
Though the health care bill is far from signed, one thing is becoming clear - when it does become law, some of the reforms won't kick in for several years.
Political hands are worried that delay could spell trouble in the 2010 midterm Congressional elections and, tougher still, in 2012 when President Obama starts a reelection bid.
"It's a huge problem, a bigger picture problem," said James Boyce, a Democratic consultant who has worked on presidential campaigns and who advises the team behind Public Option Please.
Boyce said the Democrats could very well lose majority next year, and if that happens "none of the reform would happen anyway, and we would have had this whole debate for nothing."
"2013 is an incredibly long time given the seriousness of this situation and the need to reform the health care industry," Boyce said. "If the Democrats aren't even willing to draw a line in the sand and make this happen while they were in charge, they should be humiliated and they would deserve to lose."
A source familiar with the 2010 campaigns said the earlier the better from a political perspective.
"With so many people struggling right now with rising health care costs, the earlier that the reforms kick in the more danger Republicans will be in for standing in the way," the source told TPMDC.
"In 2010, if people feel that someone fought to lower the costs of their health care, they'll be rewarded at the ballot box," the source said.
The White House has repeatedly dismissed worries along these lines, saying that Obama wants a bill as quickly as possible and that the broad parameters he's outlined will help millions of Americans.
That's one reason Democrats have been talking about reforms that will kick in immediately.
As Politico has reported, some Democrats are trying to get the benefits sped up, and they may succeed.
agio
December 9, 2009 4:11 PM
"If the Democrats aren't even willing to draw a line in the sand and make this happen while they were in charge, they should be humiliated and they would deserve to lose."
But the real losers -- undeservedly -- will be the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
December 10, 2009 8:32 AM in reply to agio
With the delay to 2013 and the trigger, this will give a lot Americans sufficient time to get sick and die. Problem solved for a few million.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 4:28 PM
Hahaha concern trolling from a journalist. Thanks but no thanks TPM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 4:32 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Boyce does good work but this article is meaningless. Unless you happen to be friends with Ms. Bellantoni as Mr. Boyce is. Gotta do better than this TPM.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 9, 2009 5:39 PM in reply to Shrubbit
What are you talking about? Do you honestly think that having people watch their premiums go up, while they get the same cruddy insurance next year and the year after is going to reflect well on health care reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 5:49 PM in reply to destor23
I don't believe that's what will happen. Do YOU believe that Obama and the Dems will pass this bill with no real, solid reform to point to in the short-term? I'd say I doubt it, but that doesn't adequately express how much I doubt it!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 6:01 PM in reply to Shrubbit
See my">http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/12/health-care-relief-in-2013-giving-dems-heartburn.php#comment-3699238">my post below for "early deliverables."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
December 9, 2009 7:44 PM in reply to Shrubbit
2013 was a reasonable date given the need to establish the Exchange and negotiate with insurance companies. And both bills have provisions for an interim high risk plan plus many of the insurance reforms and premium limitations kick in right away.
But if we are going the Medicare/Medicaid expansion route combined with a package of insurance reforms then I don't see why this couldn't be moved up to 2011. 2010 is just silly, the idea that you could have anything in place and functioning in a way that would allow people to make a judgement in less than a year was never going to happen even if they met the original August 'deadline'. And I don't believe even if they get a narrow majority that Republicans will just be able to pull the plug on this if and when they convene in Jan 2011, what are they just going to say that pre-existing conditions will just not be covered? Once the front-loaded insurance reforms are in place insurance companies HAVE to move forward, they need the mandate to survive in that new market.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 10:29 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
If they move it up to 2011 the price tag to the Fed. gov't. goes up. And since Obama set this artificial 900b ceiling...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
December 9, 2009 8:44 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Seriously? Maybe you've seen the awesome credit card reform bill? How's that going?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
December 9, 2009 4:38 PM
I totally agree with this article and if they don't do something, we're toast.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CN
December 9, 2009 6:17 PM in reply to Andreams
Sigh.
Voter: "Hey Democrat, why should I vote to re-elect you? Why haven't I seen this health care reform you promised?"
Democrat: "It got delayed until next year by the Republicans. They didn't want you to have health care at all. And if you vote the Republicans back into power, they'll take away health care reform before you ever see it -- you'll never get it at all."
