure, technically known as “ordering the previous question.” In response to GOP manipulation of votes during their years of control, Pelosi promised at the beginning of the 110th Congress that floor votes would last only15 minutes, and that “no vote shall be held open to manipulate the outcome.”

    Pelosi, however, appeared to go back on that promise during the “previous question” vote, which was open for for a total of 31 minutes before it was gaveled closed. Republicans stood on the floor during the dramatic 16-minute period following the official end of the vote, clapping and cheering, occassionally breaking into chants of “Rules of the House!”

    Pelosi and Majority Whip Jim Clyburn (D-S.C.) were busy frantically lobbying the rebellious Democrats to switch their votes. Bishop, Butterfield and Cleaver, all of whom are members of the Congressional Black Caucus, got special attention from Clyburn. Clyburn’s message, according to Democratic insiders, was “I need you on this one,” and it evidently had its desired effect. Pelosi herself was able to turn Stupak, said the sources.

    But this is typical; Tano outright lies and spins to cover up the behavior of his Obama Party, and supports and endorses his Obama Party doing exactly what he condemned Republicans for doing.

    No principles. No morals. Just pure, unadulterated hypocrisy and lies. That is what Talking Points Tano, the paid government propagandist who is receiving money from the Department of Health and Human Services to propagandize on this website, does.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2009 @ 4:58 pm - December 21, 2009

  32. Also, Tano, when you run and hide and refuse to answer this, as you will, your piece-of-shit antics need to be called out as such.

    Do you condemn your Pelosi for this behavior? Do you state that it’s an ethical breach? You have demanded that other Speakers who breach ethics be stripped of their position and cashiered out of the House; do you do the same for your Pelosi?

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 21, 2009 @ 5:00 pm - December 21, 2009

  33. “If there is no struggle there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom and yet depreciate agitation, are people who want crops without ploughing the ground; they want rain without thunder and lightning; they want the ocean without the roar of its many waters. The struggle may be a moral one, or it may be a physical one, or it may be both. But it must be a struggle. Find out just what the people will submit to and you have found out the exact amount of injustice and wrong which will be imposed upon them; and these will continue until they are resisted with either words or blows, or with both. The limits of tyrants are prescribed by the endurance of those whom they oppress.” — Frederick Douglass, 1857


    Douglass’ words also ring true in the 21st Century, however just as in his time, they fall on deaf ears today. The sufferance of the routinely less than courageous Republicans is now slighter than it was, and Democrats who continue to arrogantly vilify any and all public opinion contrary to theirs, do so at their own peril.

    Comment by Spartann — December 21, 2009 @ 5:05 pm - December 21, 2009

  34. First off, of course, you can hardly claim it is rammed through when it has been debated endlessly for over six months.

    You mean “debated endlessly” between liberals while Republicans were kept out of meetings with Granny Clampett? Is that how a Representative Republic works?

    If they’re not ramming it through, why are they still in session during Christmas break? Why not pass it next year? The alleged “benefits” won’t start for another four years, so we know the liberals don’t actually give a f*ck about the alleged 2 people who die “every ten minutes”.

    And then we get the typical liberal excuse:

    And if you remember back when the GOP controlled Congresss, and truly abused their power in outrageous ways,

    What was all that bullshit about “change”? So we shouldn’t expect better from liberals. You said it right here. Noted.

    If it’s such wonderful legislation that will give the Dumbass in Chief a bounce, why not put it on the internet for 5 days and really let the people see it? Why didn’t the liberals have all of these discussion meetings on C-SPAN like the man child promised multiple times? That should have REALLY caused his numbers to rebound before now, no?

    I eagerly await your answers.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 5:15 pm - December 21, 2009

  35. A totally hardright anti health-care reform advocate? Big deal she calls it a suicide pact. Its not like she is some kind of independent analyst She is a shrill partisan spinning out a fantasy.

