TPMDC
House Doesn't Trust White House or Senate On Health Care
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., House Education Chairman George Miller, D-Calif., House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., House Transportation Chairman James L. Oberstar, D-Minn., and House Appropriations Chairman David R. Obey, D-Wis., during a news conference.
Share
Send to a friend!
House Democrats are dramatically divided on how to get health care passed in part because they don't trust the White House or Senate to live up to their promises.
TPMDC has been speaking with House Democratic leadership aides, administration officials and those close to the health care negotiations to get a sense of where the talks are going, if anywhere.
We've sketched out the plans being floated by members, but a big hangup is that more than half of House Democrats don't want to pass the Senate version of the bill with the promise that the bigger differences they've already been hammering out would be fixed with a second bill.
The bottom line is that many members feel betrayed by the White House and Senate and just don't trust that a fix would pass. If their fears pan out, members would be left with a more conservative bill than they passed last fall, and none of the compromises they negotiated with union leaders on how to pay for health care.
Members feel President Obama showed deference to his old colleagues in the Senate from the beginning of the health care discussions and the House was rolled each step in the way.
"Everyone in the house feels like the White House bent over backwards to engage the Senate and they didn't get anything for it anyway," one leadership aide told TPMDC.
Rank-and-file members are irritated because they told the White House they would get to 218 votes to pass their bill, and they delivered.
"They are frustrated the White House fell for all the talk in the Senate that they thought they could make [their bill] bipartisan," the aide said. "Members don't trust the Senate, they definitely don't trust the White House to come back and fix any of this."
Others said that more than half of rank-and-file members would rather sacrifice some of the elements of the bill they like by seeking another Senate Republican's support to pass a compromise bill, rather than swallow the Senate bill as is.
Members on the House side also feel they would be the ones to suffer at the ballot box in November if voters see health care stall.
The conversations that have taken place about how to move forward frequently include the word "could" as Democrats consider their options but are far from reaching any conclusions.
House aides say repeatedly they are looking to the White House for guidance, but the administration has aimed for a hands-off (for now) approach to let the "dust settle" following the Massachusetts election.
Check out TPMDC's running tally of where members stand here.
Comments (288) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
IndyLinda
January 22, 2010 6:38 PM
"Members on the House side also feel they would be the ones to suffer at the ballot box in November if voters see health care stall."
Yup. All the more reason for them to quit whining and get it done. It's kind of amazing to think how much of this boils down to "Wah, the president was nicer to the Senate than he was to us."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 6:45 PM in reply to IndyLinda
I think the House should make the Senate & White House show they are serious about making the fixes through reconciliation. The House has walked the plank on a lot of tough votes the past year. They took that tough cap and trade vote only to watch it die in the Senate. There's no trust left for the White House or the Senate.
If they can't get a commitment from the Senate to use reconciliation to make the fixes, at least they'll know up front that they are voting for a Senate bill that won't be amended. If they vote for the bill thinking it will be fixed later and the Senate bails, there will be a total schism between the two houses.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 7:46 PM in reply to FreeRider
Your right. The House HAS done its job.
The Senate? Sucks. Bad. Corrupt. Entitled. Worthless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
January 22, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to willia451
All of which doesn't solve the problem. They're the only ones who have a realistic path to getting this done, and they're not doing it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 22, 2010 9:56 PM in reply to IndyLinda
The Senate has been given an offer to fix the bill through reconciliation. I'd like to see them respond to before claiming that the House should just go ahead and pass the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:28 PM in reply to willia451
"Your right. The House HAS done its job."
Their job ended? I thought they still have their fucking jobs? Or does it entail sitting on their fucking hands and SULKING AND WHINING FOR DAYS AND DAYS??????????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 23, 2010 7:48 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
I think it entails negotiating to get the bill as close to the caucus member's objectives as possible. That is their job. And they are in a VERY strong position to extract heavy concessions.
Who cares if it takes a couple of weeks? America HATES the senate bill. Democrats are far better off letting the narrative die down and following Obama's lead in focusing on the bankers - which everyone hates.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 24, 2010 2:20 AM in reply to kgb999
Republicans hate bankers? Who knew?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eggroll
January 23, 2010 3:34 AM in reply to willia451
Good point. I got out my copy of the US constitution and reread Article I. Legislative Department. What is interesting is that the country is seen sort of as a franchise, forward-looking to admission of new states and growing the business. Essentially, this model crapped out after the 1959 Admission of Hawaii Act. Soon thereafter Eisenhower gave his "military-industrial complex" speech and it has been casting about for a new mission ever since. On one side Johnson got Medicare and Great Society civil rights legislation, on the other we have seen virtually all of Congress'discretionary spending going to weapons development and military adventure, clearly seen in the Reagan policies. I'm not sure we need the Senate at all. A unicameral representative government is in place with the house. As with the House of Lords in England, it might be sufficient to leave them with a simpler set of tasks. One idea would be to give them advisor status on pending bills, but not approval, but give them the right to review and cancel any law from five years of its enactment (an anti-bloat protection that currently does not exist), as well as the ability to resubmit repealed laws after five years with presentment to the president for signing. That should be enough to keep any millionaire's club happy.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 7:59 AM in reply to eggroll
I read somewhere - could be wrong - that to change the Constitution you need to convoke a Constitutional Convention. And, once it's in session, there's nothing to limit what it can and can not change. So all kinds of things are in play, everyone's little pet project. But I like your suggestion and it certainly makes sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 22, 2010 10:22 PM in reply to FreeRider
Good Golly Miss Molly! Aces, Freebie! To be perfectly honest, at this point I really don't know what should happen on health care. Let's face it: whoever's fault it is it has been a total fuckup for Obama and the Dems. I think it's fair to say we are all rooting for them so they need a few days to figure out what's up. OK with me. Frankly, I think we here are two or three days and one or two political iterations ahead of D.C. The D.C. pols don't realize entirely yet and some never will but others are beginning to. I say: good on us. This is where American democracy is most functional now, right here on blog sites like this. Free speech. Just like the corner soapbox in the old days. WE ROCK!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
geofu54
January 22, 2010 10:29 PM in reply to wbgonne
WE ROCK!
Hey wbgonne, I appreciate your post. Thanks.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 8:04 AM in reply to FreeRider
Make them pass a public option, open to everyone, first. Then pass the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 24, 2010 2:23 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
Why, by golly, who knew that the public option could pass in both chambers....oh, right, they both REJECTED it in December. So, of course, they have been dusted with magic light and now will ACCEPT it in January. Wow....how clever is that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 24, 2010 5:02 PM in reply to cube3u
Right...but the discussion has evolved. The President seems to want to hit 'reset' at this point, and there is the potential to strike bargains in this environment. Everything's very fluid, very little is off the table (except single payer, of course).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toddincabo
January 23, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to FreeRider
Add in the Public Option while they are at it.
Dropping the PO was the reason everyone went against anything they are doing.
No one wants to pay the same assholes that are ripping everyone off as is.
The Dems could score big if they could somehow accomplish this.
I just hope Obama has learned his lesson trying to negotiate with the Waterloo crowd. Not gonna' happen....EVER
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 23, 2010 12:30 PM in reply to toddincabo
Who are the Senators who will vote for a Public Option and would they be willing to pass it through reconciliation? I have no idea where Feingold stands on the Public Option, but I'm pretty sure he's not a sure vote for reconciliation, except in very limited circumstances.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 23, 2010 3:08 PM in reply to barbara63
Considering he flat out blamed Obama for killing the public option, I'd say he'd be on board.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 23, 2010 3:53 PM in reply to DA in LA
You might be right about the Public Option, but I'm not so sure about reconciliation. Even if Feingold was on board, who are the other 49 Senators (assuming Biden would break a tie) who would both support a Public Option and support passing it through reconciliation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 23, 2010 4:44 PM in reply to FreeRider
I agree but I think saying they don't trust the white house is a bit far fetched. Makes for good headlines however.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cawleybo
January 23, 2010 7:44 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Because Obama rocks and he is infallible!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sportin' Life
January 22, 2010 7:06 PM in reply to IndyLinda
The comments on TPM right now are disgusting (and here's an example now). So much smug self-righteousness on behalf of a lobbyist written bill is suprising and sad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
January 22, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to Sportin' Life
I doubt you have read any version of this bill.
But prrobably stayed at the FDL Holiday Inn last night.
(as long as we are posting content free crap)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:26 PM in reply to Bruce Webb
Good point. Anyone who disagrees with you is a heretic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 8:54 PM in reply to DA in LA
Says the guy who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a heretic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to FreeRider
Said the guy who insults everyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
nova voter
January 23, 2010 9:57 AM in reply to Sportin' Life
yeah. disgusting, isn't it?
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/one_readers_sob-story.php#more?ref=fpblg
that guy should just STFU. he's clearly just a spineless lobbyist-loving jerk.
you fucking tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sportin' Life
January 23, 2010 7:45 PM in reply to nova voter
Big deal--demagoguery to go along with the self-righteous tantrums and insults. None of it changes the truth about the legislation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:25 PM in reply to IndyLinda
Oh, horseshit. He didn't lead and that's what they are saying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 9:33 PM in reply to DA in LA
We don't trust you but please tell us what to do.
Yes, a bunch of guys hired to do a very particular job begging someone else to do it for them because they are terrified of losing their job.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to Economides
They did their job. They passed a bill. The President and Senate screwed them and they are going to lose their jobs, pass or not.
So, yeah, they deserve to be pissed. Expect them to fuck Obama every which way from here on out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:09 AM in reply to DA in LA
That isn't their whole job and you should acknowledge that. This tension between House and Senate versions of legislation didn't just start yesterday. It's been around as long as I've been involved with politics--and I'm 60.
The Prez and both Houses can be as mad at each other as their wee hearts desire. None of that will stop the wrath of voters and supporters in the fall elections. House critters won't escape that wrath with finger-pointing at other Democrats.
Yes, that's a nasty conclusion. But I think it's realistic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
joseph
January 23, 2010 1:43 AM in reply to IndyLinda
"Everyone in the house feels like the White House bent over backwards to engage the Senate and they didn't get anything for it anyway."
Half the whiners say the White House didn't do enough. Now apparently the other half says they did to much, but only with the Senate. Perhaps that was because if they hadn't, the bill wouldn't have got through the Senate. Would this anonymous "leadership aide" prefer the White House not do whatever it can in which case the bill doesn't get through the Senate and the reform is dead? Members of the House should really STFU and pass the Senate bill. It would be an instant and huge victory for the Democrats. The bill may not be perfect, it IS a very progressive bill:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/12/why-progressives-are-batshit-crazy-to.html
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JayR
January 23, 2010 12:05 PM in reply to IndyLinda
They don't feel like we or they should be stuck with the crappy Senate bill. Good for them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
inokeah
January 23, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to IndyLinda
Yes Indy, When the light go on and the camera is running in the Health Care conference room we might get a bill we can all sign on too. This might be the start of some honesty in the Obama Whitehouse.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 23, 2010 11:09 PM in reply to IndyLinda
What? "Wah, the president was nicer to the Senate than he was to us." You actually believe this bullshit?
