Climate change legislation: what's so bad about it?

Really simplistic analysis, thus making it very misleading, at best.

Forcing private entities to spend millions of dollars in the hopes that it has a significant environmental impact is a lot more touchy than the government directly investing money in "going green." Not that it is bad...it is controversial due to the magnitude of the money involved and the private source for that money.

Spending money on healthcare is good. Most people agree with that. There is a significant disagreement on whether this particular bill is good overall for a variety of reasons. That is why it is controversial.

As for the war...Obama has done little to curb this at all. The nation is pretty divided on ongoing action in Afghanistan. That is why it is controversial.

A little deeper analysis reveals the real nature of the debate on all of these issues.

 

Can you cite even one among this "variety of reasons" that is, um, you know, actually true? Death panels, increasing the deficit and calling procedures unconstitutional when Republicans have used them themselves hundreds of times don't count.

 

Um, you know, some people think it does not go far enough (ie public option, single payer, etc). Some people think that the bill, as written, will not actually contain costs. Some people are troubled by the penalties to be paid by those who cannot afford insurance because they do not buy insurance.

Then there is me...I see lots of regulation regarding pre-existing conditions and the like with practically zero regulation regarding price control. So, you could see the oligopoly of insurance companies simply jack up the price of the product to deal with the increase in strictures on what they must cover.

Then there is the abortion funding issue.

I think that is a variety of issues. They all have a basis in fact. Those are just the ones that I thought of off the top of my head. I am sure there are other bona fide issues, but I am loathe to take the time to find them and post them.

 

I've been saying this for a long time. The side benefits of dealing with AGW alone are enough to pursue reducing greenhouse gas emitting technologies.

 

That comic encapsulates my thoughts on climate issues perfectly. It presents reasonable propositions that are to the benefit of everyone without arguing about conspiracies or science and appeals simply and directly to our sense of responsibility, which should have been the point from the get-go.

 

Nice job and I have to give credit where credit's due. You definitely rose to the challenge. I suggested there weren't any legitimate complaints and I was wrong about that. And you were right. Kudos.

But, by and large, I honestly don't hear those complaints coming from Republican leadership, or really from any Republicans for that matter. Instead I hear them calling it socialism (it's not), calling it government-run health care (it's not), saying it funds abortions (it doesn't), saying it raises taxes on the middle class (it doesn't), saying it will get between patients and doctors or that they will lose their current coverage (it won't and they won't), complaining that it isn't bi-partisan or saying the bill is being rushed (when they resolved from the very beginning to oppose anything Obama proposed as a bloc, when it's been negotiated for more than a year, with tons of outreach to Republicans all along the way, when it incorporates over 100 Republican amendments), calling reconciliation or deem and pass unconstitutional (when they've used both hundreds of times themselves), trying to scare people with "death panels" (a ludicrous and shameful lie), and saying it will increase the deficit (when the CBO, universally recognized for objectivity, says it will reduce the deficit significantly).

Admittedly, I don't know every single thing that every Republican has said about why he/she opposes the legislation, but I read and listen to and watch a damn lot of political news from a damn lot of sources, and I have literally never heard a Republican complain that it doesn't go far enough, I've heard a tiny sample complain about the mandate (which is actually surprising to me), and I've heard very few complaints about cost containment -- a legitimate concern, but one that is largely the result of having such a tiny needle to thread, largely because of lockstep GOP opposition to doing literally anything on health care, because they have decided en masse to treat the health of American citizens as a political football.

All I'm asking you, Refman, is why do you think it is that Republicans so often rely on misleading or flatly dishonest arguments, not just on this issue but on virtually every issue. I mean, it's hard to argue it doesn't work -- it certainly, certainly does. Just look at the Tea Party, an enormous mob of really freaking misinformed, really freaking pissed off people. But it's ugly, man. And whenever it happens I think of the reasonable people I know, people like you, who continue to identify with that party. I just don't understand how you can do that, man. I really don't.

 

Wow. Thanks. Very nice of you to say.

I really think that is a byproduct of vehement opposition to the structure of this bill coupled with a complete and total inability to articulate the reasoning. That, and the fact that the vast majority of Americans will tune out after the first minute or so. It is very disappointing. I can articulate the issues, then again I am no politician.

This is actually a point of issue that moderate Dems have raised as why they may vote against the bill.

I hear that and acknowledge that for the time being it is true. I simply cannot envision a scenario under which this holds true for a significant period of time. There are going to be cost overruns as there are with anything else. The money will have to come from somewhere.

This remains to be seen. I see additional strictures on what insurance companies must cover, which is long overdue. What I do not see is any kind of regulation on how insurance companies respond in pricing their insurance products. If insurance companies respond by jacking up premiums, some companies may choose to do away with their benefits package and their employees will lose their current coverage. This concerns me a great deal.

I believe that both parties are using it as a political football. The entire thing is distasteful. The Dems early on decided that they needed a crowning achievement to create pomp and circumstance that they could ballyhoo to the masses for support. This is why they are hell bent on getting a bill - ANY bill - passed (good or bad, effective or not). The Republicans decided that the best path for them was to deny the Dems this crowning achievement going into the next election cycle.

This entire thing - on both sides - has been about politics. It is awful. It is disgusting. I really think it is time for a reasonable third party. Sadly, I doubt it will happen in my lifetime.

Let's just say that I will be much happier when Karl Rove is no longer calling the plays. I really think any dishonesty starts with him. He is a bad dude and the world would be a better place if his mother would have just read a book that night. Putting him in charge of the Republican playbook is like spiking your water with cyanide.

In my view, the Tea Party is not a good cross section of conservatives. They are, by and large, the wingnuts. I do not affiliate myself with the Tea Party.

True. I cannot argue with that. Our national history is full of examples of angry mobs that act in ugly fashion. Sometimes racial epithets have been used and sometimes people get splashed with red paint for wearing fur. It is all ugly behavior and all done because those that disagree with us cannot possibly have a point. They must be somehow less human than are we. It is a terrible mindset, and one that will lead to our demise as a society. I have been pretty consistent in that mantra.

I am VERY unhappy with the "leadership" of the Republican party in recent years. I am a moderate conservative. Some would consider me a liberal Republican. Some would consider me a Blue Dog Democrat, I suppose. I am not so pinned to the Republicans that I always vote for them. Remember, I plan to vote for Bill White for governor.

I hope I have answered your questions and that I have made sense. I am not always terribly eloquent.

 

You totally did. You're a very thoughtful dude. I appreciate that.

 

You speak the truth about both parties. Both sides have been wrong throughout this ordeal.

 

Did anyone hear him on "Fresh Air" (Terry Gross's NPR interview show) earlier this week? Maybe it was a replay, but I think it was new, concerning his book.

Let me say I agree with everything you just said, BUT you can see why he's been given the power and positions he's been given. They dude is so, so skillful. He was revisiting Iraq War II and respinning it, again, and making it seem fresh and Terry Gross was so beyond her depth, as much as I like her. I've never heard her that flustered, even when she interviewed a scary angry Ike Turner. "Turd Blossom" may just be coming into his own.

It's kind of like: why did the Giants put up with Barry Bonds? Well, he was cheating and an awful human being day to day, but the *skills*.

 

These issues have nothing to do with carbon-dioxide emission, which is the key point of climate change laws.

You can actually increase carbon emissions while doing all of the three things you listed.

 

I think you answered your own question - the simple answer is that it works. When the goal is simply to win - and Mitch McConnell basically stated that is the only goal - then that's all that matters.

 

Can we put the debate on the Health Care bill into one of the many threads on that subject instead of this thread?