Voter: "Oh."
Problem -- or should I say "problem" -- solved.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ronbyers
December 9, 2009 8:03 PM in reply to CN
Actually, the conversation might go on,
Voter: "How many Republicans voted for health care, anyway?"
Democrat: "None."
Voter: "Explain again, how the delay is the fault of the Republicans."
No, the article is dead on point. The Democrats aren't going to get much bang for the buck in 2010 and 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 10:33 PM in reply to ronbyers
It's a silly accounting fiddle. The bill has to come in under 900b, (says a President who's afraid to take on the medical establishment). This is the problem with looking at the cost to the US govt (a CBO score) rather than total cost to the US economy (requiring a CBO analysis).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mauimom
December 10, 2009 10:51 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
But somehow there's no need to "score" the effect of the Afghanistan "surge" on the deficit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AdAbsurdum
December 9, 2009 4:47 PM
Josh addressed this recently.
The scenario at best appears to be mixed, with some benefits kicking in with good timing, others left past the next presidential election. With the 2010 elections less than eleven months down the road, there will be little to show then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
December 9, 2009 5:16 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Everyone seems agreed that the delays could be problematic for the Dems. What I have yet to see discussed -- by Josh, by Ms. Bellantoni, by any pundit, certainly not by the Democratic leadership -- is WHY the lawmakers have bought into such ridiculous lead times.
The House bill, as I understand it, has some aspects kicking in only in 2013; the Senate bill delays some changes till 2014. We're still in 2009, folks. If affordable health care has really hit the wall -- and it has -- there's no excuse for this kind of gradual phase-in.
NONE.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Matt Jones
December 9, 2009 5:17 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Here's the question I've never seen an answer to: WHY? Exactly what about the exchanges (or whatever they're calling them now) is so difficult that it takes 4 YEARS to create? Why is it that a $17 trillion dollar bailout / support package for Wall Street can be pulled together over a weekend or two, but this takes forever?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
December 9, 2009 5:32 PM in reply to Matt Jones
I suspect, Matt, that some Democratic strategists have made a crude (but faulty) calculation that rolling out parts of the "reform" in installments will reap the party electoral benefits. I think the exact opposite will occur. When people see the "reform" hasn't eased their particular health-care problems in 2010, then in 2011, then in 2013 -- well, they won't blame Republicans for trying to derail this bill, they'll blame the Democrats for passing off this piece of crap as progress.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 9, 2009 5:42 PM in reply to acanuck
banning denial for pre-existing conditions,
* Big win but not one that will effect most people.
banning recision,
* big win but not one that most people have to deal with.
forcing insurance companies to use 90% of premium revenue for health services.
* meaningless if premiums keep rising.
medicare buy-in,
* most people will not be able to buy into medicare and will instead have the same insurance they have now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 9, 2009 5:43 PM in reply to destor23
Sorry, that was to shrubbit below.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 5:53 PM in reply to destor23
Largely we agree.
Actually, looks like banning denial for pre-existing conditions won't happen until 2014 -- as the bill sits now
http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/2009/12/09/us/politics/AP-US-Health-Care-Comparing-the-Bills.html
Again, this isn't news. This isn't even done yet on the Senate side and still needs to be reconciled.
I stand by my previous post in that I totally disagree with the character and substance of this article.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 5:59 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Senate Democratic leadership compiled a list of early "deliverables."
Access to Affordable Coverage for the Uninsured with Pre-existing Conditions
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide $5 billion in immediate federal support for a new program to provide affordable coverage to uninsured Americans with pre-existing conditions.
- Coverage under this program will continue until new Exchanges are operational.
Re-insurance for Retiree Health Benefit Plans
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will create immediate access to re-insurance for employer health plans providing coverage for early retirees.
- This re-insurance will help protect coverage while reducing premiums for employers and retirees.
Closing the Coverage Gap in the Medicare (Part D) Drug Benefit
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will reduce the size of the “donut hole” by raising the ceiling on the initial coverage period by $500 in 2010.
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will also guarantee 50 percent price discounts on brand-name drugs and biologics purchased by low and middle-income beneficiaries in the coverage gap.