So in your view no one could have and REAL issues with the Senate bill, right? Its all just games, no one could possibly have real policy differeneces? To believe that you must beleive that the Senate and the White House are playing games as well. If that is the case then members of the house are right to be sceptical. Not trusting the game palyers sounds like a wise choice and it mirrors public opinion. The public no longer trusts this White House or the Senate to do the right thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 22, 2010 6:42 PM
"House Doesn't Trust White House or Senate On Health Care"
Whoa! An ahha moment!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Sailormarlowe
January 22, 2010 6:43 PM
But, they feel your pain. Palin/Bachmann, 2012. Passion & compassion. Health and happiness.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Emilia1956
January 23, 2010 6:15 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
And prosperity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 6:53 PM
>>Stern ridiculed the idea that breaking up the bill would allow Dems to challenge Republicans with tit-for-tat legislative maneuvers. “It’s classic inside Washington to think that people who can’t afford insurance want to keep score between the Democrats and the Republicans,” he said. “They want to go to bed with a sense of security.”>>
Stern gets it! The clowns who think people give a shit about some congressional procedural bullshit are just as stupid as the firebaggers who think people should care more about whether Aetna makes a profit than whether they have insurance.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 22, 2010 7:27 PM in reply to FreeRider
Aetna makes a profit when it sells insurance and denies claims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 8:56 PM in reply to bluebell
Do you make a profit when you post idiotic crap and deny reality?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:03 PM in reply to FreeRider
Says the guy who thinks anyone who disagrees with him is a heretic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Schmed
January 23, 2010 8:07 AM in reply to FreeRider
You almost had me thinking that you weren't a troll....
....until this post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to Schmed
My guess is a DLC (or maybe DNC) troll.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 23, 2010 3:01 PM in reply to Schmed
Ooooh, my heart is broken. Some anonymous loser on a blog is convinced that I'm a troll. How shall I ever go on? Goodbye, cruel world!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 23, 2010 11:29 PM in reply to FreeRider
Pot and kettle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:27 PM in reply to FreeRider
Thanks for boiling the issue down to retarded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
January 22, 2010 8:57 PM in reply to DA in LA
I did that with you in mind but maybe I didn't boil it down far enough. Me thinks "brain dead" is more your speed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:04 PM in reply to FreeRider
Hey, an insult!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 23, 2010 7:55 PM in reply to FreeRider
How are you explaining MA? Or are you just ignoring it because it proves you are wrong?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 24, 2010 2:32 AM in reply to kgb999
The Democrats won Congress and the Presidency so they could change things--that does not mean sitting around for seven months negotiating on one damned issue. Massachusetts reflected that as well as any candidate who runs with a sense of entitlement in an anti-establishment and/or anti-incumbent mood. Brown said he would be independent minded and he would fill the people's seat--and not the Kennedy's seat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 22, 2010 6:54 PM
The House must realize that there will NOT be a Republican in the Senate that will vote for a health care reform bill.
This is all on the Democrats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Alpers
January 22, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to Maritza
The HOUSE needs to realize this?
It's the White House and Harry Reid who keep raising the possibility that they can get a few GOP votes in the Senate.
The House leadership wants a bill passed through reconciliation in the Senate, which could also bypass half a dozen ConservaDems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 23, 2010 7:58 PM in reply to Ben Alpers
Bingo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 24, 2010 2:36 AM in reply to Ben Alpers
Golly, so there's a bill headed to theSenate from the House? There's an announcement that we've all missed? But you are in the know....how did that happen? Do tell....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 22, 2010 6:55 PM
The Sunday shows will be critical in terms of what direction the White House has decided to turn.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eclecticbrotha
January 22, 2010 6:58 PM
Laughable. "We won't do our jobs because we're afraid of the senate."
What a bunch of cowards.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to eclecticbrotha
The House has passed everthing on the Obama agenda.
You are WRONG.
The problem is the corruption in the Senate.
Name ONE fucking thing other than the Ledbetter Act and Stimulus that the Senate has done last year?
That the American People elected them to do.
WTF? The House is NOT the problem. Its the fucking Senate.
The place where good legislation goes to die.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Alpers
January 22, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to willia451
This.
The House is doing its job. The Senate and the administration are sitting on their haunches and hoping that the problem will either go away or that the House will solve it by itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:29 PM in reply to eclecticbrotha
Right. Not rolling over and taking it in the ass is now considered to be cowardly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:26 PM in reply to DA in LA
Funny how covering an additional 30 million uninsured is somehow "taking it in the ass".
Nice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:38 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Losing in the next election because the president didn't lead, is indeed, taking it in the ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:17 AM in reply to DA in LA
Enough blame to go around, I think. And none of it matters right now. The only thing that will matter to voters and supporters is that (D) label after a name on the ballot. Labels like liberal, progressive, conservadem, nice guy/gal, etc. will mean nothing, nada, zilch. Getting a reputation as the Keystone Kops of politics is simply not a good thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to DA in LA
Losing in the election?
You are confusing policy with politics, unless you think that getting re-elected is the only thing they should care about.
I'd rather they did there job and served the public that put them there.
(Your assumption that FAILURE would look good to voters is also foolish)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ohyeathatsright
January 22, 2010 6:59 PM
No reason for them to trust the Senate or the WH. Fool me once...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:48 AM in reply to ohyeathatsright
And that sentiment doesn't somehow magically protect the House Democrats from losing elections in the fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
stu
January 22, 2010 7:04 PM
Sounds like health care might be dead. There is no direction from Obama. Obama was all gung-ho with recent negotiations. But, since the election loss in Mass. the democrats have their tails between their legs. The whole thing is kind of strange.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to stu
He's waiting to unleash some serious vagueness during the State of the Nation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh
January 22, 2010 7:09 PM
Why doesn't the House start the reconciliation bill with all the compromises/corrections from the Senate bill, send it to the Senate (allow them to make minor changes), and then have them send it back to the House and then the House passes both bills.
This would give the House control over the bill for the most part and all the Senate would have to do is muster 50 votes (plus the VP), which they can do.
If the House feels they can't trust the Senate, how about they start the process and see how it goes?
Easy as that... I saw that mentioned in one of the articles on here earlier today and it makes a lot of sense to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eclecticbrotha
January 22, 2010 7:24 PM in reply to Josh
That's really not a bad idea.
I think what really angers the House is not being offered political cover by the senate or the White House. They are too hung up on the public option to think straight. The worst part is their unwillingness to accept the political realities that dictate the only way to get a public option is to add it later when the senate doesn't need to pass the 60 vote threshold. They are just petrified with fear and not thinking straight. Pitiful.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 22, 2010 9:58 PM in reply to eclecticbrotha
If they're using a reconciliation 'fix' they don't need 60 votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:47 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
But they have to make sure they have 50 (plus Biden) in the Senate so nose-counting is needed. And keep in mind that bills passed under reconciliation have a sunset date when they will expire. These "fixes" would not be permanent legislation--it's a gamble that the Democrats would have those votes before the legislation expires.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 10:10 AM in reply to cube3u
If they could get a public option working immediately, I'd love to see anyone let that sunset after people had starting using it. It would soon become another 'third rail', something no politician who cared about getting reelected, would touch. The more people in it, the better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 10:49 AM in reply to Tanjaoui
Define "soon", my friend. Social Security was enacted in 1935 at a very, very tiny level. It was grown incrementally in the decades since. And, even then, it has remained under constant assault--the last one beaten back in 2005.
All of this is assuming that Congress wants another legislative repeat of the public option battle before the fall elections. The battleground right now is strewn with zero Republican votes in the Senate and not one iota of reasonable arguments that 60 votes are to be had--or even that a public option can be thrown into a reconciliation bill and garner 50 votes. It's bad enough for these folks to figure out the 218 votes needed in the House with any votes in the reconciliation process to remove the worst excesses in the Senate bill--like the Nelson Extravaganza Windfall for Nebraska. Work that out and then come back with 50 votes in the recon process for a public option. It should be the very LEAST of our worries right now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to cube3u
I'd like someone to try - try, publicly, vociferously - to campaign for it. Preferably the guy we elected on the 'hope' and 'change' platform...I forget his name, begins with an 'O'.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CharlesBrown
January 22, 2010 7:25 PM in reply to Josh
Can we put drug re-importation back in? Oh that's right, we still have that little deal with Phrma ala Obama. There is an entire minefield of little deals that is standing in the way of Dems agreeing on what to fix. At best, even if Dems could agree, the process would take a few more months. Its probably a lot more pragmatic to just throw people under the bus in November and 2012. I don't think the process is as straight forward as you've sketched.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
January 23, 2010 2:34 AM in reply to CharlesBrown
The supreme court verified that yesterday when it gave corporations unlimited powers to control our election process using billions of dollars. We live in a corporate dictatorship, the congress and white house are corporate stooges. The few remaining ones who want to represent the people who elected them will leave or be defeated by a well-funded corporate candidate in 2012 or 2014. The individual vote is dead.
The entire process was a circle-jerk. Obama and congress all work for corporate powers, they could care less about the people.
The fact the supreme court was so blatently corrupt in it's decision using "first amendment rights" as it's Orwellian message should tell anyone the republic is dead. We have no representation, and any individual voice will be drowned out using corporate propaganda and billions of dollars.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:38 AM in reply to goldiera
Giving the Republicans control in the fall will damned near ensure this sort of ruling continues to be made. Notice that the Obama-appointed justice ruled the way you want.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 22, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to Josh
This is what Congress Matters, which from what I've seen is consistently realistic about what is and isn't possible, is proposing. They note that it's totally legal for Congress to pass a bill amending a law that hasn't passed yet, as long as the President signs the "amendee" law before the "amending" law. (They also note the existence of a complicated procedure by which the House can pass the Senate bill first, but do so in a way that the passage is conditional on the reconciliation bill passing.)
Seems kind of risky, but it is definitely an option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cwnidog
January 22, 2010 8:16 PM in reply to Josh
Can they do that? It makes sense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Josh
January 22, 2010 10:47 PM in reply to cwnidog
Seems like they can do that... but the question is, will they? '
I have to think that if others (people like us) are thinking about it, maybe the House is too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjtrac2
January 22, 2010 7:25 PM
Why should the House trust the White House? The White House has repeatedly stabbed its "base" in our collective back.
If only health care reform was for bankers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dabb
January 22, 2010 7:26 PM
The House just needs to pass the Senate Bill and get this thing on the president's desk. They are going to have to trust that the Senate will live up to it's part of the agreement to fix it later. If the Senate doesn't then it's bad on them. But at least there will be health care reform which this country needs.
Just get it done and stop all the bickering...geeeeeez
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
January 22, 2010 7:49 PM in reply to Dabb
The way I'm looking at it is, if the House blocks this over details they don't like in the Senate bill, in five or ten years nobody is going to remember what the details we blocked it over were. All they're going to remember is whether or not the House got a bill passed.
...at least that's what I found myself blurting out on the line with Lofgren's constituent office today. No idea if the message got through :(
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 7:31 PM
Children.
The House is emotional, resentful, distrustful....
How about they THINK and stop pouting. This isn't about your feelings. Get a therapist. Grow a pair.
