tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7233413034415992317.post2377437929470015546..comments2020-12-30T12:56:45.883-06:00Comments on ye olde republicke: Hubris and health care reformGabriel Conroyhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03027746942101340042noreply@blogger.comBlogger3125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7233413034415992317.post-30215557840299937582010-03-24T13:25:38.129-05:002010-03-24T13:25:38.129-05:00"for the purposes of this fall's election..."for the purposes of this fall's election, those who would have voted for "deem and pass" could not have hidden behind the fact that they merely had cast a vote for a procedural rule"<br /><br />Ah, now that I agree with 100%.<br /><br />And for the record, I'm purely imaginary anyway.James Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431950784819780004noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7233413034415992317.post-90156082343309962292010-03-24T06:57:08.995-05:002010-03-24T06:57:08.995-05:00Mr. Hanley,
Well, now that I've met someone w...Mr. Hanley,<br /><br />Well, now that I've met someone who's paid attention to the health care debate and believes a vote for the "deem and pass" measure isn't a vote for the bill, I guess I can imagine him :)<br /><br />I suppose what I meant was that for the purposes of this fall's election, those who would have voted for "deem and pass" could not have hidden behind the fact that they merely had cast a vote for a procedural rule when this procedural rule would have resulted in passage of the bill itself.<br /><br />Perhaps I had underestimated the ability of congresspersons to do so in an election. I imagine that the "Stupakites," or at least those who voted for the bill, will try to claim that the president's executive order on abortion actually places any substantive changes on funding for abortion. (I'm under the impression that the order was more or less just to provide political cover for those politicians who claimed to be uncomfortable with the bill's abortion language or lack thereof.)<br /><br />I'm not quite as optimistic as you are that "deem and pass" will be remembered enough for people to challenge it. But who knows?<br /><br />Thanks for the comment!Gabriel Conroyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/17566193099628849226noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7233413034415992317.post-72515773072756840572010-03-23T20:42:47.195-05:002010-03-23T20:42:47.195-05:00"I can't imagine anyone who pays attentio..."I can't imagine anyone who pays attention to the health insurance reform debate would believe that a vote for "deem and pass" isn't a vote for the bill."<br /><br />Actually, I've been paying attention, and I remain unpersuaded that the deem and pass method would have been a vote for the bill.<br /><br />I think I'm relieved that it passed without resorting to such measures (even though I oppose the bill substantively). It's better this way, and avoids the taint of illegitimacy.<br /><br />On the other hand, because this bill brought the apparently increasingly-common-but-heretofore-unnoticed deem and pass method to public attention, I almost hoped it would pass that way just to galvanize public opposition to the <i>method</i> (not to the bill itself). But disentangling the two in the public's mind was probably too much to ask for, and the health care issue shouldn't be twisted into a purely procedural debate, so it's probably good that this didn't happen.<br /><br />With any luck, though, the media's now aware of deem and pass and will bring it to our attention next time either party tries to use it.James Hanleyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18431950784819780004noreply@blogger.com