Small Business Tax Credits
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will offer tax credits to small businesses to make employee coverage more affordable.
- Tax credits of up to 50 percent of premiums will be available to firms that choose to offer coverage.
Extension of Dependent Coverage for Young Adults
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require insurers to permit children to stay on family policies until age 26.
Free Prevention Benefits
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require coverage of prevention and wellness benefits and exempt these benefits from deductibles and other cost-sharing requirements in public and private insurance coverage.
No Arbitrary Limits on Coverage
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will prohibit insurers from imposing lifetime limits on benefits and will restrict the use of annual limits.
Protection from Rescissions of Existing Coverage
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will stop insurers from rescinding insurance when claims are filed, except in cases of fraud or intentional misrepresentation of material fact.
Prohibits Discrimination Based on Salary
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will prohibit group health plans from establishing any eligibility rules for health care coverage that have the effect of discriminating in favor of higher wage employees.
Ensuring Value for Premium Payments
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will establish standards for insurance overhead to ensure that premiums are spent on health benefits.
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will also require public disclosure of overhead and benefit spending and require premium rebates for insurers that exceed established standards for overhead expenses.
Public Access to Comparable Information on Insurance Options
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will enable creation of a new website to provide information on and facilitate informed consumer choice of insurance options.
Health Insurance Consumer Information
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will provide assistance to States in establishing offices of health insurance consumer assistance or health insurance ombudsman programs to assist individuals with the filing of complaints and appeals, enrollment in a health plan, and, eventually, to assist consumers with resolving problems with tax credit eligibility.
Clear Summaries, Without the Fine Print
- The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act will require insurance companies to outline coverage options using a simple and standard format that enables consumers to make an apples-to-apples comparison when they are choosing their health insurance plan.
Appeals Process
- Under The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all health plans will implement an effective appeals process for appeals of coverage determinations and claims.
Administrative Simplification
- Under the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, all health plans will adopt uniform descriptions of plan benefits and appeals procedures and will use uniform forms and claims processing processes to reduce costs.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/1109/Major_reforms_delayed_until_2014.html
Yes I hate Politico too. Only source I could find on a quick search.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 6:00 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Maybe I should email that to Ms. Bellantoni, whaddya think?
That was posted to Politico 11/18. Again, none of this is news.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 10:54 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Many of those reforms shift cost. The bill ensconces a disastrously wasteful system - or patchwork of systems - in law. It addresses the coverage problem and some aspects of fairness (ignoring others) without looking at cost effectiveness. Premiums and drug prices will continue to rise (as will provider fees and overhead) for the foreseeable future. People won't vote for the Democrats on talking points. They'll vote for them based on what happens to their premiums. Fed'l subsidies to make hc affordable shift cost to taxpayers and national debt.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
destor23
December 9, 2009 7:28 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Thanks Shrubbit, sorry for being so strident but I really think the author here is onto a legitimate worry. There's no concern trolling here...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 10, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to destor23
I accept your apology, but you certainly don't need to apologize to me for being strident, as I'm guilty too.
This is the kind of agreeable disagreement that politics is SUPPOSED to be about.
I happen to totally disagree with you and find 90% of the comments here to be not concern "trolling" per se -- with the exception of "Silence" -- but to exhibit concern to the point where it is obvious that the left-most portion of the progressive movement fails to understand the need for compromise on basic issues. I am for single-payer. I am for a strong public option. I am for this compromise as a political reality and what amounts to real substantive change of a fatally flawed system.
The other thing I would say is that this is concern about the political nature of the legislation. Simply: F*** THAT.
We are BETTER than the Republicans who put every policy, every government hire, every govt agency through a political lens.
The minute the Dems stand for permanent majority versus doing what is RIGHT is the minute I give up politics for good. It ain't gonna happen. Worried about 2010? Stop railing on about compromise and start getting the viral word out about the benefit of this legislation rather than picking apart timelines. And while we're at it, there are a whole shitload of other issues on the horizon.
