Did the Democrats give any signal, at all, that they would be willing to take out any significant provision of their health care bill?
It seems to me that if not, it's hard to make a claim they were trying to compromise or be bipartisan.
Cross-posted on <pudge/*>.
Posted by pudge at February 26, 2010 09:47 AM | Email ThisGoose / gander
Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on February 26, 2010 09:56 AMLearn/read/THINK before you speak so you don't further embarass yourself.
The use of reconciliation 1980-2008
Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 26, 2010 10:29 AMBudget reconciliation is an arcane Senate procedure whereby legislation can be passed using a lowered threshold of requisite votes (a simple majority) under fast-track rules that limit debate. This process was intended for incremental changes to the budget--not sweeping social legislation.Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 26, 2010 10:33 AM
Joe, do you want the Dems to do this? I don't, but there is a partisan part of me that would like to see them try.
So far, all I hear is "blah, blah, blah". If they intended to this, they would have done it already, I believe. As it is, who is to say for sure that #1, the House would go out on a limb and pass it, and #2, that they would get 51 in the Senate. Perhaps they would not.
Posted by: Gary on February 26, 2010 11:17 AMHow will that help the economy, and how will it help resolve the deficits?
President Obama keeps saying we need to "fix health care" to save the budget deficit but this plan will increase the deficits (as documented by the CBO). All Democrats were silent on this point.
If the given primary reason we're to take action is a bogus action, then one can only assume the action is taken for an ulterior, stealth reason...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 26, 2010 11:38 AMSecond, you're implicitly admitting that the Democrats are lying by saying this was about bipartisanship and compromise.
And no one can possibly believe that this health "reform" bill would reduce the deficit - that's utterly laughable (except that it's not funny).
Posted by: ajday on February 26, 2010 12:37 PMPersonally, I'm glad neither side compromised. This way, when the Dems do attempt to overreach and push through a version of this financial and quality of care reducing boondoggle(despite the publics overwhelming objection to it) it will be the death knell for their party in the next few elections cycles. Obama and the Dems are boxed in and they now know that this is THEIR boondoggle if they decide to pursue it and further anger an already incredulous populace.
On a side note, I listen to Dave Ross quite regularly and have noticed he's gone decidedly bat scat crazy of late in voicing his partisan views. While he's most likely held and expressed these views privately, it seems in the past he wasn't so blatantly partisan as he has been lately on his talk show. Of course, when you have fellow group thinkers like David Suroda and Carl Jeffords regularly appear on your show in order to discuss things in an echo chamber of ideas, I guess the frustration mounts as they realize that America isn't as hip to this "hope and change" thing that Obama has ushered in.
Nope. They did not. And I don't recall the Republicans doing so either.
"It seems to me that if not, it's hard to make a claim they were trying to compromise or be bipartisan."
Probably it is hard to make that claim for a lot of reasons. But who made that claim? Well, other than you?
Certainly Obama did not.
As I recall Obama and the Democrats want to kill our cute puppies.
Posted by: MikeBoyScout on February 26, 2010 02:42 PMAlso, no, there is nothing whatsoever morally right about FORCING people to help other people get heath care. Doing it yourself, with your own resources? Good morals. Forcing other people to do it? Amoral at best, but if we're not pretending, we must admit it's immoral: it's no different than forcing the people to follow the King's religion.
Ragnar,
Reconciliation is only being proposed for passing changes to the already approved Senate bill, assuming the House passes the Senate bill. Of course, this assumes the House and Senate trust each other enough to even agree to a set of changes to the senate bill, and it assume the changes meet the requirements for using the reconciliation process (i.e., related to budgetary items). Both the Senate bill and immediate changes can be approved prior to President signing both. The only "order" that is important (legally-wise) is that the President first signs the Senate Bill and then signs the package of changes. I know it is an end-run around the process and won't make anyone associated with it good in the eyes of the voters. This whole process has been a nightmare. Both sides are so rigid that I doubt any major legislation could ever get through. Even if one went with the minimum of agreed to changes (more incremental approach), I don't think one would still get the votes on the left to pass. One only has to listen to Harkin yesterday to understand that it is a no-win scenario regarding an incremental change process.
Thank you for admitting the Democrats were lying to say they were interested in bipartisanship and compromise.
And I don't recall the Republicans doing so either.
Yes, the Republicans didn't signal they would be willing to take anything out of a bill that isn't eheirs and that they don't control. (Cuckoo!)
Probably it is hard to make that claim for a lot of reasons. But who made that claim?
Almost all of the Democrats, including the Speaker, the Leader, and the President.
Certainly Obama did not.
