Do you seriously think the republican party should just roll over and play dead with a bill that has a price tag of over a trillion dollars? That is insane, especially when the US has lost a staggering amount of government income and there has been zero talk of actually cutting and fixing this to the budget. You are out of your fucking mind if you think that kind of spending should get a free pass unless it is related to emergency national defense measures.
Free pass? Play dead? All I said was that I expect the Republican party, in opposing Democratic attempts at health care reform, to have an alternate platform, some set of policy proposals of their own. They don't. They have nothing. They don't even have the grace to say that they like things the way they are; the GOP is theoretically for health care reform (see: Frank Luntz's memo on health care), but opposed to almost all specific policies,
including those that would serve to keep costs low (or possibly especially those, since they tend to cut into pharmaceutical and insurer profit margins, insert rant about institutionalized bribery here).
The republicans fail for not being able to work up a viable alternative, but that doesn't make this bill that's being put forth any better. They could and should oppose it on it's own merits.
You're getting to the meat of what Grayson is saying, in his own way (and again, I don't particularly approve of his rhetoric, I just think he's getting a rough deal in the moral equivalence department re: death panels): Given how ludicrously awful the current state of health care is in the states, it's pretty morally reprehensible to be against any and all reform without having alternative fixes of your own.
It is rherotical nonsense that enflames the debate and paints the other side as monsters. No amount of dancing around the issue changes that. It was wrong when Palin did it, and it is wrong when Grayson did it.
Dancing around the issues?
Health care reform will result in government-enforced euthanasia: false.
Republican obstruction hinders the reform of a system which causes thousands of preventable deaths: true.
Degree of histrionics: roughly equal, sure. But it doesn't change that one is a lie (and a deliberate one, not a misapprehension), and the other is not.
DO IT FOR THE CHILDREN
SAVE THE TENS OF THOUSANDS WHO DIE EVERY YEAR
YOU AREN'T A PATRIOT IF YOU DON'T SUPPORT THIS
It is the same bullshit. By making arguments in vague terms like that, you make it impossible for the other side to have reasonable responses. There is no condoning tactics like that.
Poppycock. There's a perfectly reasonable response for Republicans, or there would be if they weren't actually guilty of what they're being accused of. If the GOP had done anything, ever, to even attempt to forestall these deaths, they would be able to address what would be ludicrous accusations, factually. But they haven't, so they bitch and complain and smear instead, or pick nits rather than address the greater argument. And because North American news media lives to draw parallels in non-parallel structures, Grayson gets lumped with Palin (and Grassley, don't forget) as a liar. He's not, he's a demagogue.
(American political theory digression! Congressmen are designed as populists, they represent small districts, have short terms, and are expected to be in close contact with their constituents. Senators, meanwhile, with a bit more insulation from the public and longer terms, are intended as technocrats, more electorally able to look at the big picture and make long-term policy decisions, though they still represent regions. The President is isolated from local issues and expected to have a wider viewpoint still, but needs to maintain nationwide support, be it from state legislators or, presently, the public. Legislation needs large and diverse coalitions to be enacted!
Grayson may be bucking the system by going rogue rather than acting as a strict funnel for his constituents views, however, as he comes from a fairly conservative district. On the other hand, he's never made any bones about who and what he is and was thus not elected under false pretenses: the point of republican rather than popular democracy is that you elect people you trust to make decisions that may or may not be beyond your specific expertise (and thus to take stances you may not immediately agree with on the basis of their superior expertise and your trust in the same). What the framers really didn't anticipate is the money game; Grayson's re-election will be less influenced by the unadulterated views of voters in his district about his behaviour than by the extent to which his national profile brings in money for and against him; national opinion should be the President's concern, not his.)
I have seen next to no talk about what to actually fix in the health care system (Namely, the way insurances work.) Medicare is just as ruthless as private insurance companies about using price controls and stiffing hospitals. Switching the burden over to the government will give more people coverage, but it won't fix the biggest problems in terms of how we bill medical procedures.
I'm not totally clear on what you're getting at here, but my sense is that it's different issues. Grayson is talking about the moral obligation of reforming a broken system by highlighting its cost in lives. Giving more people coverage is one of several goals of reform. Controlling costs is another, protecting health care providers from health care insurers (and patients from health care insurers, of course) yet another, as is promoting/protecting independent research etc. etc. All are important, but they are distinct and even sometimes conflicting. Stressing one does not negate the validity of the others, and one valid area of policy difference is indeed how to balance these considerations.