For example, spread this PDF on the climate emails virally:
http://www.pewclimate.org/docUploads/east-anglia-cru-hacked-emails-12-07-09.pdf
Write letters to eds on that pdf. Let's get out ahead on Climate leg and cap/trade.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
December 9, 2009 6:54 PM in reply to Matt Jones
I wonder the same thing about the exchanges. They could set it up and offer us the exact plans already available to congress. That would take no time, little money, and would give the dems a much needed boost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Shrubbit
December 9, 2009 5:27 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
If "little to show" includes:
banning denial for pre-existing conditions,
banning recision,
forcing insurance companies to use 90% of premium revenue for health services,
medicare buy-in,
etc.....
...then sign me up.
If Obama signs this package this month, or something roughly similar, then we have the better part of 8 months to campaign on the most popular parts of reform (the bans).
Don't forget the truly historic nature of this reform legislation. 100 years we've been waiting for hcr people, 100 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
December 9, 2009 5:50 PM in reply to Shrubbit
None of the things you cite will necessarily lower premiums, which are already prohibitive for many people. Some will actually be used as excuses to raise premiums.
I see no competition from a public plan (open to all) that would drive down premiums. And I doubt the Senate plan will include repeal of the insurance industry's anti-trust exemption.
In which case the insurers will have a golden opportunity (and every incentive) to jack up premiums even higher and pin the blame on "Obamacare."
If you believe that simply won't happen, please explain why not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
December 9, 2009 6:29 PM in reply to Shrubbit
Bans in theory aren't necessarily bans in practice. There's little historic about this bill. It essentially affirms the status quo power of the insurance industry and I expect they'll be figuring out how to get around those bans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acanuck
December 9, 2009 7:01 PM in reply to bluebell
There's already an anti-rescission law on the books, I understand, but nobody has bothered to put any effort into enforcing it. Outlawing it again won't in itself do anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 9, 2009 8:06 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
I'm assuming higher taxes next year. That's good, right? Skyrocketing energy prices and big payroll taxes will create lots of jobs.
I don't understand how that works, but I guess you folks have it all figured out. Those complaining entrepreneurs are just plain stupid. Who needs them anyway.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JNagarya
December 10, 2009 3:43 PM in reply to Silence
Those payroll taxes haven't existed under Busit, and don't exist now. And where are the jobs being created.
STFU, "Silence": the reality is that tax cuts for those who don't need them don't create jobs, except perhaps for money-counters in banks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 10:36 PM in reply to AdAbsurdum
Most voters already have insurance, so they won't be affected (immediately) by guaranteed issue and rescission ban. But they are spending more and more of their budget on health insurance in premiums, co-pays and deductibles. On balance, this is very bad for Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
December 10, 2009 8:42 AM in reply to AdAbsurdum
So with these early enacted reforms on pre-existing conditions, etc., you ain't seen nothing yet on the rise of insurance premiums. Since they will have to pay for these expansions of coverage, insurance companies will have to cover their costs. Premiums will go through the roof. The CBO does not score that, but our own family budgets will and it won't be pretty.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
December 9, 2009 5:32 PM
the overriding concern about elections and hurrying up for elections must be that changing the way the game is played I've heard about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
December 9, 2009 5:43 PM
Is it actually possible to create a nationwide health care exchange covering up to 20% of the U.S. population in three years? What on earth makes you think it is? Do you think that the idea is that they just open an office in DC and suddenly 10 million people are getting insurance through it? At a minimum, things I can think of that would have to happen for the exchange (and the subsidies paid through the exchange) to go online are that deals with providers in every state would have to be struck, funding lines will have to be set up, businesses and individuals would have to be contacted and told how to sign up for the program and given time to send their forms in, and policies will have to be written on how all this works, and tons of people to perform all this work will have to be hired, and buildings to put them all in will have to be found. This is a major undertaking! If the public option somehow survives, it will be an even larger undertaking.