    Predictable. Does that make Strassel an enemy of the state or what? Not much different than this:

    Political intimidation. The experts who have pointed out such complications have been ignored or dismissed as “ideologues” by the White House. Those parts of the health-care industry that couldn’t be bribed outright, like Big Pharma, were coerced into acceding to this agenda. The White House was able to, er, persuade the likes of the AMA and the hospital lobbies because the federal government will control 55% of total U.S. health spending under ObamaCare, according to the Administration’s own Medicare actuaries.

    Others got hush money, namely Nebraska’s Ben Nelson. Even liberal Governors have been howling for months about ObamaCare’s unfunded spending mandates: Other budget priorities like education will be crowded out when about 21% of the U.S. population is on Medicaid, the joint state-federal program intended for the poor. Nebraska Governor Dave Heineman calculates that ObamaCare will result in $2.5 billion in new costs for his state that “will be passed on to citizens through direct or indirect taxes and fees,” as he put it in a letter to his state’s junior Senator.

    So in addition to abortion restrictions, Mr. Nelson won the concession that Congress will pay for 100% of Nebraska Medicaid expansions into perpetuity. His capitulation ought to cost him his political career, but more to the point, what about the other states that don’t have a Senator who’s the 60th vote for ObamaCare?

    It’s just criminal highway robbery.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 5:24 pm - December 21, 2009

  36. To paraphrase MC Chris, the senate’s a bitch and Reid’s her pimp.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 5:26 pm - December 21, 2009

  37. Hey Gay Conservative…

    Don’t flatter Reid so much… He hasn’t the wear with all to pull off a scam of this proportion… The strings were pulled by Rahm Emmanuel and the rest of the Chicago junk yard dogs at 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

    Comment by Spartann — December 21, 2009 @ 5:46 pm - December 21, 2009

  38. A great one-line rejoinder came to me while driving through LA on my way to buy a present for a very good friend (who happen to be a Democrat): Tano, if you think process doesn’t matter, obviously you weren’t paying much attention to the Democratic campaigns of ’06 and ’08.

    Comment by B. Daniel Blatt — December 21, 2009 @ 6:01 pm - December 21, 2009

  39. Here is what I wrote on my blog today concerning this bill and the elections.
    ———————————————————

    “This is not renaming the post office. Make no mistake — this bill will reshape our nation and our lives.”

    That is the reaction from Senate Minority Leader, Republican Mitch McConnell, on the vote to pass the Senates version of Obamacare. The GOP leadership is licking their chops, as this as seen as a real opportunity to win more votes from the independents who voted for Obama and Democrats in 2008. At this point, it’s not news that this group of voters has been slowly dropping off the Obama bandwagon since June, and this votefor even more expanded government, in the eyes of the GOP, is going to accelerate that process. Though I do believe the GOP is cerrtain to win back more than a few seats in the House and Senate lost in the 2006 and 2008 elections, I’m not sure that Obamacare is going to be that much of a dealbreaker for the following reasons:

    A) Obamacare is not a surprise move from Obama – it’s one of the isues he actually campaigned on in 2008. And, compaired to what Obama actually wanted, a public option, he didn’t get that much. The bill is more of a slight restructuring of bit of the healthcare system, and not a major overhaul.

    B) The Congressional Budget Office had blasted the House version of the bill as expensive and a deficit increasing package, criticism which was used to great effect by the GOP, The current analysis of the Senate version states that it is cost neutral, and suggests that it may actually reduce Federal spending on health care in the future:

    Congressional budget analysts reported Saturday that the revised package would not worsen the nation’s fiscal situation, as GOP critics have warned. The analysts said the updated Senate bill would spend $871 billion over the next decade to extend coverage to the uninsured by dramatically expanding Medicaid and by offering federal subsidies to those who lack affordable coverage through employers.

