[T]hat would have required going back to the committees to refashion a reconciliation bill, and going back to the House of Representatives so it could craft a reconciliation bill, and then going back through the votes. There wasn't time for that, and even if there was, throwing the process so far back onto itself would have been an enormous risk.It's not that simple, folks. Nothing in Congress is. Reconciliation might well result in no bill. Getting the thing out of Committee at all was a Herculean task. Getting both congressional Democratic caucuses to agree on what is potentially the most expensive single piece of legislation in human history with zero political cover isn't exactly like falling off a log.
For a detailed primer on the reconciliation process, head here. The short version is that reconciliation, which short-circuits the filibuster, can only be used for legislation that directly affects the federal budget. Anything that "indirectly" affects the budget -- think insurance regulations, like the ban on preexisting conditions -- would be ineligible.In other words, everything liberals like, we can get through reconciliation. Everything centrists like, they pretty much can't get (They can get some stuff like the cost reductions in medicare, but not anything like the exchange or mandates)
What would be eligible? Well, Medicare buy-in, for one thing. Medicaid expansions. The public option. Anything, in short, that relies on a public program, rather than a new regulation in the private market. That means we'd probably lose the regulations on insurers, many of the delivery-side reforms, the health insurance exchanges, the individual mandate and much else. -- Ezra Klein
"The downside to drumming Joe Lieberman out of the Democratic caucus, as many progressives are eager to do, is that Lieberman is running point (or helping to) on several other major Obama Administration initiatives.Yeah like indefinite detention and Afghanistan, no doubt. Fuck that.
Aside from the link enn posted, one of the major criticisms of the Carter administration was his difficulty in influencing Congress to execute the plans he wanted to implement and an inability to effectively use the way Washington works to enact his policies in several areas.Yeah. I'm pretty sure Obama wanted to keep everyone in power in place so that he could "utilize Washington" and get things done the traditional way. He failed to realize that the republicans were on a kamikaze mission to do everything they could to screw up Obama. Look at all the "centrism" on the stimulus bill. He said he wanted 80 votes. LOL. I mean obviously it was important for the country so of course republicans would be for it, right?
Cutting defense spending to zero wouldn't come anywhere remotely close to funding Medicare for everyone. Just not even in the same ballpark.Uh, hello. Medicare costs less then private insurance, and obviously people under 65 cost a hell of a lot less to insure then people over 65. And anyway, simply redirecting insurance premiums that currently go to private insurance companies would pay for Medicare for all, including people who don't have insurance.
What the fuck? Rahm Emmanuel's sole raison d'etre is supposed to be personally driving to the houses of rotten little pishers like Lieberman, leaving horses' heads in their beds, and threatening the lives of their yet-unborn descendants.I think you have a very strange view of Rahm Emmanuel. This is the guy who built the blue dog caucus. He recruited these people as head of the DCCC. He was never even a proponent of Universal Healthcare, back in congress he argued for simply expanding SCHIP, and medicate rather then universal coverage.
Nate Silver: Why progressives are batshit crazy to oppose the Senate billKeep in Mind, Nate Silver thought the public option was a bad idea to start with. He also thought that going negative against Sarah Palin was a bad idea because Americans had "made up their mind" about her and liked her. Heh. He knows his statistics but as far as political prognostication goes, he leaves a lot to be desired.
I think the Democrats want to use universal health care like the Republicans use abortion: as a carrot to hold out to their base every election year. "You've got to support us! We'll repeal Roe v. Wade this time! We promise!" Only, it never gets done, because it's too valuable as a tool to control the voters.Well, I think a lot of liberals falsely sake Solace in the idea that republicans don't really want to end abortion because then they won't get any votes. But they've been recruiting for decades based on the idea of ending abortion and obviously a lot of people in the ranks want to end it. And they have been very effective at preventing it, if not outright banning it. They're stymied by the supreme court. They have to have the presidency long enough to get enough judges in to get it overturned.
What? He advocated attacking her on culture war issues four days after she was named McCain's running mate. On the day she was picked, he wrote "I've concluded that this is a pick that looks better on paper than in practice. She's charming and likable, but she's about the furthest thing from what we conventionally understand to be "Presidential" as can be imagined."He obviously changed his opinions when it became obvious she was a liability. But when she first came out, he said going negative against her wouldn't work. My point was that he often is wrong about basic politics.
But ultimately, we are in completely uncharted territory here. Palin is the most manifestly ordinary person ever to be nominated for a major party ticket. In this year of bittergate and Britney-gate and McCain-has-seven-houses-gate, that could conceivably be a virtue; it's certainly less tone-deaf than a selection like Mitt Romney would have been.Lol.