The whole "three years is too long" thing seems to me to be the epitome of blogger types thinking in abstract political terms and never in terms of "okay, but how do we do it?"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 10, 2009 4:59 AM in reply to mcc
EXACTLY.
in the last few weeks, i've become as disgusted with the far left as i am with the far right. i used to think that at least the far left was smarter than the goofballs out on the right. i stand corrected, however. just as stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
December 10, 2009 8:44 AM in reply to nova voter
Yes, and equating people who want a public option with those who think Obama is an alien is very intelligent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
December 9, 2009 5:46 PM
They just realized this?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 9, 2009 6:06 PM in reply to Rich in NJ
Haha! Dems are slow! Fortunately, there IS still time to speed it up (unless their shrinking cerebellums again prevail).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 9, 2009 5:47 PM
Yes, SPEED IT UP! I think they will. They know that not doing so would be suicide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mike
December 9, 2009 6:19 PM
What will hurt the Democrats chances in 2010 is not getting anything done. The Republicans know it and are trying to stop any meaningful legislation. Getting health care reform passed then working many other high priority items in 2010 will be a winning hand for the Democrats. If they can't do that, their base will stay home on voting day.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
twirling fartknocker
December 9, 2009 6:40 PM
TPM loves the "sky is falling" posts, over and over and over. if I didn't take these things with a pound of salt, I'd have an ulcer by now. don't believe the hype
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaosJohn
December 9, 2009 7:20 PM
This is so patently absurd, to pass something that won't actually help anyone for years... of COURSE it will hurt them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 10:45 PM in reply to TaosJohn
Right you are. And they're stuck with it as long as they're trying to live within this arbitrary 900b limit set by the Obama admin. They're only looking at the cost to the US govt, not total cost...where some form of single- or all-payer saves the total economy billions every year.
The Dems are much better off killing this (or letting Lieberman and Burris kill it off), blaming Republicans, and coming back immediately (2010) with health care reform (instead of health insurance industry welfare).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lamonth
December 9, 2009 7:25 PM
its easy dems, if you screw the middleclass you are going to get screwed during elections time and this bill from what i have read and heard definitely screws the middleclass
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ilovebacon
December 9, 2009 8:38 PM in reply to lamonth
Uhm... WRONG!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kali Star
December 9, 2009 8:05 PM
you betcha
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TJ1
December 9, 2009 8:18 PM
Genius Democratic Leadership
What can you say to a Leadership that puts together legislation that gives your opponent a hammer to use against you in the next election, then, when things turn around, they get to reap the credit if they take over. fucking brilliant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mauimom
December 10, 2009 10:56 AM in reply to TJ1
Thank you, TJ1. I totally agree.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
December 9, 2009 8:22 PM
I think the lag in benefits is the mirror of the deficit bullshit--they are taxing early and spending late, so that the 10 year picture fits the *procustean bed that Prez was so eager to jump in(to scramble a metaphor...)
*"not a dime added to the deficit"
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 10:56 PM in reply to jollyroger
Thank you! Beginning to wonder whether it was only me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 9, 2009 9:11 PM
maybe this was said before, and lord knows, i don't know much about the legislative process, but if reform is passed via the "normal" process (i.e., not the reconciliation process with whatever sunset/renewal provisions that carries), wouldn't it be pretty difficult for republicans to roll back reform? they'd have to have 60 in the senate, a majority in the house, and a republican president. that means you have to assume a catastrophic political event for reform to get rolled back before 2013.
or am i way off base there process-wise?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
December 9, 2009 10:06 PM in reply to nova voter
off base there process-wise?
I don't think there is a "lock" on future legislative meddling whether reconciliation or cloture is the road forward.
The next congress would have the same powers to undo prior legislation as any other (assuming a signing president...) and they would be free to use reconciliation (assuming the Byrd Rule permitted/or the Parliamentarian's assent guaranteed (not a real problem since service is at the pleasure of the majority)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 9, 2009 9:17 PM
U.S. already $292 bln in the red this year - CBO
Fri Dec 4, 2009 6:11pm EST
Related News
"WASHINGTON, Dec 4 (Reuters) - The U.S. government racked up a gaping shortfall in the first two months of this fiscal year after posting a record budget deficit last year, congressional analysts said on Friday.
In October and November, the government spent $292 billion more than it took in, the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said.
That was even worse than the same period last year, when the government was on its way to posting a record $1.4 trillion deficit for the fiscal year that ended Sept. 30.
The federal budget has been battered by the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression of the 1930s, as tax revenues have plunged and spending on safety-net programs like unemployment insurance have skyrocketed.
The budget deficit was $176.4 billion in October, according to Treasury Department records, and the CBO estimated the deficit for November will have come in at $115 billion.
The CBO gave its figures in billions of dollars and said numbers may not add up to the totals because of rounding.