Do your GODDAMN JOB you childish idiots!!!
For crying out loud, the bill doesnt start til 2014. There's plenty of time to fix it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eclecticbrotha
January 22, 2010 7:32 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Cosign
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 22, 2010 8:01 PM in reply to eclecticbrotha
Trisign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 22, 2010 9:48 PM in reply to Moose49
quatrosign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
January 22, 2010 10:40 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Cinco-sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
January 23, 2010 1:06 AM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
Sex sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftist_Ninja
January 22, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
cinco sign
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 22, 2010 10:03 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Then why isn't the Senate going to at least agree to fix it now and what that fix is? Just passing it without agreement may be sufficient for progressives who care about poor people, but the anti-choice Democrats don't care about that. They're going to want some assurances on their pet cause right now before passing anything.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 22, 2010 7:32 PM
So. It seems that HCR is going to go down the tubes because union members don't want to pay taxes on their benefits. What delicious irony.
Keep up the good work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lonesomeliberal
January 22, 2010 7:50 PM in reply to shooter242
Actually the major unions are urging House members to pass the bill now and then try and fix it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:27 PM in reply to shooter242
Irony fail.
It's ironic that not only did unions already reach a deal with the House, but unions are a major supporter of geting HCR done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
January 22, 2010 10:42 PM in reply to shooter242
Fat, dumb and stupis is no way to go through life, son.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 23, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to Buckeye Terrorist Fist Jab Nation
He (shooter) can't help himself. He was born that way. Next stop for Shooter is the All American White Basketball League (ROFL). You gotta give it to the crackers, they don't mind being racist up front.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 24, 2010 1:10 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Darn if I'm not right yet again. Heh.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 24, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to shooter242
LOL. And in my zeal to make you all look silly yet again, I should have linked ....here....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 22, 2010 7:34 PM
I really believe in this kid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
January 22, 2010 7:49 PM
Senate knows the House will have to eventually pass the senate bill with no changes for the very simple reason all House members are up for election in November whereas the Senate has three members that are at real risk to lose their seats and all three are better off with a more conservative bill.
Pass it now and get it over with. The longer they wait the more ridiculous they look when they eventually pass it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:51 PM in reply to Walter Mitty
And the House realizes if they pass this bill as is, they will all lose their seats.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
January 23, 2010 1:08 AM in reply to DA in LA
Bullshit. Take your daily fax from Eric Cantor and shove it up your ass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 22, 2010 8:00 PM
They have good reason to feel this way. And you know what? Tough shit. Everyone has to step up to the plate and get this thing done. Someone else failing to do so is no excuse for you not do to so.
The House has the power to make the Senate bill law. If they do this, it will be vast improvement over the status quo and it will avoid political catastrophe for the Democrats. So just do it.
If the Senate reneges on promises to fix the Senate bill's many flaws through reconciliation and if President Obama continues to evade his responsibility to show leadership on this issue, that will suck. And we'll all have reason to condemn them. But again, tough shit -- this is about producing results for the American people and showing voters that the Democratic Party is capable of governing competently.
It's time for everyone -- the House, Senate and president -- to stop acting like babies and start behaving responsibly.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 8:15 PM in reply to Moose49
The Senate Bill is a POS. Everyone understands that.
If you want to bow to the will of the Health Insurance Industry, fine. Do that. I mean fuck. They wrote the Senate Bill. Kiss their ass for all I care.
How about this.
Expand Medicare and Medicaid to include those that do not have insurance today. What the fuck is wrong with that?
Oh. Yeah. The fucking corruption in the Senate. Yes. We must all bow to that shit. Otherwise, what WILL WE DO?
Come on. Spare me.
No. Fuck no. That is not going to happen.
And the vast majority of the American People agree with me.
Not you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 9:18 PM in reply to willia451
Who are the Senators who will vote for Medicare for All? And how many of them would be willing to pass it through reconciliation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 22, 2010 10:10 PM in reply to willia451
"The Senate Bill is a POS. Everyone understands that."
No, idiots who are too stupid to read the bill for themselves believe that. Those of us who actually understand the issue know that it would be a vast improvement over the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
musgrove
January 22, 2010 10:20 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
That and making improvements after it is passed is a lot easier and better then having to wait another decade to even get a chance to pass anything again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:51 AM in reply to musgrove
Decade is very conservative; I would estimate at least 20 years.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 23, 2010 11:36 PM in reply to cube3u
At least 20 30 40 years before they even think of fixing it, because if they pass this piece of shit, they are going to lose big time in 2010 and in Jan 2013 we'll be welcoming President Brown into office. Health Care of 2010 will be repealed at that point with the majority of its provisions never having been enacted.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 23, 2010 1:23 PM in reply to willia451
I'd like nothing better than to see Medicare and Medicaid for all. But that's not the choice we face right now. It's either enact the Senate bill into law, hopefully with improvements passed via reconciliation, or continue with the status quo. That's the choice House members face. In many ways it sucks. Still, the answer seems to be at least to be crystal clear.
If you haven't already, please read this: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/one_readers_sob-story.php?ref=mp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 22, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to Moose49
It may just as easily be a political catastrophe for Democrats when the Republicans point out every flaw in the bill. Sure, we should fight to the death for a good bill, but don't be lead down the garden path here. If this bill was a good bill, they'd be able to explain it. If this bill was a good bill, they'd be SELLING it.
If your senators are Democrats, consider how often you've seen them on local news EXPLAINING the bill. Consider how often you've seen them on local news SELLING the bill.
Where are they? Where have they been? Why are they afraid to be associated with the bill? Why are they afraid to tell people what the bill does?
The tea baggers ran them out of Dodge when they couldn't explain the bill. They still can't explain it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:24 PM in reply to bluebell
Sorry, there's no indication that health care legislation, when it is finished, will be a voting issue. Point is people have views on many things, but what do they vote on?? For many, guns and abortion are their single issue. Deficits, war, jobs .... a health care bill that's already a fait accompli???
And history belies this too. Social security was "socialist" and so was Medicare. GOP demagogued and attacked it. Guess what, people liked it when it was done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 22, 2010 10:00 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Well, sure, I'm all for expanding Medicare! Let's do that!
But we're not doing that.
Why not?
You've bought their con game argument. People love Medicare but single-payer (Medicare) is impossible.
The public isn't fooled but a lot of true believers sure are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:06 AM in reply to bluebell
Your argument is that you'd like another approach. But there's absolutely no possiblity that that approach will be entertained in the Senate let alone pass anytime soon.
So what to do in the meantime? Meantime meaning several decades if HCR simply fails.
You have no legit *progressive* argument as to why it is better to let 30 mill. remain uninsured. Moral arguments for covering uninsured trump ideological ones and even practical ones ("it's unpopular"). Progressives want more people covered, not less. If you disagree, you're not a real progressive, but just some kind of lefty ideologue.
It's simply better to have more people covered than less. How can you argue with that?
Any problems with this bill can be FIXED. Fixing is easier than starting from scratch. We now have two examples of huge start from scratch bills not going anywhere. Senate is too obstructionist, special interests are too strong -- and that is not going to change anytime soon.
What's shocking is the lack of credible argument. Just a lot of whining and fantasy as well as the usual grousing and attacks. No argument tho. "We should do this instead" is not a plan considering REALITY: The Senate SUCKS!! When is that going to change?????
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:28 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Why do you let THEM brainwash YOU.
Instead, YOU SELL to the PEOPLE.
REPEAT several hundred million time:.
EXPAND MEDICARE.
Then you say to the people, why is Senator Corruption opposed to the EXPANSION of MEDICARE?
Trust me (you can't trust them so why not me?) this will work much quicker than waiting for the Senate you already do not trust to improve the wretched bill they are likly to make more wretched before they pass it.
Expanding Medicare could be done quickly and it would do one thing the current legislation will not do. It will insure CARE not merely insurance premiums. The government does not make a profit DENYING CLAIMS.
Without meaningful enforcement this bill is just a means to take the IRS away from prosecuting the big time cheats to garnishing the paltry wages of the poor slobs who will not be able afford to buy an insurance policy.
The full power of the government is on the MANDATE. It is not on the REGULATION of the insurance industry or on the ENFORCEMENT of the payment of insurance claims.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to bluebell
This is exactly what Krugman said:
1. Reject bill
2. ????????
3. Pass new bill!
Expand medicare? I'm all for it! But unfortunately I'm not a vote in the Senate.
Look, the Senate sucks, they are cowards and idiots. They will not pass this great bill you are proposing. You in fact know they won't. There's no hope for it, at least anytime soon, and YOU KNOW IT.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Silence
January 24, 2010 10:36 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
"So what to do in the meantime? Meantime meaning several decades if HCR simply fails."
Go back to work.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 23, 2010 11:42 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
You honestly believe that mandating that people buy health insurance won't be a campaign issue? That is a very foolish miscalculation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 7:07 AM in reply to bluebell
Fair point.
Ending the possibility of healthcare reform will do what exactly? My position is that the carnage in this fall's elections will be extensive for any federal elected official with a (D) after their name. The Democratic base will be enraged. So what does that mean, exactly? It means lost votes and folks who don't donate as much money or time to a campaign. The Republicans will be energized and will turn out to vote for anyone with a (R). History and voter trend analysis all bear out the likelihood of this happening. The Republicans in Congress just have to sit on their hands and do nothing for this to occur--since our rules applying to this session of Congress include the 60-vote requirement in the Senate for permanent legislation to be passed. There is zero reason for any Republican to cooperate with Democratic desperation to pass or fix healthcare legisation.
Passing the bill with flaws does open up the likelihood that flaws in the bill will be used to hammer Democrats in the fall. Some flaws can be eliminated with reconciliation--keeping in mind that this correction is only temporary and will end at some point in the future. Others "may" be able to make it to a floor vote, but I'm unsure if the Democrats in the Senate have the intestinal fortitude to force that. Again, this isn't the perfect position to be in--but consider that a lot of voters don't pay a bit of attention to the details of anything on an issue. They pay attention to broad trends. This would energize the Democratic base to donate and support the campaigns.
Just my thoughts......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ben Alpers
January 22, 2010 8:20 PM in reply to Moose49
Couldn't agree with you more.
But the rest of your post seems to be screaming for the House, and the House alone, to do this. I think the President and the Senate also need to start acting like adults and proceed as the House is telling them they all need to proceed to get this thing through the House. Added bonus: a better bill for the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 23, 2010 1:08 PM in reply to Ben Alpers
I also completely agree with you here. My point is that if the president and the Senate fail to do so, that's still no excuse for the House not to do what it should do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to Moose49
Yes. Behave responsibly and pass that thing America is overwhemlingly against.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 22, 2010 9:02 PM in reply to Moose49
The Senate bill is worse than nothing.
I'm amazed that there are people out there who don't get that.
The Senate bill is nothing more than a massive handout to the same private insurance companies who've screwed up our national health care, handing them 50 million new customers who will be required by law to buy their shitty product without making them reform their business practices at all.