    Those costs would be more than covered by nearly $400 billion in new taxes over the next decade and by nearly $500 billion in spending reductions, primarily cuts to Medicare, the federal health program for people 65 and older. All told, the package would reduce federal budget deficits by $132 billion by 2019, according to the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office.

    Over the long term, the analysts predicted, the package could reduce budget deficits even more sharply, slicing as much as $1.3 trillion from projected deficits between 2019 and 2029. That would represent a significant improvement in long-run savings compared with the bill approved by the House and a measure previously crafted by Reid.

    Now, I’ve said it once, and I’ve said it a thousand times – ten and twenty year projections are just about useless. Way too much stuff can happen in the interim that make these projections useless (remember the Clinton budget surpluses that were going to last as far as the eye could see), and I personally don’t believe that Obamacare will actually save any money. Rather, it will just shift payment of bills from one source to the other. It will probably also increase the cost of health insurance for the general public. Which leads to…

    C) Cost, and time. Here is the main reason I don’t think the GOP will be able to make much hay with the impending changes that are Obamacare. Most of the changes don’t occur until after 2013, long after the upcoming 2010 and even 2012 elections. The general public will not feel the effects one way or another on their daily lives in that period. Realities, such as two wars and the economy, will still have the most sway in the public consciousness.

    Again, I’m pretty certain that the GOP are going to pick up a number of seats in the next election. But I’m not sure that Obamacare is going to matter much.

    ———————————————————-

    I ultimately agree with Tano and Chris…. especially Chris when he wrote: “It’s all about creating entitlements. And, Democrats very well know that Republicans will never even seek to repeal a government program because they have no backbone.” When did I become so darned cynical?

    Comment by sonicfrog — December 21, 2009 @ 7:41 pm - December 21, 2009

  40. #2 Tano blurts out:

    what makes you think (……) that the apolitical undecideds are suddenly going to start to listen more to the anti-bill propagandists?

    “apolitical undecideds” …… Would this be idiots, winos and general debris who are ACORNed to the polls?

    If you haven’t reached them [apolitical undecideds] yet, what makes you think you will in the future?

    Translation: Do you think moral and honest people are really going to be able to out ACORN ACORN?

    The politically apathetic will, if asked about health care, remember that Obama got something passed, and no, the world did not come to an end.

    The “politically apathetic” can be bought for a pack of cigarettes and will vote early and often if stimulated with drugs. They also include the senile who vote in flocks when dedicated political operatives work the nursing homes. They are also found among the dead and the stars of cartoons.

    Tano is such a naif. He really believes that the messiah class are here to milk, bilk and corral the apolitical undecideds.

    Tano is always going to be at the functionary level of the socialist food chain, because he is so openly gullible. He may never rise to the level of lead lemming, but he can always be counted on to attend the tryouts.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 21, 2009 @ 7:50 pm - December 21, 2009

  41. Sonic, it is my understanding that the TAXING part will go into effect right away; therefore, yes the TAX PAYING general public will feel the effects of this thing right away. That was the deficit savings scheme; to collect lots of money before you started paying out.

    Comment by Steven E. Kalbach — December 21, 2009 @ 9:10 pm - December 21, 2009

  42. “And look, you plead for civil discourse while calling a level-heading conservative pundit a “shrill partisan” who is “hardright.”

    ’nuff said?”

    No Dan, not nearly enough said in order to make your point. I am not engaged in discourse with Kim Strassel. So me calling her names is not a violation of civil discourse. Furthermore, calling her a “partisan” is hardly much of an insult. All that means is that she takes sides in the grand political dramas of our time. And you can hardly deny that. Calling her hardright – that is an insult? Aren’t people like you PROUD of being hard right? Why on earth do you consider that an insult. Seems to me that it is merely an accurate description of where she stands on the political spectrum
    “Shrill” might be the only thing in there that in any sense is a bit hard-edged, but jeez louise – if you think that is so objectionable, then why do you use terms like “shills”, or “sanctimonious”, or “narrow-mindedness”. How is “shrill” any worse than those adjectives. Or do you just have special standards for yourself?

