Congress should be an instrument of the people. But in the Pelosi/Reid world the people are nothing but pawns of legislative will of those in power. Congressional offices have been receiving 100,000 calls an hour, most of them I believe from people trying to express their "power of one." But, these arrogant politicians are acting deaf and dumb to all the external pleas to "just start over!"

I am dumbfounded at the conduct of these officials. It's like they are bent on working against us. And, they have the unmitigated gall to say over and over again, "we will be making history for the people, giving them better health care."

I regret that I haven't had the time to follow the details of this Stupak amendment, the planned reconciliation process, this possible "enrollment correction", not to mention the 2600 page Health Care bill itself. Among the clamour and noise it's been tough to tell what the effect of this bill will be. Clear and well reasoned information that might guide one to a tentative conclusion has been hard to find. I think I'm paying attention as much as the average Joe, so the criticism that the Democrats have done a poor job selling this legislation rings true to me. Is part of this because the Democrats are divided about what the bill should look like?

Nevertheless, since politics has become a team sport, I am rooting for the thing to pass, with fingers crossed that by the time we figure out what it all means, the damage done won't be too bad, and that the bill will have some good things in it (like providing coverage for many millions who are now uninsured, helping on the pre-existing conditions issue, offering a first step in the direction of getting costs under control, and starting some pilot programs that will bear fruit down the road).

In the meantime I always yearn to learn something more substantive about this bill. The cryptic note above doesn't fit the bill. What is the point being made about the Stupak amendment here? The link suggests the Stupak amendment is designed to make abortion less available, and Pelosi is trying to facilitate this somehow. Is Demosophist in favor of getting some abortion restrictions in the bill, or against. I can't tell. I can tell he's contemptful of Speaker Pelosi, but I'm not sure why.

If the point is that it is bad faith simply to get this bill through in the current political environment by hook or by crook, I disagree. Here's hoping the Speaker and her Whips get it done. You go girl! And here's hoping for more substantive discussions about this bill to come, without invective or name calling.

I am rooting for the thing to pass, with fingers crossed that by the time we figure out what it all means, the damage done won't be too bad ...

Heh. I'll bet those are the same crossed fingers you used to vote for Obama, right?

You might as well vote to re-elect him on the same logic. Maybe by the time he figures out how to pass bipartisan legislation, the earth will collide with a massive black hole and the damage will therefore be somewhat limited.

You go girl!

No sarcasm tags. I hope you're not taking prescription medication and operating a commuter train while online.

On the other hand, as a Republican I can kind of appreciate your point, and Demosophist's, too. Nancy Pelosi might be the best thing to happen to the Republican Party since the Democrats walked out to join the 1861 Confederate Congress.

Apparently she suits your purposes as well. I maintain that the Democrats have not had a real leader in Congress since Tip O'Neill retired. I'm beginning to think that this is no accident, and the real purpose of a Democratic Speaker is to offend and alienate as many people as possible.

Roland:
If the measure passes I too will hope for the best. I don't have a clue what the impact of the bill would ultimately be, but it strikes me that this is founded on a 19th century conception of distributive justice and is part of a general trend of post-Marxist dirigistes, or the centralization of power with the intent of a discriminatory distribution of resources based on the presumption that the distributors have a raw knowledge of "the good" and therefore a right to demand submission to their will. Your sincere dilemma is that you aren't sure whether they, in fact, know "the good." My position is that any ordering of society that trends in such a direction is not even as good as a random roll of the dice. Simply because it's discriminatory it will have negative unintended consequences. We would be much better off if we adopted a principle of nondiscrimination, even if it was redistributive in effect. The ideal of that notion would be a flat tax combined with a demogrant, but there are similar ideas that trend in that direction. Google "generality principle."

You're correct that neither Republicans nor Democrats have proposed anything along these lines. But it's time to set a new course, not follow in a well-worn rut. A policy that was based on principle rather than interest would be so obvious to you that it couldn't be missed. You would still have a dilemma, but it wouldn't involve faith that others have some secret insight or moral claim that escapes many reasonable people.

In his treatise, The Constitution of Liberty (1960), F. A. Hayek emphasized the central role of the generality principle, as embodied in the rule of law, for the maintenance of a free society. This book extends Hayek's argument by applying the generality principle to politics. Several important policy implications emerge. There are no direct implications to suggest how much governments should do. The argument suggests strongly however, that, whatever is done politically, must be done generally rather than discriminatorily.

Sounds good to me, Demosophist. I will put some Buchanan and "generality principle" on my reading list. In the meantime, is your criticism directed at funding mechanism in the bill? Can you briefly explain? Thanks.

R

Roland:

I have just never had a good feeling about the way the whole issue is being approached. I can't see how a law this pervasive can be administered without multitudes of "meddling preference" in my life, but perhaps this is just inherent in the way we approach health care now. There's just something ragingly discomfiting in the complexity of it, and all the specialized knowledge and training. I mean, I don't trust car mechanics, or the whole auto industry for that matter. And the level of complexity and specialization in health care, not to mention the stakes, is a couple of orders of magnitude greater. For perspective, my mother hasn't been to a physician in over 50 years, and I can say for a fact that if she lives another 50 she won't spend a minute of it in a doctor's office. So what is all this complexity, dread, and jostling for the commanding heights about? I don't think we need to start over with health care. I think we need to set a different course, and we need to have a long and deep conversation about it, with much less posturing. And we need to really consider what's at stake before climbing down into this rut.

I'm wondering if the current whip count (favoring the nos) is legit, wishful thinking, or includes a number of deliberate head fakes. It's hard for me to imagine that Defazio would actually vote "no" at the end of the day, but he has announced that he will. Does it sound reasonable that these are designed to throw the opposition off its game? The activity and announcements over the last couple of days seem pretty convincing to me that the ayes are having trouble. If this activity is fake, it's a pretty good body fake, because it sure has me fooled. Not that this would be hard to do...

I can only gather that Stupak wants to be lied to in a way that doesn't make him look stupid. There is simply nothing Pelosi, Reid or Obama can give him that will give him his bill language without starting over. (The executive order is meaningless and certainly can't trump the Senate abortion language.)

So I really don't blame anybody but Stupak for any of these machinations. I'd respect him if he said one of two things: (a) this is not my preferred language, but this is as close as I'm going to get, and I think the healthcare provisions are too important to vote against the Senate bill, or (b) this is a deal-killer.

Stupak was campaigning to be of the elite few who are allowed to cover their scrofulous butts by voting against the bill. Failing that, he wanted a fig leaf to cover his principles, or lack thereof. Considering how tiny and transparent the fig leaf is, it's remarkable how hard it was to pry it out of Pelosi's little fist.

So much for Stupak, so much for Kucinich, and so much for the Blue Dogs.

But there was a principled opposition to this bill: it was the Republican opposition, and it was 100%. Would any of you from the "pox on both their houses" school of libertarianism care to comment on that?

True, yesterday they were helping prepare this day's madness. But do you see now the difference between reckless driving and premeditated vehicular homicide?

This is not going to end well.

I know Megan McCardle argues that Republicans did their job by convincing the public they don't want this legislation, but they never posed an antidote that explained what the public did want and how they planned to deliver it. That void spoke volumes, and Democrats knew it. What we need to do is nothing less than to reinvent Liberalism 3.x. If you think Republicans have that down yet, then let them state it in no uncertain terms. As Huey Long once said, the only real difference is probably whether they want to skin the public from the neck down or the ankles up. I'd support anyone, Democrat or Republican, who could state their position in terms of the Principle of Generality, and would be skeptical of anyone who is confused by it... until they did their research. We have four years to get this focus right. After that, the curtain closes.