But Palin isn't merely playing at being ordinary, the way that Bill Clinton (Rhodes Scholar) or George W. Bush (son of a president) or Hillary Clinton (wife of a president) might. She really, really comes across that way -- like someone who had won a sweepstakes or an essay contest. Her authenticity factor is off-the-charts good; her biography sings. But do Americans really want their next-door-neighbor running for Vice President, or rather someone who seems like one? -- Nate Silver 8/29/2008
So here's my new plan: continue drinking, smoking, and eating myself into an early grave. It's the only way I'll ever leave my family anything but medical debt.If you make it to 65, you get medicare, which is a single payer thing.
delmoi, Nate Silver's argument that this bill will halve the cost of healthcare for many families compared to the status quo seems persuasive. Do you think his figures are wrong? They seem to be his strong point.I said the bill was better then the status quo. The status quo is awful. But less awful isn't good enough. I don't think we should pass up the opportunity to get real reform that gives a healthcare system on par with the rest of the industrialized world (increasingly even developing countries have better healthcare systems then we do. Look at Mexico, for example). Forcing the middle class to subsidize insurance companies isn't much of an improvement and it will delay any real reform for years, or decades.
If you look at this graph from Nate Silver, the Senate bill is still a lot better than nothing. You're letting the perfect be the enemy of the good here.Oh screw that. This is more like a case of the good being the enemy of the weak. The Medicare extension, the public option, etc are not examples of "perfection" they are reasonable, moderate policies. It's possible to use reconciliation to pass something better. If that weren't the case, I would understand caving. But it is.
We need to get this passed. It saves more lives. There will never, and I mean never, be a chance were Obama has this much political capital to get this done. -- IronmouthOh please. What, are you arguing that we should let Joe Liberman hold 22k Americans/year (the number estimated to be killed due to lack of heath insurance) hostage? What position does that put us in? If he's willing to let Americans die, and we're not willing to fight him, then he wins.
dude never campaigned on single-payer, which requires a mandate by the way.But 'dude' did campaign against mandates. How many debates did he and Hillary argue about mandates? It was basically their only specific policy difference.
The public won't accept that, this time. The numbers on this particular bill are pretty fucking bad now.The numbers for "the bill" have always been worse then the numbers for "the bill" and frankly they're about to get worse. Recent polls have shown that 17% of the public were against it for not going far enough. If all you're worried about is what the public will "accept", then frankly you should be opposed to this bill.
Things would be so much easier with a Canadian style universal health plan.Will the government pay the entire premium if I'm unemployed?
Is the government subsidy based solely on income, or is it reduced based on items such as my savings or the value of my house?
How exactly would I inform the government that I needed them to start paying? Or to switch from my previous employer's plan to something on the health exchanges?
How long would this process of switching plans and obtaining government assistance take? Would I even be covered in the interim?
In recent weeks I've read quite a few emails which say something like this: Okay, that's it. I'm done with Obama. He's just like Bush. He's governing from the right. He's disappointed me on this and that and the other. So I'm not voting or I'm voting third party. And let's go ahead and ditch the health care bill because it's not going to have a public option.posted by saulgoodman at 1:10 PM on December 15, 2009 [10 favorites]
It's times like these when the difference between political activism and self-expression and primal scream therapy become really apparent. Politics isn't easy. Political change isn't easy. It includes tons of reverses and inevitably involves not getting a lot of what you wanted, at least not at first. This doesn't mean everyone needs to agree on policy or priorities. People don't agree on things. That's life. But that's different from cashing out of the process if you don't get just what you want.
If this is the only chance for reform in generations, wouldn't it have made more sense to fight for a truly comprehensive bill that actually solved the problem? If you've only got one bite of the apple every couple of decades, it seems remarkably foolish not to really go for broke...And Obama can say that you're getting a lot, but also saying that it "covers everyone," as if there's a big new benefit is a big stretch. Nothing will have changed on that count except changing the law to force people to buy private insurance if they don't get it from their employer...Nobody's "getting covered" here. After all, people are already "free" to buy private insurance and one must assume they have reasons for not doing it already.posted by Staggering Jack at 1:16 PM on December 15, 2009 [6 favorites]
You talk to every health care economist out there, they will tell you that what ever ideas exist in terms of bending the cost curve and starting to reduce cost for families, businesses, and government, those elements are in this bill.... What makes his lie so unbelievable is that Obama’s administration is right now fighting against one of the biggest cost control ideas that the president previously claimed to support. His administration is working to kill Dorgan’s drug re-importation amendment. - Jon Walker
Not enough to avoid slipping into a bad Randy Savage impression during one of his pep rallies, sending everyone into a round-the-clock media-tizzy.Oh please. He also ran the 50-state strategy during his tenure as the DNC chair, helping to get us our 60 senators in the first place. He knows a lot more about national politics then Rahm Emmanuel, who opposed the plan. He may not have the personal charisma and temperament to be a good candidate, but he certainly understands national politics.