    Comment by Tano — December 21, 2009 @ 10:36 pm - December 21, 2009

  43. ““apolitical undecideds” …… Would this be idiots, winos and general debris who are ACORNed to the polls?”

    The term refers to those people who are undecided, even at this late date, on what to think about health-care. The reference to them is a followup to a conversation I was having yesterday, in which we discussed a poll that had 20% undecided. I think that they must consist of lots of fine upstanding Americans who happen not to be terribly engaged in politics, and who most likely have secure insurance that wont be much affected by the reforms.

    “The “politically apathetic” can be bought for a pack of cigarettes and will vote early and often if stimulated with drugs.”

    Wow. I barely know what to say about that. Do you ever get out of your house – go talk to real human beings? Believe it or not, the vast overwhelming majority of people in this country are not political junkies like all of us who spend time talking about these issues. Many many people have very full lives, with work and family and local communities of choice, and only pay attention to politics when extraordinary issues arise. Like losing their health insurance – but if that is not a problem, then they may well not tune into these debates.

    You got a really ugly view of your fellow citizens – where does that come from?

    Comment by Tano — December 21, 2009 @ 10:46 pm - December 21, 2009

  44. “You mean “debated endlessly” between liberals while Republicans were kept out of meeting”

    No, actually the Dems accepted 161 amendments offered by Republicans into the Senate bill.
    And we all do remember the gang of six – and the long sessions of negotiations that took place. It was Chuck Grassley who best characterized the Republican’s sincerity in that effort by asserting that he would probably vote against the committee bill even if the Democrats gave him everything he was asking for in the negotiations.

    “If they’re not ramming it through, why are they still in session during Christmas break?”

    Because, obviously, the Republicans have done everything they can to delay the bill – for no reason whatsoever other than because they can. Its a grand example of stamping their feet and holding their breath – accomplishing nothing other than delay for its own sake.

    They even resorted to trying to mount a filibuster on a defense apporpriation bill – not because they were against the bill, but because it could possibly delay the health bill. Hell, we even saw Sen Coburn urging everyone to pray to God that something befalls a Dem. senator to keep them from making it to the floor for a vote. How disgusting can these people get?

    “What was all that bullshit about “change”? So we shouldn’t expect better from liberals.”

    Actually, if you noticed, and I guess you didn’t, my point was that the Dems were NOT doing things as outrageous as the Republicans did.

    “why not put it on the internet for 5 days and really let the people see it?”

    Here it is. LINK

    You still got three days till its voted on. Will that do?

    Comment by Tano — December 21, 2009 @ 11:02 pm - December 21, 2009

  45. Any day now, Turdo.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 21, 2009 @ 11:30 pm - December 21, 2009

  46. Roland Burris got language in the midnight manager’s amendment to direct tax money to “organizations that are indigenous human resource providers in communities of color”. I wonder who that might be?

    And then there’s more bureaucracy like this: an “Office of Minority Health” which will hand out grants to “develop measures to evaluate the effectiveness of activities aimed at reducing health disparities and sup- porting the local community”.

    More gummint employees – and my bet is that this office won’t do so much as bandages a scraped knee. They will exist to siphon off money and recruit people into the legions of “clients”.

    But it’s pointless to debate liberal true-believers on this. At the risk of repeating myself: the point of all this is NOT to improve healthcare. The point is to create a Euro-style welfare state where the serfs (actual net taxpayers) exist solely to support an ever-more extravagant ruling class and its client base.

    Dan may be an optimist, but I’m not. The people who suckle at the public teat do it for a living. They are pros. We in the tea-party crowd are rank amateurs.

    As Ronald Reagan said, a government program is as close to eternal life as we’ll ever see in this world.

