In Health Care Debate, GOP OD's on Rhetoric

When the Tea Partiers came to town to rant about the emerging health care legislation, there was plenty of extreme -- and hateful -- talk at the rally officially hosted by House Republicans at the Capitol. Yet the rhetoric hurled by Republican legislators during the historic debate that led to passage of the House health reform bill on a 220-215 vote this past weekend was more ludicrous. At a demonstration, speakers can get riled up by a riled-up crowd and fling rubbish. But on the House floor, there ought to be higher standards. Of course, that's not how Congress works.

C-SPAN watchers -- and there were plenty of us -- were treated to an orgy of Republican excess, further indication that the GOP is becoming the party of hyperbole. Or, as House Minority Leader John Boehner might say, hyper-bull. R after R railed at the bill, bellowing that the House was flouting the American people by passing this measure. Rep. Kay Granger questioned how the House could ignore the "thousands" who had come to Capitol Hill to protest. Was she truly suggesting that there should be a Tea Party veto? Turn out a few thousand people, and that's the end of any legislation? (Watch out, military spending bill!) Rep. George Radanovich proclaimed that Congress was not recognizing "the will of the people." Here's a serious query for him: How do you assess the "will of the people"? After all, there was this little event called the election of 2008, which handed the Democrats the White House and decisive majorities in both houses of Congress. Were Radanovich, Granger and other GOPers serious when they accused the Democratic majority of acting in an anti-democratic measure by passing legislation that the Democrats had promised to pass? Did they believe this? Or were they just spouting bunk to play to their tea-partying base? I'm not sure which would be worse: denying or defying reality.

Republican Rep. Dave Camp denounced the House bill for imposing a "health czar" between doctors and patients. (What was he thinking? "Open the door to examination room right now! This is the health czar!") Yet this was confusing, for Rep. Jack Kingston had asserted that the legislation would place "thousands" of bureaucrats between doctors and patients. Which is it -- one czar or an army of pencil-pushers? (By the way, when Boehner declared that medical decisions should be left only to doctors and patients, I wondered if his meds were not working, for every day insurance bureaucrats interrupt patient-doctor decisions. Was he calling for a single-payer system?)

Boehner went over the top -- or the cliff -- when he exclaimed that the House bill was the latest evidence that "freedom has been dimming" in the United States for decades. If a liberal House Dem were to say something like that, a Fox News commentator, no doubt, would ask why he or she hates America. To provide proof, Boehner read from the bill. One provision, he noted, calls for using schools as flu vaccination centers. That sure is a freedom-dimmer. Another passage he highlighted forces chain restaurants to post calorie counts on menus. What a devious, liberty-thwarting, socialistic plot . . . to help consumers make better decisions about their diets.

Rep. Eric Cantor, the GOP whip, did offer a solid point. He observed that the vote on this bill would separate the Democratic and Republican parties. And that's certainly true. The Democrats talked about the uninsured and the misdeeds of the insurance industry. (Democratic Rep. Henry Waxman nearly shouted at the Republicans: Don't tell the 37 million without health insurance that they have "freedom.") The Republicans talked about the thousands of Tea Party protesters and essentially ignored the sins of the insurance companies. There was no common ground. Few GOPers, if any, expressed indignation about the insurance industry. On this matter, one party was from Venus, the other, Mars.

Interestingly, the next morning, on ABC's "This Week," GOP Chairman Michael Steele did try to blur this distinction. After Democratic Party Chair Tim Kaine emphasized that the bill will prevent insurance companies from denying coverage due to pre-existing conditions and from arbitrarily cutting off coverage (a practice known as "rescission"), Steele claimed that that the alternative health care bill proposed by House Republicans did the same. Yet the Republican substitute would have merely forced insurance firms to notify patients prior to dropping them. As for pre-existing conditions, it would not have prohibited insurance companies from saying no. (It would have set up a high-risk pool, where people with pre-existing conditions could find coverage, at 50 percent above the average rates.) Steele was not playing it straight, but he did manage to repeatedly say "government takeover."

Democratic health care reform is far from a done deal. The Senate still hasn't passed anything. And if it does and both chambers go on to approve a final version, the major provisions will not kick in for several years. But eventually all the overheated spin will be replaced by on-the-ground reality. Should Congress and President Obama enact health care reform, at some point in the next few years Americans will be able to judge the results. Have costs gone down? Have insurance industry practices improved? Have more people been covered? Whatever occurs, Democrats will own it and be held accountable. And if Republicans block passage of the legislation and the status quo worsens, they can be blamed for having done nothing when they were in power and then obstructing the Dems. Cantor has his clear line. Either freedom will dim or it won't.

In the meantime, though, each side will continue to argue its case. For years, there will be no reality but the shouting. On the GOP side, as the House debate showed, that shouting is not likely to get any smarter.

You can follow David Corn's postings and media appearances via Twitter.