House healthcare debate shows the unbearable lightness of being

This article was originally on a blog post platform and may be missing photos, graphics or links. See About archive blog posts.

The House is going through two hours of healthcare debate. No one expects the comments to change anyone’s mind.

Is anyone listening?

You bet. As Rep. Edward J. Markey (D-Mass.) learned to his chagrin.

Markey waxed eloquent, praising Democrats for being the party of hope while castigating the GOP as the party of nope.

“Hope versus Nope,” Markey shouted, defining the political line that will be the core of this midterm election year.

Unfortunately he ran over his allotted time, and his ending comments were shouted down by boos and other jeers.

“Members are cautioned to heed the gavel,” the chair intoned.

“Will the gentleman repeat his remarks?” the Republican floor manager, Rep. Joe L. Barton of Texas, deadpanned. “There was too much shouting.”

Aside from such moments of lightness, the rest of the debate is essentially scripted and is all too familiar to those who have followed its previous incarnations: last year’s debate in the House and Senate, the numerous committee hearings, news conferences, town hall arguments and presidential visits.

Democrats invoke a sense of history in healthcare finally being passed after a century of dawdling. The healthcare system is in financial crisis and must be fixed. The ‘doughnut hole’ in senior drug benefits must be eliminated. Access to insurance should be expanded by some 32 million. The predatory practices of insurance companies must be curbed.

For Republicans, the healthcare bill is too expensive at nearly $1 trillion over 10 years. Seniors, they contend, will lose benefits through service cuts that Democrats call curbs on waste, fraud and abuse. The overall federal debt will grow, dooming America’s children and grandchildren to a life of poverty. A healthcare overhaul is needed, but the current bill is just a bailout of the insurance companies.

“Will the gentlemen remove their conversations to the back?” the chair asked at one point, making it clear that members on the floor weren’t listening to the debate.

If there is any bipartisan agreement in the healthcare debate, it is that voters will likely be listening this year.

--Michael Muskal
Twitter.com/LATimesmuskal