The bill does not ban rescissions. That's right - it doesn't. Read the text of the legislation. It doesn't say "No rescissions." It says "No rescissions except in the case of fraud." So the insurance company will just claim fraud, you will have to go to court to challenge the decision, and the whole process will take years to resolve, during which time you will be going without potentially critical medical care. I hope you manage to survive long enough to see a verdict in your case.
The bill does not prevent the insurance companies from simply refusing to pay for your medical care. It does not prevent the insurance companies from colluding in order to fix prices. And on and on. The bill hands the insurance companies 50 million new mandated customers and asks nothing from them in return except that they accept people with pre-existing conditions, which means nothing since, as previously noted, this does not mean that the insurance companies will actually be paying to have those conditions treated.
Add to this the most significant rollback in women's reproductive rights in decades (states will, under the Senate bill, be able to ban all plans on the exchange from covering any abortion for any reason, ever. Not just the plans that take federal dollars. All plans).
Add to this an excise tax that will force millions of people (19% by 2016!) to either pay a surcharge or get lousier insurance, with more affected every year because it's not indexed to health care inflation.
Add it all up, and you have a recipe for an utter disaster, making our health care situation substantially worse, and potentially putting an entire generation of voters off the Democratic party for good.
The bill must either pass with substantial fixes, or not pass at all. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:17 PM in reply to NR
Whatever. This has been talked to death, and everybody I respect disagrees with you. You scorched earth "kill the bill" types really are idiots -- the GOP best friends and serving their interests in no HCR and electoral defeat. Makes me wonder if some of these sockpuppet "progressives" are not little Karl Roves.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 22, 2010 9:49 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Is this about healthcare for you or just about a political game?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 22, 2010 10:02 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
No, the real idiots are people who are too stupid to see how awful this bill is. I guess that covers you and everybody you respect, eh?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Economides
January 22, 2010 9:46 PM in reply to NR
Ona policy level your couldn't be more wrong about what is going to happen.
On a human level you are condoning allowing millions of people to continue to suffer poor health and economic insecurity when we have the means to alleviate it right in from of us.
On a political level, what is absolutely hysterical about your utterly incorrect screed is that the Republican's biggest fear is precisely that this bill if passed will create a massive new constituency for improving what for the very first time is a national system of access to health care. If they thought it was going to be an obvious disaster they'd let it pass and then pile on. They are absolutely terrified because they know how well it will succeed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 22, 2010 10:05 PM in reply to Economides
The means to alleviate it is NOT right in front of us. The only thing the Senate bill will do is force people to give money to a useless middleman who will murder them for profit at the first opportunity. That is not going to reduce anyone's suffering.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
January 23, 2010 1:19 AM in reply to NR
Oh, come on already. I'd like to eviscerate the insurance industry in one fell swoop as much as the next man, but I'm wondering which Congress you intend to do this with. Our current band of revolutionaries is about as close as we're going to get any time soon, and we've seen how "close" that is.
If you were not so blinded by your anger at insurance companies, you would be able to recognize that there are substantive public policy gains to be made from implementing the Senate bill today, and from committing to an immediate & long-term campaign of progress based on that foundation.
And you'd also recognize that there's more than a pound or two of insurance company flesh already on the table.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 23, 2010 4:22 AM in reply to Cool Blue Reason
Come on, yourself. There are NO substantive policy gains in the Senate HCR bill. None. The bill allows rescission (just under a different name), cherry-picking of healthy people by insurers (just under a different name), it lets insurers refuse to pay for treatments to insured patients if their treatments are too expensive (just using a slightly different procedure than the one insurers currently use), it lets insurers jack up their premiums endlessly and without limit, and the bill does nothing meaningful to limit health care costs.
The ONLY thing the bill does is force everyone in America to buy the crappy, worthless product the insurance companies are selling. That's it. The status quo is preferable to that, because as things currently stand, you at least have the choice to walk away rather than be screwed over by the insurance companies. If the Senate bill passes, you won't even be able to do that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:45 AM in reply to NR
Well, by golly, if you would rather visit your neighborhood herbalist for medical care......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
January 23, 2010 8:13 AM in reply to cube3u
what a dunce you are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 10:59 AM in reply to JadeZ
What an argument you have. Walking away from health insurance to ???? is a position you support? The folks who "walk away" from health insurance are those who primarily depend on state laws requiring hospitals to provide care. It's how the uninsured but able to pay are able to avoid premiums and still get catastrophic care apparently because of their belief in their own magical ability to avoid every medical condition.
Then after the hospital writes off the unrecoverable expense for their treatment, the next negotiation with the big companies who offer a continually watered down version of health insurance, well, by golly, they have to cover those expenses. And those of us still having the privilege of employer-sponsored (to an ever declining degree) health coversage see the double whammy of our premiums going up while our coverage goes down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 23, 2010 10:04 AM in reply to NR
I had a longer comment to your earlier post with links (and with more invective), but it appears to have been eaten by the mod queue, so here's the summary version:
It allows rescission only in cases of fraud, and since omitting pre-existing conditions is no longer material, they won't be able to pull the card of "you forgot to mention this treatment you had once ten year ago, so we're going to say that you defrauded us." If rescission were banned entirely, an insurance company wouldn't have recourse when someone was participating in an insurance scam.
It flat out does not allow cherry-picking, since anyone who can pay the community premium must be given insurance.
It heavily constrains the insurers' ability to decline to pay for a treatment based on expense, what with the uniform coverage documentation, requirements for essential coverage, requirements of internal and external claims processes, and the elimination of lifetime and the phase-out of annual limits.
Insurers absolutely cannot "jack up rates endlessly and without limit." Insurers can keep no more than 20% of premiums for overhead and profit - 80% of premiums collected must be paid in claims. Further, the Secretary of HHS is empowered to review each insurers hike in premiums each year to determine if it is "unreasonable," and insurers can be barred from the exchanges (and thereby lose out on most of those new customers you seem to think this is all about) if they are unreasonable. The excise tax also acts as a soft cap on raising premiums, since people will have a disincentive to purchase such absurdly expensive health insurance.
It is readily apparent that this bill does far more than requires (if you can even call it that, since the shared responsibility payment is a 2% tax hike on those who choose to be uninsured, and it cannot be collected through the normal means of collecting tax deficiencies) people to buy insurance. One cannot help but conclude that anyone who thinks, as you do, that the bill doesn't do anything else are lying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 23, 2010 10:34 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Thanks for being the voice of reason. I don't think the children will hear you, though. They're too busy throwing a tantrum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 23, 2010 2:05 PM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Sorry, but you are flat-out wrong about what the Senate bill does. It is riddled with loopholes that will allow the insurance companies to continue operating exactly as they are today.
The NNU is the National Nurses' Union, people who actually KNOW something about health care. As opposed to people like you.
Source.
The Senate bill does nothing except force everyone in America to give money to private insurance companies who will murder them for profit at the first opportunity. One cannot help but conclude that anyone who thinks, as you do, that the bill does anything else are lying.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 23, 2010 5:42 PM in reply to NR
Unlike you, I'm perfectly capable of reading the bill for myself, rather than depending on others to do it for me. The National Nurses United certainly has expertise when it comes to caring for patients. However, this isn't a question of caring for patients; it's a question of how to accurately interpret a proposed statute. This summary you've posted demonstrates that NNU is not so qualified when it comes to legislative interpretation.
Nowhere is this more readily apparent than in their discussion of discrimination on premiums on the basis of age: it's a simple provision that they've managed to get entirely wrong. Section 2701 states rather clearly that insurers may only vary rates based on age to a maximum ratio of 3 to 1. So why did the NNU think it was 4 to 1? Section 1101 does mention a ratio of 4 to 1, but Section 1101 applies to the high risk pool established for the period between when the bill is passed and when most of the major reforms become active. It's understandable to get the two confused, but nonetheless incorrect.
As for selling policies across state lines, it's true that the Senate bill permits it. However, NNU's interpretation of the consequences is incorrect and ignores the regulations put on multi-state insurers. Section 1334 requires insurers to contract with OPM in order to offer a multi-state plan, and requires OPM to negotiate those plans similar to how OPM already negotiates nationwide plans as part of FEHB. Additionally, the law explicitly grants states the ability to require additional benefits:
It also does not preempt state laws unless they are at odds with Federal law, in that in order to be eligible to provide a multi-state plan, the insurer:
The NNU also neglects to consider that, because this bill establishes substantial new Federal regulations, the relative role of state regulation in protecting consumers is diminished.
Moving to the wellness program discounts, the NNU is again incorrect. The NNU claims that insurers can double premiums for those with pre-existing conditions, presumably based on an insurer's ability to discount premiums based on participation in a wellness program. A look at the relevant provision in Section 2705 reveals their claim to be unfounded. First, an insurer may only discount beyond 30% if the Secretaries of Labor, HHS, and Treasury all agree that "such an increase is appropriate." More importantly, insurers are explicitly barred from using wellness programs as a means to discriminate against those with health conditions:
Further, insurers who seek to implement a wellness program must do so with accommodations for those with medical conditions:
This means that if an insurer's wellness program is inconsistent with, say, having diabetes, that insurer must either provide an alternate standard or waive the standard altogether.
Finally, NNU notes that rescissions are still permitted in cases of fraud. Currently, rescission is generally premised on some allegation of fraud in failing to reveal some pre-existing condition. If this bill becomes law, that will no longer be possible, because pre-existing conditions are no longer relevant to obtaining insurance or the setting of premiums thanks to guaranteed issue and the anti-discrimination provisions.
With all of this said, I'm not sure why I'm attempting to reason with a Deather who thinks that health care reform is a secret plot to kill everyone. Perhaps you and Chuck Grassley should hold a joint press conference.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
goldiera
January 23, 2010 2:39 AM in reply to NR
You summed it up well.
I agree, the bill is criminal....all for the corporate interests at the expense of the shrinking middle class in America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 23, 2010 10:32 AM in reply to NR
Go read this and then come back here and explain to us, including the author, why you're ideological objection to insurance companies being allowed to continue to exist, profit, and, yes, even get taxpayer money, is worse than nothing for him and for every person similarly situated.
Please. Ask yourself if the lives that will be lost or wrecked, the suffering and the grief that will result if nothing happens, are worth leaving open the possibility that this can be done in a way that is more ideologically pleasing to you at some indeterminately later time.
I can't understand it. I know that ideology and dogma tends to put a low value on actual human lives now in the pusuit of some greater good that never actually seems to come. Catholics burning protestants, protestants blowing up Catholics, Communists killing Kulaks, Shiites and Sunnis slaughtering each other in job lots for centuries when they're not slaughtering or being slaughtered by Catholics, Jacobins killing aristocrats, Nazis killing Jews and Gypsies and Slavs, Maoists starving out fifty million in the pursuit of a more perfect society.
But this People in a country that made it as far as it has because it prizes pragmatism over dogma who are willing to see people suffer and die because it's more important to them to see insurers taken down than the obstensible objective of the effort? I just can't fathom it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 23, 2010 10:33 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Lost the hyperlink somehow
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/one_readers_sob-story.php#more
Just read it and then help me understand how you justify it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 23, 2010 10:42 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Thank you too.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 23, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
I justify it because the Senate bill does nothing whatsoever to help people like that guy get actual health CARE. Health INSURANCE is not the same thing as health CARE. Yes, under the Senate bill, the insurance companies will be required to sell "MD" a piece of paper that says "insurance policy" on it. But that does not mean that they will pay even one dime toward his treatment should he become sick, as he fears. And the Senate bill does absolutely nothing to force them to do so.