If Obama isn't re-elected in 2012, we won't see a Democratic candidate for President to the left of Joe Lieberman for 50 years, mark my words.Oh please. No one can predict 4 years in this country, much less 50. Anyone who says otherwise is an idiot.
Jefferson's "laboratory of democracy" provided a sound solution. Why don't we have state run health care? Could states create government insurance companies under the current senate bill?Some states do. But a national plan, like medicare would have lots of great advantages. And healthcare companies are just as good at lobbying state governments as the federal one.
Ah, so the presiding officer is required to recognize the next person who wants to speak, even if it is to continue a filibuster?They don't have to actually talk either. They just sit there, and demand a quorum vote before any legislation can pass.
I think I'm gonna sit out the 2010 elections unless the Democrats fire Reid and get a new majority leader who actually knows how to run a majority.Actually, Reid may not even be back in the senate at all in 2010.
Didn't employers start offering coverage because they could get it cheaper, buying it in large blocks and so having more leverage power? I don't see how making it harder for employers to provide coverage would do anything but make things even worse for people.The big reason is that it's not taxed, so it provides a way to provide part of a person's salary tax free. But it's a really stupid system. In particular it locks down the labor market and discourages entrepreneurship.
Snowe spoke to President Barack Obama on Monday and met Tuesday morning with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and his staff to go over the outlines of the latest compromise version of the healthcare bill.She sure is getting a lot of face time with the President. As of yet, no word on whether the House Progressives are going to get the meeting they requested. - mcjoan
This thing was decided the moment. Olympia Snowe voted for this bill out of committee and stated that she would introduce a triggered public option. From that moment Lieberman knew that if he wanted to maximize his leverage, he had to position himself to Snowe's right. As long as one Democrat was to her right, he was golden. These are just facts. You can't argue with them.What the hell are you talking about? Lieberman doesn't have to vote for this just because he had the other position in the past. He doesn't give a shit about consistency, and he sure as hell hasn't been 'outmanuvered'. And furthermore, Snow has said she wouldn't vote for a bill with the Medicare expansion. If you think Obama "won" something by making Lieberman look bad as he (Lieberman) succeeded in getting the public option and the medicare expansion taken out of the bill, you're delusional.
But in the end, Lieberman was outmanuvered. Obama called his bluff. As video of Lieberman taking the opposite position leaked out, the Dems had their 60.
The White House is playing hardball with Democrats who intend to vote [spoiler], threatening freshmen who oppose it that they won't get help with reelection and will be cut off from the White House, Rep. Lynn Woolsey (D-Calif.) said Friday. "We're not going to help you. You'll never hear from us again," Woolsey said the White House is telling freshmen.The spoiler, of course, being that Obama was using his power to get dems to vote for the war supplemental bill. I guess Obama has no power over democrats on a public option, just on the war bill.
My point was that Lieberman always intended, from the beginning, to make sure that he held the key position because of the GOP's solid hand on the filibuster. So he had to make sure that Snowe did not vote for the bill making his position superfulous. -- IronmouthExcept that Snowe has the same requirements as Lieberman. And now Ben nelson is running around saying we need a Stupak-like amendment banning abortion for him to vote for it, meaning Lieberman may still be needed, even with snow to get sixty votes. And by the way, Snowe has lately been saying she doesn't even want a trigger.
When she said she'd introduce a triggered public option amendment, he came out and said no public option ever. Now he's to her right. That puts her in a bad spot with the GOP and her own primary voters. Because if her vote is decisive, she's a traitor. -- IronmouthWhat does that have to do with Lieberman? Look. Lieberman said he wanted no public option, no trigger, no Medicare expansion. And he got it. How is that being 'outmaneuvered' in any sense? I mean what you're saying just makes no sense.
This is straight up politics.-- IronmouthLol, in comparison to everything else that happens in DC, apparently?
I'm OK with that, as long as you cover every fucking medical bankruptcy from here until the "real" reform you want is passed.-- IronmouthThere are still going to be medical bankruptcies if this bill passes. Most medical bankruptcies happen to people who have the kind of shitty insurance that the bill mandates. Co-pays, uncovered expenses, and of course coverage caps (now that they're back in) are going to mean a lot of people get screwed, even with this legislation. Frankly, I'd be surprised if it had much of an impact overall.