False. In fact, that very URL proves you wrong. You're either (as usual) stupid or lying. Which is it this time?
It's not always repeatable. Weird. (I fixed the previous comment.)
Reconciliation is only being proposed for passing changes to the already approved Senate bill, assuming the House passes the Senate bill.
Yes, changes necessary to get the House to pass the Senate bill. The Democrats are abusing the rules -- using reconciliation to pass a non-budget bill -- to bypass a filibuster (the very thing they attacked Republicans for in 2005, just using a different means).
assume the changes meet the requirements for using the reconciliation process (i.e., related to budgetary items)
Oh come on, tc. You know better than that. There is not a single change that the Democrats would find is NOT budgetary, just like there's not a single thing in the bill that the Democrats do not think is justified by the power to regulate interstate commerce.
I know it is an end-run around the process
Which is, of course, why they are stupid to do it. The Dems are already facing massive losses this year ... it's hard to see how this won't make it even worse.
I suppose they could say it's just THAT IMPORTANT that they would risk not being re-elected. But it's hard to respect someone for going along with principles when they are so often lying about their plan and their opponents' acts and views, and abusing the rules to get what they want.
But then again, this is common for the species of person -- especially common among politicians, and there, especially common among the left -- that hates the rule of law. No rules matter, if those rules get in the way of what you want.
Both sides are so rigid that I doubt any major legislation could ever get through.
If the Democrats put up a bill ending rescission and preexisting conditions and lifetime caps, and made it easier for people to pool together like businesses do to get cheaper insurance (including across state lines), and ended the coming-and-going subsidies for HMOs ... this would be major, this would immediately result in a happier electorate, and it would get majority support in both parties.
But the Democrats won't do that, not when they can push something they want, even if the people don't want it. The Republicans would agree to it, though. So I just don't buy "both sides are too rigid." (I am not blaming the Dems here though ... if the GOP were in the majority, they would likely be as rigid.)
One only has to listen to Harkin yesterday to understand that it is a no-win scenario regarding an incremental change process.
Right, because the Democrats won't do it, not because "both sides" are too rigid.
What planet are you on?
Logic and credibility were pretty well abandoned when Dems said they could pay for this entire bill by eliminating waste and fraud in medicare.
Sometimes you crack me up.
Posted by: Andy on February 26, 2010 04:45 PMLooks to me like Obama is pressuring those medical professional organizations to put out those *ull*hit findings and tow the line or else.
Posted by: Matt M on February 26, 2010 06:53 PMAnd the commission then changed it's findings.
And there are people who *want* them doing this.
http://www.ncpa.org/pub/ba662
Since Obama didn't want to get "bogged down in numbers" during the meeting, it's back to talking points. This is all Minnesota's fault. =)
Posted by: Palouse on February 26, 2010 09:09 PMCan you list the 12 Republican Senators that the Dems have convinced that government run health care is a good idea?
You might also find this quote interesting.
"Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets."
Posted by: Calvin A on February 27, 2010 06:44 AM"I have no plan to order the lives of the 40 million uninsured. I have no plans for how you should run your life, what insurance you should have, or where you should spend you money; and frankly I find it a little creepy that you have a plan for ordering my private life. And let's face it, you don't plan to insure 40 million Americans, you plan to force the other 250 million Americans to do it."Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 27, 2010 10:03 AM
· Number one: let families and businesses buy health insurance across state lines;
· Number two: allow individuals, small businesses, and trade associations to pool together and acquire health insurance at lower prices, the same way large corporations and labor unions do today;
· Number three: give states the tools to create their own innovative reforms that lower health care costs; and
· Number four: end junk lawsuits that contribute to higher health care costs by increasing the number of tests and procedures that physicians sometimes order not because they think it's good medicine, but because they are afraid of being sued.
Full text of GOP solutions [here]
And one I think that they should add: Ending government mandated procedures. You buy what you want to buy. There is no reason for a 25 year old male to pay for maternity care.
These reforms are really reforms not piling more piss-poor government B.S. on top of existing government B.S. And the best part? If they don't work (which they won't but just in case) they are as easy reverse as they were to enact.
What the hell ever happened to common sense? Well, I guess it left Demorats and liberals some time ago and is now residing in a majority of the American public who like the GOP answers to health care reform.
One last thing - I was driving around today and this popped up in the rotation: Obama's theme song! Listen to it [here] and tell me what you think. This was written many years ago and not with him in mind but damn it sure fits him and how Demorats look at elections. Think the Paul Wellstone wake . . .
Posted by: G Jiggy on February 27, 2010 05:15 PMEvery new law has to be looked at that way.
Posted by: Gary on February 27, 2010 10:26 PMOr should we start bulldozering the bodies today?