Let me be clear on this: The insurance companies will always screw you over. Why? Because they have an INCENTIVE to do so. That incentive is PROFIT. Any money they spend on your medical care means less profit for them. The only way to stop people from being killed for profit is to remove the profit from the system. That's why we progressives wanted a public option.
You accuse me of not caring about people like "MD?" I am trying to protect him, and people like him, from the private insurance industry. The only way to do that is to ensure that people aren't forced into it. You, on the other hand, want to force people to hand their money over to a bunch of greedy bastards who will murder them as soon as there's a profit to be made in it. That's despicable.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 23, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to NR
What a pathetic pile of self-justifying, ideologically driven bullshit.
You really don't get it, do you?
Your ideology supplies all the "facts" you need in order for you to be the hero of your own story. Which is convenient, because if you faced reality, you'd realize what you're saying is monstrous. Monstrous like all the other monsterous bullshit spewed by ideologuges and dogmatists through the ages who've been trying to "save" people from real and imagined horribles from atop a mountain of corpses.
I've given up on you. But for anyone else who might be following out little dialog, I'd like to point out a simple actual fact from the real world that cuts the legs out from under the pedestal you've built yourself.
Health insurers pay the overwhelming majority of claims. To hear you guys talk about it, you'd think the insurers take in trillions in premiums and, somehow, keep it all, somehow manage to never, ever, ever pay a claim. All this health care gets delivered for free by doctors who naively belive they'll get paid when the claims are filed and all the people in this country who are lucky enough to have health insurance are just too fucking dumb to notice that they're having to pay for everything out of pocket because their claims are always denied.
Meanwhile, here in the real universe, rather than the dystopia dicated by your dogma, the overwhelming majority of the one point something trillion dollars worth of health care delivered in this country is paid by private health insurers. They pay for the overwhelming majority of the the brain surgery, the chemo, the appendectomies and tonsillectomies, the trauma treatment after car wrecks, the burn units.
No one says they're angels. They spend way too much on executive compensation. They spend way too much thinking up ways to save themselves a few bucks by interfering in medical decisions. They spend way too much on marketing trying to make their risk pool marginally better than the competition's. And yes, all too often as things are now, they are allowed to make decisions that kill people in order to save a few bucks.
But the hard, unavoidable, fact is that they do actually pay out on their policies in the overwhelming majority of cases. The hard unavoidable fact is that, vile and deplorable though they may be, the number of recissions and drops for pre-existing conditions is miniscule relative to the number of people covered and claims--even huge ones--paid.
I absolutely hate Blue Cross Blue Shield of North Carolina. They over pay their executives. They've screwed the state in its employee coverage. They've spent millions of dollars opposing these bills, including the Senate bill you so nobly want to save us from. But be that as it may, the fact is that in the twenty five years, on and off, I've been covered by them, they have never once denied a claim of mine or of anyone else who gets their coverage through my employer. They pay for my expensive prescriptions. They pay for my physicals. They paid for the brain scans when they thought I had a brain tumor. They paid for the E.R. care when I cut off the tip of my finger a couple of years ago and again the time I had chest pains. When the chest pains turned out to be nothing but a hiatal hernia, they paid for the scans that found it and the medicine that controls it. They pay for the anti-depressants that have kept me here, and out of the alternative universe where I blew my fucking brains out years ago.
They can be intrusive pains in the ass about the prescriptions my doctor wants me to use. They can be bureaucratic pricks when the paperwork gets mixed up. But they pay my claims and they pay hundreds of millions of other people's claims, every year. I don't like them, but the thought of not having them scares me spitless.
To simply say that the profit motive gives them an incentived to screw us, ergo they'll deny every claim, is simply insane. The kind of insanity that only dogma plus the burning need to not have to face the consequences of their own positions can create.
The profit motive can incentivise all kinds of bad conduct by all kinds of industries. But that's why we have laws and regulations. That's why we have lawyers and lawsuits. That's why the Senate bill sets limits on overhead, regulates the amount that has to be spent on premiums, bans cancellation due to prior health history, and, yes it's why it requires everyone to buy it. Because when everyone is covered and coverage has to be provided to everyone, it becomes a lot harder to gain an advantage by trying to manipulate the demographics of the risk pool. And when you or your employer can go onto an exchange and buy coverage from a different carrier, are they going to buy from Carrier A, that never pays a claim, or from Carrier B, that does?
Is everyone who would get insurance under the Senate bill going to get a fair shake from their insurance company? Of course not. Is every one of the thirty million people, or even a significant minority of them, going to get screwed when they get cancer or catch pnumonia or cut their finger off on the weekend? Only a dogmatic fool who thinks being right in an argument is more important than real people could believe that.
And, God forgive us, we seem to have more than a few fools like that in the House.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 23, 2010 4:05 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Well, aren't you incredibly lucky, then? Meanwhile, I have health insurance, and it has gotten so bad that I can't use it anymore. The deductibles are so high, the waits so long, and the service so bad that I just don't go to the doctor (and use fee-for-service when I absolutely have to).
And guess what? This is with what is supposedly the BEST health care provider in my state. Imagine what the care is like at the worst provider!
But, again, you miss the point. The fact that some people, somewhere, have lucked out and gotten an insurance company to pay for something is not proof that the system is working. Because the point of health care is security. It has to be there every time you need it. And you can never get that from a private, for-profit company, because if they can find a way to screw you over, they will. Again, for-profit companies are all about the bottom line, and paying for your medical care makes that bottom line smaller.
I will concede one thing. I shouldn't have said that the insurance companies will always screw you over. But the fact that they will sometimes screw you over is enough that you don't have real health security.
Imagine if we privatized Social Security and it started paying only 75% of its benefits. Would that be good enough? Should we play the dirty trick on America's seniors of implementing such a system and then lying to them and telling them we have universal pensions? Because that's what the Senate bill does with health care.
It doesn't matter how many times you say that forcing people to hand money over to private, for-profit insurance companies is a good policy that will save lives, that doesn't make it true. It just makes you someone who believes in fairy tales.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
admiralmpj
January 23, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
You cut off the tip of your finger?!?!?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
January 23, 2010 3:18 PM in reply to NR
I'm sure he'll be real happy to have had your "protection" when he dies an early, horrible, and at least to some degree preventable death because he couldn't pay for medical treatment. I generally tend to think it's overboard to wish ill on others, so I'll just say that you better pray every day that you don't contract some sort of similar catastrophic health problem that if it doesn't just kill you, will leave you completely destitute.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
NR
January 23, 2010 4:08 PM in reply to Philv
And that very thing will continue to happen if the Senate bill passes.
So why don't you join me in pushing for REAL health care reform?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 24, 2010 12:08 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
There is a very simple answer to this: Leaving the insurance companies as they are, handing them a huge new client list, with toothless "reforms" and loopholes galore, will only mean that in a few years time, stories "sob stories" like the one posted on TPM will be MORE common, not less and there will be added stories of people afraid to run afoul of the law having choose between feeding the kids or paying for the ever increasing cost of their Federally mandated health insurance.
At that point people like you will excuse themselves by saying, no one could have predicted and (this one should be carved in marble) "We couln't let the perfect get in the way of (what we thought at the time was) the good."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 23, 2010 1:25 PM in reply to NR
If you haven't already, please read this: http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/01/one_readers_sob-story.php?ref=mp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
January 22, 2010 8:21 PM
Why Congress people are such babies. Buck up and pass the bill because that is the right thing to do for the country.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 8:52 PM in reply to Maritza
See above my post above. Are you paying attention?
The Senate Bill is a POS.
The President is listening to the American People.
He understands that. And so do I.
Do you?
Move on, son.
And for all you, "Bush got everything he wanted motherfuckers."
Bush wanted to trash Social Security. Make the whole thing Private.
Nope.
Bush wanted to reform immigration. Give every illegal in the country a path.
Nope.
Bush wanted give the Supreme Court to his bud.
Nope.
Get real.
Learn to live with disappointment. And move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:12 PM in reply to willia451
Well I guess we gotta do it, because the all important "willa" says we should. Even though it is political suicide as just about every major political analyst and blogger has agreed. The upside of quitting on something that is 99% done is ..... [crickets]
I guess they gotta get to do some other important stuff they won't finish just in time for losing the midterms. You, son, are a genius.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 9:36 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Look, two things:
First, I am not the "all important" willia.
So that is number 1.
Number 2 is, if you want to advocate for passing the POS Senate Bill, have at it.
Go with your "every important political analyst and blogger".
And against what the American People want us to foucs on right now.
Look. I feel you. I am not your enemy.
You think I am. Because you seem to need one. But I'm not that guy.
I am on your side.
We'll keep trying to get this done. But not this way.
Not by trashing everything we believe in.
Let's move forward as best we can.
If you need to go in another direction, I understand.
Best of Luck. All the best.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
January 23, 2010 1:24 AM in reply to willia451
Do us a favor and go read the Senate bill. Hopefully, when you report back in a day or two, you'll be able to explain -- without resorting to magical thinking as to even less legislatively viable alternatives -- precisely why you believe that the status quo in this country is better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 9:23 PM in reply to Maritza
I agree with you completely, Maritza. Pass the bill! I remember when Gore just wasn't good enough for some on the left and look what happened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:40 PM in reply to barbara63
I remember when Clinton and Gore abandoned the left and look what happened.
You're about to experience Deja Vu.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 22, 2010 10:06 PM in reply to DA in LA
During the first two years of Clinton's first term the Democrats couldn't pass healthcare reform either and look what happened. If they had managed to pass it then, maybe we would have gotten to single payer by now. But they didn't and here we are, still at square one. The House needs to pass the Senate bill so we can move on and improve things as we go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dannyluv
January 22, 2010 9:02 PM
Don't trust 'em Nancy! The White House will put the same effort behind a second "fixer" bill that they did to support the public option the first time around, only this second time they will not have any leverage against them to pass a single thing. The White House says all kinds of things, and you should know from experience, the words do not reflect the reality.
This Senate bill is a POS and whereas we are angry with the White House for letting YOU, the House down, don't make things worse by passing anything just to let the Pres fell warm and fuzzy.
The White House is full of adults that made the bed they are now drowning in, they do not need more company to go down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:22 PM in reply to dannyluv
Speak for yourself. Everyone knows that the Senate is not going to do another bill for a generation if we kill this one. It's just a fact, and everybody knows it. Aint gonna happen. Do you want that to happen?
And anyone who seriously wants to wait til fantasy land time when single payer will magically appear with unicorns is condemning millions and millions of people to suffering and death in the meantime.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 22, 2010 9:47 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
If everyone knows the Senate won't do another bill for a generation everyone might want to consider that they're not likely to be a Senate that gives a damn about the suffering and deaths of millions and millions today either. Either they give a damn and want a good bill or they don't. If you care about the suffering and deaths of millions and millions you'd think that you'd want a bill that's good enough to prevent that. Is this about the suffering and deaths of millions and millions or is it about short term political expediency?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mjshep
January 23, 2010 2:05 AM in reply to bluebell
Obviously. it's about short term political expediency.