Receipts totaled $132 billion in November, the CBO estimated, down 9 percent from the same month last year. That was partly due to new legislation that gives increased tax write-offs to corporations."
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN0418093920091204
Obama sure loves the big corporations. They come to the WH frequently. Too bad there won't be any money left for health care.
So, what's another 100 years?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
December 9, 2009 9:33 PM
2013? What a joke. This is like the toothless credit card "reform" they passed after making sure to give the banks plenty of time (and a new excuse)to screw their cardholders over before it's weak provisions take effect.
The Democrats, in particular the Senate Democrats and Obama, are worse than nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
December 9, 2009 9:47 PM in reply to tommyo
yeah, those terrible, terrible democrats. and that terrible, terrible obama. how DARE they pass this legislation and implement sweeping changes over a 2-year period. who the hell can wait 2 years???? nevermind that NOTHING has been done for 100 years. and nevermind the scope and complexities of the changes that are called for by the legislation. because not only are you an amnesiac, but you could just snap your fingers and get it done.
until you understand the scope of what's going to be needed under this legislation, maybe you should can the invective.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joe
December 9, 2009 10:02 PM
It only took 9 months from Medicare's enactment until it was up and running. The reason the Democrats are stalling health care reform is that they have been bought off by the lobbyists. They enacted a deliberately ineffective program that will easily be repealed when the Republicans take Congress back in 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
December 9, 2009 10:15 PM in reply to Joe
take Congress back in 2010.
Do you then anticipate so great a reversal of present status that the new Repugnant majority you envision will be veto-proof?
I don't think that enough Dem senators are at risk in 2010.
I hope this relieves your anxiety.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
December 9, 2009 10:29 PM
It really doesn't matter so much what they pass or when it kicks in, as the perception of the voters matters. If the Democrats stick to their guns and proclaim victory at every opportunity, it'll be the end of the GOP for the next generation. If they backtrack and second guess and let the GOP off the mat, all bets are off.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 11:03 PM in reply to runfastandwin
People will vote with their premiums and health care spending as a percentage of their personal/family budgets. This bill doesn't really address that. The CBO score only looks at the effect of the legislation on the deficit, not total health care spending. The time to sell legislation is before you pass it. Once it's passed, people vote based on the consequences of the legislation on their daily lives. With a mandate and Federal subsidies for insurers, this is a big win for industry. Families and individuals will continue to experience skyrocketing premiums, co-pays and deductibles.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
masanf
December 9, 2009 10:30 PM
It would take a miracle that would make turning water into wine look like child's play for the Republicans to get a majority that could withstand a veto and if they win in 2012, they would have to overcome a filibuster, and I don't think anyone thinks they will have a majority in the Senate, much less sixty one seats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
December 9, 2009 10:40 PM
In 1941, late in the year, it became obvious that a major war involving virtually the whole world had to be fought. It too, less than 4 years to do so. That was hardly a simple task, but it was done, and no one that I have heard of said lets make our entry into the war start in 1945.
I see no reason whatever for delaying the implementation of a health care reform law. In fact it should take about 2 years from the signing before every single part of it is in effect. But, that, of course, would reduce the profits and compensation in the health care industry, so it won't happen. This way, as others have pointed out, there is plenty of time to work around the new laws, to jack up insurance rates high enough to maintain the profit/compensation status quo, and with any luck to have the whole thing heavily revised, before more than half of the provisions ever become law. This gives the democrats the credit, without losing the perks from that industry. And, it gives the repubs the credit for "saving" the industry down the road a bit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 11:07 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
Right, leaving the public high and dry. But the public isn't too big to fail. Public = veal pen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
acf_ma
December 9, 2009 11:12 PM
So, complain about the Democrats' performance during this health insurance reform debate and toss them out of the Majority in the next go around? What's the alternative, the Republicans? How well did that work out for the country when they were the majority party? What reform bill did they pass, or even debate? An ineffectual Democratic majority might anger liberals who hoped for better, but compared to Republicans, at least they are trying to make some improvements to our lives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
December 9, 2009 11:44 PM in reply to acf_ma
Worse: if the Republicans won, they'd further fuck up the economy, guearanteeing another Democratic win. We're looking at a deadlocked political future, where noone can get anything done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
3star2nr
December 9, 2009 11:30 PM
they killed the public option They just killed themselves.