Lifetime limits will be abolished. -- IronmouthNo, idiot, the restriction on annual caps has been removed from the bill. Unless you're going to live forever, an annual cap is a lifetime cap. Like Franken said, you're not entitled to your own facts. And annual caps are actually a lot worse then lifetime caps.
I'm sure Joe Lieberman is terrified at the prospect of losing his seat and being forced to cry, cry, cry his way to the bank when he becomes an an insurance industry lobbyist. – mullingitoverWhy wait? his wife already works for them and obviously if they're married he gets to share her money.
Your assertion, your burden of proof. You can't just say "they didn't vote for what I wanted, therefore they are bribed!" You have to stand behind your assertions with evidence. First, show me the actual donations and the actual votes. -- IronmouthHere's Nate Silver's detailed statistical Analysis of how donations have been effecting the healthcare debate. That campaign money influences vote outcomes isn't even a controversial issue. You're argumentation strategy often revolves around asking for specific pieces of information and hoping that you're opponents are too dumb to figure out how to find it. Like the other day when you asked for people to name specific bankers, as if they couldn't it would prove that bankers aren't really influencing congress.
But what alternate route do you propose taking to get a bill that would amount to a victory? The legislative process works the way it works (or doesn't work, as the case may be), and it's no coincidenceFor fuck sake. How many times has reconciliation been discussed in this thread? Are you even reading it?
And of those pushing for the use of reconciliation, the aide concluded, "A bunch of people that watched 'Schoolhouse Rock' growing up think that they understand how the Senate works, and they don’t."posted by saulgoodman at 12:51 PM on December 16, 2009
...
Ultimately, passing a reform bill with reconciliation is "feasible," Dove says, but the resulting legislation "would not be pretty, and it couldn't contain a lot of things that people want to be in it."
Follow the debate. I suggest www.talkingpointsmemo.com -- IronmouthOkay:
The NBC/Wall Street Journal poll coming out later today will show opposition to the health care bill growing -- mainly from disappointed liberals, who are very much disappointed to see the public option getting thrown out.(but seriously, you don't think I'm aware of TPM? I linked to it in my second comment in this thread. You think maybe that's where I read articles like "Reid Assures Snowe That Public Option, Medicare Buy-In Are Dead").
The poll has 47% saying the Obama health care plan is a bad idea, to only 32% who say it's a good idea.
Wrong, Wrong, Wrong. Snowe stated she was going to offer a "triggered" public option. Lieberman quickly then said no public option, triggered or not. These are facts. -- IronmouthLike I said in the comment you were replying too, even if Snowe supports the bill with triggers Ben Nelson has said he won't vote for it without stupak-like abortion limits which means that even with Snowe, Lieberman is still needed. You completly ignored that even though you responded to the other part of my comment. I think you're the one who's paying less attention here. You're also seem to be unaware of the annual coverage caps, which have been talked about quite a bit in this very thread.
Even Russ Feingold will oppose reconciliation: -- IronmouthThere is a difference between "not thinking reconciliation is a good idea" and seemingly being unaware of it as a possibility. Yes, it's true that we have the congress we have, but it's not true that this particular path is the only one available. Many of the things that people want (see my ezra klien post in the begining of the thread) are doable through reconciliation. And with only a 50 vote threshold, rather then a 60 vote threshold, the major anti-health-reform democrats Lieberman, Landrieu, Baucus, Nelson, Bayh, and Lincoln wouldn't be needed.
Switzerland and the Netherlands both have universal health insurance with private insurance companies. Are you saying that they should abolish universal insurance coverage simply because some of the funds for it ends up in private hands? -- jonp72Yes, obviously that's what we all want. For Switzerland and the Netherlands to give up universal coverage * rolls eyes *. And btw, Switzerland's healthcare system is one of the most expensive in the world, not as bad as the U.S. but very expensive compared to it's neighbors.
Still of all the countries with universal health care, Switzerland’s is the most market-oriented and merits discussion. Switzerland’s health care spending as a percentage of GDP is second only behind the U.S. (11.6% of GDP for Switzerland, 15.3% for the U.S. according to Frontline)---
I have never seen "agitation" or a "movement" ever get any significant number of people elected to the U.S. Congress. Ever. Frankly, I've never seen "agitation" or a "movement"Lol, how many times did Obama call his support "a movement" The answer is: A lot. But I guess that wasn't a congressional election so it doesn't count.
Read the entire thread. Names were given hours ago. And they include Feingold. -- IronmouthYou think Feingo
posted by billysumday at 7:23 AM on December 15, 2009 [12 favorites]