Jonathan Alter at Newsweek has a piece that is up on MSNBC from the March 22 edition that essentially breaks it down into language that even most 5 year olds are able to understand.
Put simply, passing health care/insurance/whatever reform comes down to a very simple proposition.
"Gee, should I vote to pass health care?" one reluctant Democrat might ask.
"WELL DUHHHHHHHHHHHHHH"
In this piece here, Alter says that the GOP strategy on what happens next is probably going to be a big political loser for them. Campaigning on stripping out parts of the bill that according to polls (see: the example Nate Silver provides at 538) by repealing the entire bill will be a losing strategy.
Because the insurance-industry reforms kick in immediately, this means Republicans would be running against protections that even those queasy about health-care reform are not going to want stripped away.
Teabaggers and hyperconservatives may be okay with killing everything even the popular public stuff if it means they get a victory, but I think even smart normal conservative people - the so-called "Middle America" that the GOP loves to put on a pedestal to serve their political needs - would like to never have to worry about losing their insurance just for getting sick. Not being one of those people (according to Republicans anyway) I wouldn't know what they would really think.
Alter cites six different Democrats who are apparently interested in throwing it all away for their own political purposes. Not quite as abhorrent as Bart Stupak's self-righteous crusade, but still:
Eliot Engel—a Ben Nelson wannabe, it appears—is holding out for New York to be "treated fairly." He may be right on some of the merits, but when he told me, "I can't vote for something that makes my state worse off," I prayed he was bluffing. Worse off for whom? Not the uninsured. Note to Eliot: your district went 72 percent for Obama. Do you really want to break the president?
So you care more about a few million people instead of tens of millions potentially around the country? What an awesome way to "represent" people.
You do realize Mr. Engel that if you vote against this bill and it fails that nobody will see whatever benefits will come with it, right? That includes your own damn state, you idiot. You wanna go back home and proudly proclaim "I served you all very well by making sure the bill failed." When asked "What do we get out of it?" and your only answer is to either not answer the question or answer "Nothing"...yeah. I bet New Yorkers ain't gonna like that very much, youknowwhatahmsayin'?
Brian Baird of Washington state, John Barrow of Georgia, and Melissa Bean of Illinois want more cost containment. I'm with 'em. I'd like to see a Medicare commission with teeth. But if they don't get what they want, their vote still shouldn't be a close call. Don't blow it, guys; the status quo on costs is worse.
So this idea is akin to "Hey there's some of what I want but it isn't enough. I think taking part of the pie is worse than taking none of the pie. That sounds great. Really. I'll go hungry."
Brilliant. Utterly brilliant.
Larry Kissell of North Carolina says health care is "badly needed," but his "line in the sand" is Medicare, which he promised not to cut. But experts say that, eventually, Medicare will be chopped much more severely for the elderly in need without the cost-control pilot programs in the current bill (especially phasing out fee-for-service medicine).
Another "Hey I'll be a special type of petulant and not vote for what would be even a step in the right direction because it isn't enough"
So would you like to explain that you voted against closing the Medicare Part D "doughnut hole" because...you wanted to protect...Medicare.
Isn't this kind of circular reasoning reserved for the Wingnut Brigade?
Then there's Dennis Kucinich of Ohio, whose district went 59 percent for Obama. One question, Dennis: if it's good enough for the socialist senator, Bernie Sanders, what's your problem?
Good damn question.
Look, I know for a fact that a bunch of months ago I was interested in killing the bill at one point to. I thought that if they lost this vote, they'd get off their asses and go back to a public option or something.
But as time has gone on, I have realized that that is a stupid strategy. Especially when we have people like Sanders and Alan Grayson potentially ready to introduce or already having introduced legislation that, frankly, is probably better than any damn public option that was ever "in play" before.
Medicare For All? I believe that's Mr. Grayson's new bill. A standalone bill.
Well what are we waiting for? Vote on, and pass this bill...then immediately, we need to make one or both of these other pieces of legislation happen and fight for them.
Even children on a playground realize the simplicity of a "duh".
Will Democrats? If they want to continue to serve in Congress - gee that sounds like another question which would be answered with a "duh" - then yes, yes they will.
If not...
Will I go vote for people who do fuck all to pass things that will help people?
If you've read this far, I'm sure you know the answer to that already.