Oh and they are now fighitng to let John yoo get away with a war crime.
Theya re so fucked I wouldnt be surprized if Sarah palin wins in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
December 10, 2009 1:56 AM
I will never vote, nor give another 7000$ to the democrats again.
Ever.
This is the final straw for me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
P White
December 10, 2009 6:55 AM
This ain't rocket science folks. Give people some real relief and tangible hope and they will support you. Give them smoke and mirrors, dribs and drabs that might happen after you've lost your health and your home...hello Speaker of the House John Boehner.
I worry that people don't get the warning here. If Dems lose the majority the R's will roll back whatever is left of health care reform. I'm more than a little upset with the Dems, but I cannot fathom a world where the Inhoffe's and the likes of Steve King have power.
This is what comes from not doing the right thing. Congress and the WH really don't fathom what bad shape people are in. They think they can squeak by with this do nothing plan. It should be obvious by now that you can't 'fix' something that includes the insurance industry and accomodates hospitals and drug companies. You're trying to fix a system that needs to be extinguished.
I don't care if a bunch of Congress people lose their jobs. I care if myself and millions of others are simply going to survive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 10, 2009 7:13 AM
Just a guess. During the next few years, strangling taxes will be imposed, in the name of health care. However, when no one is looking, those taxes will be spent to cover other shortfalls in medicare, SS, medicaid, unemployment benefits, raises for congress and private jets. Health care will go on "permanent" hold due to a devastated national credit rating. Food and shelter will be the crisis of the day. It's a natural law thing.
Crisis, crisis.....always a crisis. Will they ever end?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mauimom
December 10, 2009 11:01 AM in reply to Silence
If it's anything like the present budget, those taxes and deficits will go to pay for Afghanistan and other military ventures.
Go take a look at where the Federal budget dollars go, Sherlock.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 10, 2009 12:11 PM in reply to Mauimom
Sherlock thinks most of it goes toward entitlements and interest.
http://www.federalbudget.com/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
December 10, 2009 7:31 AM
"Chalk up another 500 jobs to the list of jobs President Obama will need to create or save.
A Pittsburgh-based coal company, CONSOL Energy, will lay off nearly 500 of its West Virginia workers next year and its CEO blames environmentalists dead-set against mountaintop mining who have waged “nuisance” lawsuits for the job loss.
But CONSOL Energy’s political problems are not unique to the mining industry, which has suffered under the Obama Administration. The Environmental Protection Agency is already holding 79 surface mining permits in West Virginia, Kentucky, Ohio and Tennessee. The EPA says these permits could violate the Clean Water Act and warrant "enhanced" review. And, agency went even further in October, announcing plans to revoke a permit for the Spruce No. 1 Mine in West Virginia.
The latest setback for the coal industry was announced on Tuesday when CONSOL Energy said close to 500 workers would lose jobs at their Fola Operations location near Bickmore, West Virginia in February 2010."
http://www.washingtontimes.com/weblogs/back-story/2009/dec/09/coal-company-cuts-500-jobs-blames-environmentalist/
Oh, those crazy EPA guys. More food stamps on the horizon.
Food or health care, food or health care. It's a tough one! lol
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mauimom
December 10, 2009 10:49 AM
Well DUH!!
If the Dems hadn't thrown single payer under the bus, excluded progressives from the table, threatened progressive organizations about criticizing their "deals" with Big PhARMA and the insurance companies, and caved at every raised eyebrow of the Republicans, they MIGHT have been able to put together something they'd be proud to attach their name to.
Now, instead, they've got a crap bill. The Republicans must be dancing for joy, thinking about how they're going to hang mandates and escalating premiums, combined with continued worthless coverage, around the necks of Dems for decades to come.
No matter how Obama attempts to describe this as a "landmark" and "success" in his Rose Garden signing ceremony, folks will see and experience it for what it really is: complete capitulation to the insurance companies & drug manufacturers.
I wonder if injuries sustained by being run over by these criminals are covered?
Tip to the clueless Dems: take the Repubs & ConservaDems up on their "threats" and "let" this Frankenstein of a bill fail.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?