    Tano – you may be right that people won’t tune in… at least until we wind up with Euro-style structural unemployment and crushing government debt (and we’re pretty close on both counts). By then, it will be too late.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 21, 2009 @ 11:31 pm - December 21, 2009

  47. Tano – don’t forget the 380 page midnight amendment:

    http://www.weeklystandard.com/weblogs/TWSFP/BAI09R08.pdf

    I did find one thing I liked: they can’t ask about lawfully possessed firearms and ammo.

    Of course it’s disturbing that they have to write this into the bill lest the professional nannies descend on people with guns (for the children, you know). If they have to write this in, they can just as easily make it go away.

    As a BTW: I noticed that insurance stocks were up today… I guess they’re not evil special interests after all.

    Comment by SoCalRobert — December 21, 2009 @ 11:45 pm - December 21, 2009

  48. Actually, if you noticed, and I guess you didn’t, my point was that the Dems were NOT doing things as outrageous as the Republicans did.

    And that statement was exposed as a complete and total lie.

    But again, you didn’t answer, Tano, because you can’t. You’re such a liar, just like your Pelosi, just like your Obama. All children who have used their minority status throughout their entire life to lie with impunity among their fellow liberals.

    How do you think the American public is reacting to Pelosi’s obvious lies and hypocrisy? Answer: you state that the American public is stupid.

    The degree of amorality among the Obama Party is truly frightening. Michelle Obama orders an Inspector General to be fired, against the law, while trying to claim it is because of their age, also against the law, so that investigations of her cronies who have stolen government funds, completely against the law, will be stopped — so far against the law we can’t even comprehend it.

    Why? Because she knows fools like Tano support whatever she does because of her skin color.

    Comment by North Dallas Thirty — December 22, 2009 @ 12:08 am - December 22, 2009

  49. Steven # 41, I was going to comment on the tax thing, but decided I’d wait for the House / Senate compromise before I spoke up, as we don’t yet know exactly what the taxing scheme is going to be … yet.

    Comment by Sonicfrog — December 22, 2009 @ 2:07 am - December 22, 2009

  50. Whenever you’re ready, Turdo.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 22, 2009 @ 2:21 am - December 22, 2009

  51. Ok. I’ll be nice and give you an easy out:

    Just explain to us why, based on Granny Clampett’s manufactured “2 people every 10 minutes” numbers, over 400,000 people have to die while we hurry up and wait for free “health care”.

    Comment by ThatGayConservative — December 22, 2009 @ 5:18 am - December 22, 2009

  52. TGC, remember that Tano is a racist and anti-semite, who prefers the oppression of free people as long as his will is done. If he had his way, we’d all be in re-education camps, like his idol Stalin had. Tano is a jackbooted thug, or would be if he’d get out of his mom’s basement. Like most ‘intellectuals’ he believes he’d have a place at the table in a facist government.

    Note: I am not engaged in discourse with Tano. So me calling her names is not a violation of civil discourse.

    Comment by The_Livewire — December 22, 2009 @ 6:53 am - December 22, 2009

  53. Tano, sweet Tano, I do not wear the egg of your #2 post about the apolitical and undecideds.

    Think carefully here, because this is beyond rocket science: If you are apolitical and undecided, the chances of you voting are slim and none.

    ACORN and community organizers feed off of people who will follow marching orders when delivered to the polls and are given goodies.

    Your entire semi-revealing post is telling us that these are the people who are going to make the difference come election time.

    Cynical? You bet you are. You are the one rounding up victims of state welfare and threatening them with a world without entitlements. You are the elitist who insists the state must think for the people who you believe can not take care of thinking for themselves.

    You are the one who agrees that the poor are always among us, but you are also the one who sees them as political gold and a way to exert power.

    Naturally, you will disappear now and send gillie to link to a Little Green Footballs diatribe about the war over Fruit Loops versus wood chips.

    Comment by heliotrope — December 22, 2009 @ 9:21 am - December 22, 2009

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.