There. That was simple.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 8:57 AM in reply to mjshep
"Obviously. it's about short term political expediency. "
How Orwellian.
So the people who want insurance and additional 30 million people are the cynics. The people who don't political ideological reasons are not. Funny how that works. I hear that up is also down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 23, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to bluebell
I'm sorry. What you say just doesn't make any sense. If you care about the millions and millions, why don't you want to see at a large number of them insured?
Oh Sorry. I forgot. The insurance companies will get paid to insure them. Oh yes. Far better that they lose their toes and their feet from diabetes, and their breasts from cancer.
Tell me, do you have insurance?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
prescient_1
January 24, 2010 8:59 AM in reply to anna am
How many people go to a doctor's office to see an insurance agent?
How many people go to an insurance agent's office to see a doctor?
These two have nothing to do with each other. It is a manufactured problem.
If the government wants to help people, allow them to walk into a doctor's office for whatever they need and allow them to pay for services rendered or have the doctor bill them.
It is pretty funny to watch people squeal like pigs they demand insurance then squeal about how much money the insurance companies will make.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lord Mike
January 22, 2010 9:23 PM
Well, I can't blame the house for feeling the way they do, and this story explains a lot of things. I guess I'm heartened by the fact that they are also aware that they can't just sit on their behinds and do nothing, and their attempts at republican "compromise" certainly won't be fruitful at all... I hope that they realize that they have to do something comprehensive, not half-baked. I'm glad that Sherrod Brown is involved. He has clout with the progressive caucus.
Obama's apparent lack of engagement here is baffling to say the least...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:36 PM
***********************************
House Dems Poutfest 2010
How many days can this go on?:
"I feel alone"
"I'm so afraid"
"I don't trust anyone"
"I need someone to hold my hand"
"Not sure"
Poor House Dems, their feelings are so hurt. Sure, they have aides and prestige and big salaries and the like, but it's so hard and so *scary* to do your job. What if someone doesn't like it? What if you won't keep your job forever?
Forget Haiti, how can we help these sad House Dems???
***********************************
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 22, 2010 9:43 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
You're a classic example of why Dems are cowards.
It's like you've never seen legislative hard ball before.
Pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:54 PM in reply to DA in LA
"Democratic hardball"??? phhhhhhhhhhheewwwww ... ooops, spit out my coffee.
Yeah, they're actually tough guys playing hardball. They only look like weaklings having a meltdown. It's actually a very clever disguise!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 22, 2010 9:55 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Hey I think I saw a House member in a fetal position in the corner wimpering. Now I know: hardball bargaining. Brilliant.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 22, 2010 10:01 PM in reply to DA in LA
Whenever I'm faced with someone who's doing a lot of cringing and snivilling and crying because their feewings have been huut, and resentment because momma likes one sib more than the other, I tend to identify it more as "emotional blackmail" than "hardball." But whatever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 22, 2010 9:37 PM
A quirky grin, hand on the head. Sitting off to the side, feeling like the mack daddy. Good haircut, oxford shirt, jacket. Off to a great start.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 22, 2010 9:42 PM
Rove is leading the charge against Al Qaeda.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
January 22, 2010 9:47 PM
If I had ever heard of one damn case where someone lost a race for Congress and ended up living in a cardboard box as a result of the loss, I'd have a hell of a lot more sympathy for all this chickenshit vaporing.
Yeah, it sucks that it's all on you guys in the House, now and that you might get the short end again. Life's unfair. Now dry up your tears and act like fucking grown-ups. You weren't sent there to get reelected. You were sent there to do as much good as you could for the people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 22, 2010 9:54 PM
Can we please take a look at this?
http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=6130066n&tag=api
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Leftist_Ninja
January 22, 2010 9:57 PM
I don't understand the position of House Democrats here. They have a bill that extends coverage to 30 million people. It isn't perfect, by any stretch, but is far better than the status quo. It is the only realistic bill they can pass right now. So...why not pass it? Why walk away at the one yard line? I'm all for making the bill better, via reconciliation, but that is a different fight. Pass the bill that you have, it's a good bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
January 23, 2010 1:31 AM in reply to Leftist_Ninja
Apparently at least some in the House are willing to take their marbles and go home on account of their not having sufficiently "imprinted" themselves on the process.
Hopefully the administration and Dem leaders in the House and Senate will be able to exercise enough leadership to settle on a ping-pong + reconciliation plan that will allow these preening SOBs to save sufficient face and do the right thing, for once.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 22, 2010 10:17 PM
It would be useful to have an accounting of which House Dems are willing to vote for the bill and which are not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 22, 2010 10:40 PM
I guess this is just about the the board here;
When the Senators wanted to veto the bill over certain provisions, (The PO, Medicare buy-in, etc...) there were those who asked for calm, claiming it was only being realistic: There were after all, insufficient votes in the Senate for the hoped for bill.
Of course, now that it's the House that (may or may not) have the votes for the bill I'm seeing little pressure from the same people that the Senate should make an agreement with the House which would ease it's passage; just lot's of vitrol and demands of immediate passage without regard for whether it's actually possible.
[Now, Progressives aren't bad people for threatening to veto a bill without good additions to it unless, (Presuming you favor the bill) they actually do veto it. Otherwise they're just exerting pressure in an attempt to get make it better.]
Not that it matters: The immediate hold up here isn't that Progressives may mean what they say, (Mind you I notice that the usual prog-bashers have forgotten about Stupak and his ilk who don't feel the same responsibility) but that the Senate won't even offer a handshake deal before the House moves.
To sum it up, I don't care to see those who focused their attentions on the necessity of weakening compromises to secure votes for passage in the Senate, just concentrate on raging and insults when it appears necessary for agreements to change the bill to allow passage through the House. The only consistent thing is bashing Progressives.
What they're asking for here is definately doable and would improve
the result so there's no reason to flip out at them. If someone's panicking or crying, (or whatever) it's probably the people screaming about just passing the bill immediately, without even waiting a little to see if the Senate will agree to something and then passing it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
January 22, 2010 11:18 PM in reply to Kevin Sutton
Addendum/Correction:
"but a big hangup is that more than half of House Democrats don't want to pass the Senate version of the bill with the promise that the bigger differences they've already been hammering out would be fixed with a second bill."
I thought that said WITHOUT a promise. So yeah, that's a fair bit different from what I was thinking.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 23, 2010 12:33 AM in reply to Kevin Sutton
It would be one thing if the House were standing united on this, or even doing anything to suggest that they would absolutely have the votes if only the Senate would pass a few changes in reconciliation.
Instead, it seems like there's a sizable contingent in the House that wants to give up, another that wants to try and pass bits and pieces (which will never work), and a third that actually wants to take a realistic path to passage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cce
January 22, 2010 10:52 PM
There are 256 Democrats in the house, and 220 voted for their bill (which includes 1 Republican). When the House passes a healthcare bill with 261 votes, or 60% of the total, then they can complain about being "betrayed." The Senate had an infinitely more difficult job, with every Democratic senator playing the role of kingmaker. The fact that the house is willing to let HCR die on the vine rather than pass the Senate bill shows what spiteful whiners they are. Either they are completely oblivous to reality, or don't believe in healthcare reform in the first place, in which case we can hold them responsible for 45,000 people who die every year due to lack of insurance. It isn't obstructionist Republicans that are stopping them from passing the bill.
The Senate bill+Reconciliation would actually be a pretty good solution, and light years better than trying to do everything through reconciliation (as many had urged just a few months ago) or trying to pass something piecemeal. The special deal that Nelson got can be repealed with Republican support after the bill passes. Any additional changes can be enacted as time goes on, which is what happened social security, medicare, medicaid, SCHIP, etc. Pass the damn bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Rich in NJ
January 22, 2010 11:38 PM in reply to cce
Good post.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 12:01 AM in reply to cce
If it's so damn easy to change Medicare, do it! Change it to provide universal healthcare to all Americans. Give us a simple, explainable, expansion of a popular program. Oh, but only whiners want that. Either it's easy to change a major program like Medicare or it is not. If it's easy, do it. If it isn't, don't expect me to BELIEVE you are going to amend this monster pile of inexplicable corporate pork later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cce
January 23, 2010 12:48 AM in reply to bluebell
The Senate bill includes changes to Medicare, specifically cuts to the "monster pile of inexplicable corporate pork" known as Medicare Advantage. "Whining" is complaining that a bill that actually exists and can be passed doesn't meet the ideological purity test of the Unicorn States of America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to cce
"Whining" is complaining that a bill that actually exists and can be passed doesn't meet the ideological purity test of the Unicorn States of America."
Exactly.
We have a choice between a real yet flawed bill, and a fantasy bill that won't occur for a decade or more.
Can anyone make the case that the Senate will vote on a good progressive bill of any kind? Can you claim that without getting a lot of spittle on your face from people's laughter??
We have the choice now:
* Take the current bull and fix it as much as possible
* Do absolutely nothing for a long long time
The Senate sucks. The Dems are cowards. We know they can't do what we want. So let's take what we can get, and build upon it. It is far easier to amend and improve an existing health care system than starting from scratch.
For instance, adding a PO to the new exchange would be a ten page bill or less. You won't have some GOP blowhard talking about a 2000 page bill that nobody can understand. It's an easier sell.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
KdNicewanger
January 22, 2010 11:34 PM
Waterboard them until they agree to pass it. I heard that works 100% of the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gotalife
January 23, 2010 12:02 AM
Somebody needs to tell Josh that now politicians can get unlimited corporate donations, informed Americans do not want a corrupted Congress to pass anything.
Corporate power is here to stay.
You have to rethink your arguments with corporate power controlling Washington.
Here is our new flag:
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:American_corporate_flag.jpg
And the 10 elections are tainted with this corruption.
gop are made for corporate yes men and women.
Game over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:42 AM in reply to gotalife
And you solution is for all of us to just curl into a fetal position and cry?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 12:04 AM
Let's try it one more time.
Two words.
Expand Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 6:40 AM in reply to bluebell
Uh huh. Another bill sent to die with the lack of 60 votes in the Senate?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:23 AM in reply to cube3u
The Bluebell script is unable to answer that one. It;s only programmed to repeat the same thing over and over again, in lieu of any factual, reality-based argument.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:43 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Repetition over and over it what has brainwashed Americans in to believing the simple lies of Reaganism.
You need a simple message that links to beliefs Americans already hold and then you grab their minds for a split second and keep doing that hundreds of millions of times and you convince them eventually.
We have a program they already like. We should have taken what they like already and expanded it and framed the opposition as a threat to the program they like.
Instead we allowed the opposition to frame a new program which we cannot even explain to ourselves and use it against us.
Why the deliberate stupidity?
Well, the corrupt jackasses in Congress don't give a damn about healthcare.
So we need to take the issue away from them and bring it to the people:
Expand Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 12:49 PM in reply to bluebell
Well good luck with taking the issue away from Congress and giving it to the people. Whatever that generalized rhetorical drivel means......