Yes, there are budget issues. There's really only a single large entitlement program where we spend a lot of money with negligible return, though.
The military. Hate to say it, but in the end, to avoid going bankrupt, that's what will have to be cut unless we want a dystopian future where corporations have more power than government or individuals.
Posted by: Joe Szilagyi on February 28, 2010 09:32 AMDo seniors get food, clothing, housing, transportation, etc. at reasonable rates? You're not making any sense.
Or should we start bulldozering the bodies today?
Worse than not making any sense, you're being a completely irrational and dishonest ass. Why not just skip to the end and start calling people Nazis?
Yes, there are budget issues. There's really only a single large entitlement program where we spend a lot of money with negligible return, though. The military.
Joe, when you don't even have half a clue what the word "entitlement" means, do you really think anyone here is going to care what you think?
Megan McArdle argues persuasively in the Atlantic that lacking health insurance does not increase mortality rate and the numbers thrown about to suggest otherwise are poppycock
Is the US healthcare system really broken?
Lying and Cheating to Pass ObamaCare
Second, reconciliation has never been used to amend a bill that has yet to pass. The Health Care Nuclear Option will be used to pass a new bill that amends the Senate passed version of ObamaCare. Finally, reconciliation has not traditionally been used to steamroll the will of the American people. The bipartisan Blair House Summit was merely some feel good politics before the real effort by Democrats to jam an unpopular ObamaCare bill through Congress using a the procedural Nuclear Option. The American people should take note that Washington continues to view their opposition with contempt and politicians would like you to believe that they know what is best for America.Posted by: RagnarDanneskjold on February 28, 2010 11:15 AM
Apparently you don't listen too well. President Obama wanted the GOP to come and present their ideas; when they did so, President Obama berated them.
Bipartisanship wasn't the goal of this meeting. It was all about scoring political points by the President and the Democrats and it backfired terribly.
Of course, when you have a chain-smoking, drunken lush leading your party, you tend to make stupid moves like challenging your opponents on points they've been making for months...
Posted by: Shanghai Dan on February 28, 2010 07:08 PMYes. Examples: ending rescission and disqualifications for preexisting conditions.
However, the Republicans WILL NOT accept several of the big features of the Democratic bill. Mandates and "minimum standards" requirements for health insurance are unconstitutional (in many ways), and will be rejected. If the Dems insist on things like that, they won't ever get Republican support. They know this. When they said they were reaching out for bipartisanship, they lied. They were, in fact, just playing politics by putting on a show for the people so they could (falsely) claim they tried to reach out to Republicans when they ram it through reconciliation in an unprecedented way, bypassing the filibuster.
The Democrats decided to do reconciliation weeks ago. But they know it makes them look bad, so they came up with this just so they could soften the inevitable blow when they do it.
It seems to me that if not, it's hard to make a claim that either side was interested in compromise or bipartisanship.
Again, just to drive the point home here: you're making no sense, really. The Republicans have many times said they would accept certain Democratic proposals. They know they are in the minority and cannot get exactly what they want. But there's a difference between compromise by agreeing on some matters, and surrender by agreeing on others. Not all proposals are equal, and many are simply unacceptable to Republicans and other people who respect the Constitution and liberty (yes, I am saying Obama and the Democrats do not respect the Constitution and liberty, in case I wasn't clear enough).
The Republicans have clearly shown a willingness to compromise for bipartisanship. The Democrats have not, at all. Not once. They have only shown a willingness to compromise to win individual votes, not to win Republican support.
I don't blame them for this: they are the majority. If they don't want Republican support, well, they're stupid (no major social reform has ever passed Congress without bipartisan support, let alone the support of the nation's voters), but it's their right to forge ahead without the Republicans or the voters.
I blame them simply for the deception and lies.
"Was it over when the Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"
Joe Biden:
"Look, John's last-minute economic plan does nothing to tackle the number-one job facing the middle class, and it happens to be, as Barack says, a three-letter word: jobs. J-O-B-S, jobs."
Joe Szilagyi:
"There's really only a single large entitlement program where we spend a lot of money with negligible return, though. The military."
Meanwhile, this could be an explanation for the terrible policies (like this one) from Obama.
There are 270 million covered and 30 million not covered - the basic crux is that what Dem pols are out to do is to add a new entitlement program to garner more control of people and plunge us deeper into debt. The vote will be controversial and will cause a bigger rift between the two parties - pass or no pass. The soft tyranny continues - will this lead to a revolution ??
Posted by: KDS on March 2, 2010 09:31 PMPeople (liberals) who sit there and fall for this crap are really stupid. "Look! Doctors!"