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 23, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to cube3u
Oh but of course. Next time around even Scott Brown will vote for it. A shoe-in.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ChrisB
January 23, 2010 2:49 AM
"Others said that more than half of rank-and-file members would rather sacrifice some of the elements of the bill they like by seeking another Senate Republican's support to pass a compromise bill, rather than swallow the Senate bill as is."
the republicans who thought the very centrist senate bill was too much you mean? wtf. need 4 things: no discrimination against pre-existing conditions, which means an individual mandate is necessary to control costs, which means generous subsidies to the poor are necessary. the other thing is preventing insurance companies from canceling coverage. other things are nice, and we could certainly use far more than this, but if you want to insure 30 million americans, this is the bare minimum.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dean-Masse
January 23, 2010 6:30 AM
Why do we need a super majority to finish passing reform? I am very ignorant of all of this and need some education on the ins and out of all this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 8:47 AM in reply to Dean-Masse
Because if anything at all is changed in the Senate bill in conference, we have to go back to the Senate for cloture (60 votes) to bring it to the floor for a vote. We already have two bills passed, one in the House and one in the Senate. If one or the other accepts the bill from the other side, we can send it right on to POTUS for signature. That's the argument now.
The Dems let W get away with what he wanted because they were afraid to be 'weak on terror' and like even the Republicans in the past, believed if a party won the election, they should be able to get a vote except for the most egregious policies. THIS House on the right is only here to say no to everything. Breaking up the bill would be great to show what hypocrites they are, but it wouldn't be good for health care policy and insurance reform. So what to do? I think if we don't pass something now, it will never happen, and we will lose big in November. But hey, I have only worked in politics for 35 years, so maybe I'm naive...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 8:36 AM
We KNOW the Republicans and most of the Blue dogs are never going to vote for any of this--so don't be lured into anything they might say. So what to do? Pass the Senate bill for framework. I don't think some of you understand that once it's in place, it will be much easier to change things about it and much harder to kill healthcare by repeal if the right takes a majority in the fall. It's an awful bill in some parts, I agree. But we never really had 60 votes, we had to coerce them, so what makes you think we'll even have 51 by next week for reconciliation? We won't. They are only interested in their jobs. Work to replace your rep or senator with a more progressive voice.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 8:49 AM in reply to LAB
I didnt buy their congame. I'd vote for single payer too. This bill sucks mainly because of the lack of a PO. But if, say, in 4 or 8 or 12 years, we get an opportunity to pass a PO in the senate, we wont have to start from scratch. A PO bill would be ten pages long, not 2000. The complexity and size of overhauling HC is too great.
To use a football analogy, I don't want to keep starting on our own 10 yard line, then go 80 yards, and not get there. We keep starting from scratch! It's perhaps too big to tackle in one bill.
Case in point, Bill Clinton's 1996 bill. It was a good start, and restricted use of pre-existing conditions, and made group coverage better.
If we pass the Senate bill, fix it as much as we can, it is entirely feasible to tack on a PO to the exchange. That would be a small bill, popular, and doable. Not saying it happens soon, but it's not like we are going to stop fighting for it. Liberals will never forget the PO.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:13 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
We don't have to start from scratch.
Expand Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:20 AM in reply to bluebell
You need to read the constitution. Nothing becomes law without passing the Senate and the House.
Do you really think that the cowardly corrupt jackasses in the Senate will vote for that and break a fillibuster?
If you are talking about Ezra Klein's medicare buyin at 50 thing, well that is a nice last resort, but it covers fewer people than this bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:33 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
Do you really believe the cowardly and corrupt jackasses are going to allow any enforcement of the provisions of the bill anyway?
The bill doesn't provide CARE. It dictates that you pay tribute to an insurance company.
OK, if you want to expand Medicaid in the interim cool. But don't tell me this bill reforms healthcare. If anything it's going to be the monster that eventually kills Medicare. It's going to be a great big sucking mess that infuriates the American people and will have them screaming to let the Republicans do anything they want to healthcare, like kill Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 4:56 PM in reply to bluebell
"like kill Medicare. "
That's ludicrous. GOP wont touch it. Third rail of politics.
What will kill medicare is out of control health care spending. And this bill addresses it.
As it stands now I think medicare is bankrupt by 2017.
Sorry, 30 million people getting coverage is a big deal. IT does provide care because currently many people are BARRED from buying even crappy unregulated ind. insurance plans because of health problems.
Essentially this is MORE REGULATION of individual plans. That's all it is. And my view is that more regulation is better. Many countries that dont have single payer, like Germany, succeed because of strong regulation. Currently, we have a wild west situation in the individual market. This bill stops that. And any good liberal is for better regulation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 10:38 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
This is a far cry from Germany's single negotiator system, which I could go for. This bill leaves health insurance companies free to charge whatever they want, and the gov't has promised to step in with subsidies to help people pay them (off).
It also leaves people underinsured: they're covered, but can't afford to use their coverage.
People who are afraid of doing nothing should consider this: the insurance industry's days are limited if they keep on raising rates as they have been. No matter what, some action will have to be taken in the near term. It's just a question of whether this (Senate) bill is the best we can get, politically, at this point. And that's open to debate. I don't think all our leaderships political tools have been exhausted in working for a better bill...not even close. So, no, we shouldnt' be bullied into thinking by condescending cries of 'It's the Senate bill or nothing'. The current situation is very fluid, and the House would be wise to start work now on passing legislation in chunks, with the most progressive parts passed first, as a quid pro quo for the rest of the Senate bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 8:53 AM in reply to LAB
Oops. My reply was not to LAB but to bluebell.
LAB is right. Changing a passed bill is MUCH easier than starting from scratch. "Starting from scratch" is a formula for never doing anything. Pass this bill, and we can fix it and change it whenever we like. For instance, adding a 10 page public option bill to the new framework. Much easier than having the GOP lambast a 2000+ page bill as "too complex".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:35 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
We already have an existing bill.
Expand Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 8:50 AM
I think if we don't pass the Senate bill (with or without a rider) and settle instead on a compromise with the right, THEY will claim they saved health care reform. We will lose everything Howard Dean accomplished--five years of gains gone. Maybe it's worth it to be pure ideologically? I don't know the answer to that one.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Fed-Up
January 23, 2010 9:07 AM
I have no confidence in these representatives. Pass a bill that puts emphasis on the consumer protections. Dare Mitch and his gang of corporate whore to veto it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dean-Masse
January 23, 2010 9:13 AM
LAB I thank you kindly your response. I see things much much clearer now. If you dont mind answering this also I would mightily appreciate it. if a bill on the senate floor never passes a cloture vote than it never goes to a vote correct? And if so does that mean there could be something on the senate floor being debated from as long ago as 20 30 100 years ago? I understand this isn't a place for civics lessons but I am just now finally trying to care and understand these things. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 9:30 AM in reply to Dean-Masse
You are correct, but they usually just let a bill die or go on hold for a friendlier day. In the old days, (Mr. Smith Goes to Washington if you want to watch how it was) members had to stand on the floor and talk nonstop (the filibuster) or keep using other delaying tactics to keep the bill from a floor vote. Now they just have to threaten a filibuster to stop the bill: they don't make the opposition talk until one side gives up. This of course came into play when CSPAN started showing them on tv...the ONLY way to stop debate and bring a vote to the floor is to have 60 votes (used to be 67, can you imagine?) and that is called cloture--end of debate. That's why this is so frustrating. I sure wish the Dems would force a real filibuster--cots, phone books, Tolstoy and all, just to show the people of this country what skunks they are!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 9:32 AM in reply to LAB
haha. they are all skunks, but I was referring to the Republicans in this case...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 23, 2010 9:49 AM in reply to LAB
The problem with "forcing a real filibuster" is that a filibuster is harder on the filibusterees than the filibusterers. The Republicans could rotate in and out on 3 hour shifts and each Republican Senator would have 5 days in between their 3 hour stint. Meanwhile, the Democrats would have to be in the Senate for the entire thing, waiting for a moment to strike
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 9:56 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
Right you are. But wouldn't it be worth it just once? Of course, poor Byrd would probably die on us if he had to do that. Jim Webb used to hold down the Senate all by himself during recesses when Bush was in office, just so he couldn't do any recess appointments. Have to love those parliamentary rules!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:09 AM in reply to AnonymousCoward
It's not about who it is "harder on". IT's making them own their obstruction and providing cover for reconciliation.
MAKE THEM FILLIBUSTER and then reconcile.
It's ridiculous to let the GOP keep getting free passes by merely threeatening to fillibuster.
ps. Nuclear option should be tried. Fact is 51 votes can remove the rule for cloture. Constitution says that the Senate makes its rules, and nothing about 60 votes. (Indeed, a 1976 Senate unilaterally changed the number down from 67, and they did it with 51 votes)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
patmcgrowen
January 23, 2010 10:09 AM
I think one good filibuster is necessary. This will show the American people what exactly it is. I think financial regulation is the legislation to do it on. Make Republicans humiliate themselves in order to save Wall Street from any pain. Once the filibuster is exposed, this leaves the Democrats with plenty of justification for Reconciliation. I was reading an article from 1996 when Republicans changed the reconciliation process so that bills that would increase the deficit could be passed through this procedure. This is how they got all those worthless tax cuts. With that move reconciliation is now available to be used in cases that increases spending. Then Dems can ping pong. Pass bills that increase spending, then pass separate bills that decrease the defecit.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ecclesiastes
January 23, 2010 10:16 AM
Three words for House Dems: Get Over It.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:14 AM in reply to Ecclesiastes
Two words for House Dems:
Expand Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 11:17 AM in reply to bluebell
And the "Fantasy Senate" of our dreams will approve it!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
This is harder, I admit. It takes three words.
Defeat Blue Dogs.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 23, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to bluebell
How do you do that? Don't most of them come from conservative districts? I think Republicans have a much better chance to replace Blue Dogs than progressive Democrats do and I don't think the Rs will sign on to your plan.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 12:52 PM in reply to barbara63
See, you are defeated before you start because you don't believe you have anything to sell to the American people that they'd want to buy. They figure that out.
Do you really care about that red neck out there in west Texas hundreds of miles from a trauma center? If so you'll be thinking about what kind of healthcare that guy needs and if selling him a cheap insurance policy is going to wind up delivering care to his kid. Is there anything in the bill you can sell to this guy? What does that guy need that the corrupt Blue Dog doesn't give a damn about? Maybe he needs a clinic? Is there a clinic in the bill? If so SELL it. If not, find out why you've got a bill that isn't going to deliver healthcare to west Texas.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 23, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to bluebell
Who knew it was so easy to turn those Red States blue? Just talk some sense into them, that's all you have to do. Problem is, progressive ideas just don't make a lot of sense to people who would rather have tax cuts than health clinics.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
anna am
January 23, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to barbara63
Or who hate the idea that they're tax money might go to pay for healthcare for poor people who aren't white.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 5:15 PM in reply to barbara63
I'm reminded of a film I saw about the rise of Microsoft. They interviewed all these really, really smart guys who had much better software than Microsoft. But the smart guys couldn't and wouldn't sell.
Reagan was a soap salesman.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 10:55 PM in reply to bluebell
A lot of people at this site get off sounding like the voice of pure reason or seasoned insiders. The patronizing tone and sarcastic comebacks are sadly revealing. Good on you, bluebell. Expand Medicare. Repeat over and over: it's simple, it makes sense, and constant repetition is what worked for Bush in his hunt for weapons of mass destruction and, eventually, war. The same tactic can and should be applied to progressive social legislation.
'Reasonable men adjust themselves to their environment. Unreasonable men attempt to change their environment to suit themselves. Therefore, all progress is the work of unreasonable men.'
—George Bernard Shaw
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 9:21 PM in reply to bluebell
Uh huh. West Texas bad. Massachusetts good...oh, wait, they just elected a Republican.....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 11:39 AM
I hope some of you can hear Wait Wait Don't Tell Me on NPR today. They skewered the Dems for being totally weak--hilarious.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 23, 2010 11:44 AM
It's just so ridiculous. They need to get this done, House Democrats. If they want any chance at getting a dime out of me -- a progressive who spent some cash in '07 and '08 -- they need to get this done.
And, it's not the Blue Dogs. I mean, they are a big problem, but on this I suspect that they will jump on board. It's the pro-choice lobby and it's the pro-immigration lobby and it's the pro-labor lobby. They need to understand that it's better to get a decent bill than no bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to Mateo123
Glad to see we have new spin:
Blame the women! Blame labor! Blame Hispanics!
When do they come for the blacks and the Jews?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LAB
January 23, 2010 11:51 AM in reply to bluebell
I thought labor, feminists, and immigration people were ok with it with a rider. If it's Blue Dogs, why wouldn't they vote for something that reduces the deficit?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 12:02 PM in reply to LAB
Blue Dogs don't care about the deficit. They're just corrupt. All you have to do is watch the Blue Dogs slobber over the next war bill.
But another thing Blue Dogs have in common with Republicans is they do so love their scapegoats. No matter how bad this bill is they'll slither away from any responsibility and they'll be right there in a group hug with Sarah and Scott blaming their own party for any tax or hardship imposed on the middle class.
Meanwhile, progressives have been lead down the garden path once again, caving at every twist in the rocky road so distracted by appeasing Joe and Ben that they never found a benefit in the bill they could focus on long enough to make a sales pitch to the middle class.
If you listen to progressive arguments anymore they all sound like mommies trying to figure out how to trick their children into getting a shot and taking yucky medicine. This is going to hurt! But you'll feel better later! Trust mom!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 23, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to bluebell
It's just a bullshit criticism.
The pro-choicers think that the health care bill should not address abortion coverage. The House pro-lifers demanded a much more restrictive measure (prohibiting policies that cover abortion from appearing in the health insurance exchanges used by taxpayers) and these same pro-choicers voted for that bill. Now that the final senate bill is in play, some of these pro-choicers are saying that they will not support the bill. Again, it makes no sense. It's like the Blue Dogs saying that they care about the deficit after they voted to give $700,000,000,000 to the financial services industry, with no strings attached.
As for labor, most health care policy experts agree that one cost-increasing measure is a health plan that carries no co-pays and covers 100% of the cost. It encourages doctor visits, escalating the cost. So, labor fought for these types of plans in collective bargaining agreements and opposes the tax on these types of plans (of course, one partial solution is to renegotiate the plans with the respective employers who would gladly scale back the insurance plan).
As for the pro-immigration crowd, generally I favor much more liberal immigration laws. BUT, right now we have a portion of the population that is here without permission. And, we have House members who are holding up a bill because illegal aliens are not permitted to purchase insurance on health exchanges. So, essentially, the interests of this small portion of the population are preventing everyone else from having affordable access to health care.
The bill is a fairly progressive bill. It would bar preexisting discrimination and would include some minimum insurance policy requirements for the first time in a very long time. So, let's not kid ourselves into thinking that because there is no public option, it's not a progressive bill. That is just complete crap.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Mateo123
Well, not that it's all about me, but I am a voter and you do have to sell this bill to me. I really don't want to get less healthcare. I really don't want that. So why would I be for the bill?
I'm a good liberal. I'd even let you increase my taxes. But I really resent you trying to get me to stop seeing my doctor.
This is the problem you have with this bill. When you get into the fine print, there are things that do harm to people. Obviously, Democrats were thrilled to start with unions and try to penalize union members and tax them and make a big point that some in the middle class had better healthcare than they deserved so Democrats were going to come to the aid of the insurance industry starting with taking away health benefits from the lazy, over paid union dues paying middle class.
Yeah, I really think this is a swell idea. Less for me! What a deal! Think I'll go tell my neighbor....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 23, 2010 1:37 PM in reply to bluebell
Let me get this straight: you think you will be harmed if the House passes the health care bill and the result is that people who have no co-pays (say, people like you) and 100% coverage any time and anywhere have to pay a tax on the value of their health care plan, while people who do have co-pays and, say, 80/20 out-of-network and 100% in network don't pay the tax?
That is health care reform. You must not be for health care reform if you're for keeping your cadillac plan as is. That is, the cadillac plans are one reason that health care costs are spiraling out of control.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 23, 2010 4:38 PM in reply to Mateo123
I am not for "health care reform". I am not for forcing the middle class to have less healthcare. That may work for wonks in the ivory tower. How you sell that to a voter I haven't got a clue.
If my husband has a chest pain I don't want his behavior modified by your experts into thinking first about the co-pay. Because that's what you trying to do. You want the sick to say, oh I can't afford the co-pay so I better not go to the doctor.
The whole rationale for the bill, bending the cost curve, etc. is just all about covering more people and providing less care.
People have figured that out. The middle class is fed up with experts telling them they have to settle for less. They may have to settle for less, but they sure aren't going to vote for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 23, 2010 8:45 PM in reply to bluebell
Right, the middle class is in love with the idea that they cannot get health insurance. They LOVE the idea of paying cash at the ER when their kid needs a few stitches in his upper lip.
Good one. Do I think it would be better to have a broad-based income tax hike to pay for health care? Of course. But, these are our choices: no health care bill or a health care bill with the tax on cadillac plans. I will take the health care bill with the tax.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
January 23, 2010 11:06 PM in reply to Mateo123
Senate bill or no reform = False choice. The situation is fluid and time limits are purely artificial. It's like listening to George Bush hustle us into war: believe me! They've got WMDs.
I agree with the President. Let the dust settle. Let's not get in a tizzy. Let's look at HCR with fresh eyes. Many parts of the bill, as written, won't come into effect for years. So let's open the discussion up.
Unemployment is going to stick at +10% for the foreseeable future. That's a good reason to reconsider and expansion of Medicare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 24, 2010 11:19 AM in reply to Mateo123
Most voters have healhcare so you have to reassure them no what you do. If you just tax them without providing a credible safety net, then you lose them. All that would be sure for me is the tax. What kind of coverage I'd have if I lost my employer plan is not clear at all.
Democrats have been unable to explain the bill. Most in Congress seem afraid to even try when they come back home. People wonder why.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
January 23, 2010 12:43 PM
It is appropriate for the lady to get a move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
labman57
January 23, 2010 1:03 PM
It's ironic that the tea party clan claims to own the populist message when their promoters and pundits are working on behalf of the health insurance industry's corporate interests.
The vast majority of the American public WANTS meaningful health care reform, but the respective House and Senate bills have been watered down in order to appease the "blue dogs" who also cater to the industry lobbyists.
Through the reconciliation process, the progressives in Congress stand a much better chance of revising the current legislation so that it provides better industry regulation, increased coverage of Americans, and true competition within the current quasi-monopoly that exists today in the health insurance industry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
January 23, 2010 1:07 PM
"Others said that more than half of rank-and-file members would rather sacrifice some of the elements of the bill they like by seeking another Senate Republican's support to pass a compromise bill, rather than swallow the Senate bill as is."
I'm sorry, but is the House completely and utterly stupid? Republicans think they have succeeded by stalling and obstructing since last spring, and the only thing that would make them right is to give up now. Which Republican will come forward and provide a bill that is more "acceptable?" Snowe? We'd have to give her the Nebraska special. Collins? Same.
Any bill produced with Repub help will do one of 3 things:
1. Make it harder to afford medical care.
2. Cut Medicaid.
3. Cut Medicare.
How are any of those better than the Senate bill? Yes, they've gotten hosed in the process, I agree. But math is math, and there's a greater probability of losing your seat by failing now than risking another punk job from Reid and Rahm.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mateo123
January 23, 2010 1:16 PM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
To answer your question, yes, the House is completely and utterly stupid. Seriously. If they think they'll get Snowe and Collins, who voted to filibuster the Senate bill, they are crazy. Enough. Pass the GD Senate bill and move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Conjo
January 23, 2010 1:27 PM
Don't kid yourselves. The House Dems aren't stupid. They have reason not to trust the ability (or will?) of the Senate Dems to pass desired amendments to sweeten the HCR bill. And you can be sure that they also realize that the full Senate will never be able to pass a more progressive health care bill after the MA Senate loss. They aren't interesting in cutting off their nose to spite their face.
I'm sorry I can't find the link but I read that the option being pursued is the following:
1. Senate passes a pot-sweetener for HCR via reconciliation. This will take some time to determine what elements can qualify for a reconciliation bill, but of course the benefit of this course of action is that it is immune to filibuster.
2. Once the House has received this pot-sweetener it passes it without change, and then also passes the existing Senate HCR bill without change.
This approach takes time because there are details to be worked out in terms of what can be accomplished via reconciliation, but it keeps the fate of HCR in the Dem hands rather than in the hands of Republican opposition. They can't filibuster the reconciliation process, and the Senate can't touch the HCR bill that they've already passed unless the House modifies it.
This would yield an even more progressive package than the original. This would be a great long-game victory in the face of what currently looks like a short-game loss.
How much time is allowed between a bill passing the Senate and being subsequently passed by the House?. Does it need to be within the same session of Congress?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 3:16 PM in reply to Conjo
"The House Dems aren't stupid"
Facts beg to differ.
Dems are cowards. HCR is the reason these assholes were elected. If they cant or wont do it, they deserve to be fired.
At the minimum, I want Pelosi to put these TRAITORS on the spot and make them vote. Let's get a list of names of traitors.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 23, 2010 3:24 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Get over it. Move on. It's not happening, just like Lieberman wasn't giving in. From Talk Left
By now it should be apparent to anyone that without a contemporaneous fix of the Senate health bill, the Stand Alone Senate bill is dead. No matter how many times Village Dems and bloggers chant "pass the bill," the math is inescapable - there simply is no possible way to get 218 votes in the House to pass the Senate bill WITHOUT a companion fix via reconciliation.
That may be "monstrous" or "politically stupid" or anything else anyone wants to call it, but it is the political reality. With that reality staring people in the face, the continued strategy of "punching the hippies" employed by Village Dems and bloggers is irresponsible, from THEIR perspective. It is nothing more than a juvenile temper tantrum now. Want them to "pass the bill?" Then push the Senate to agree to a companion fix via reconciliation. Anything else is nothing more than a de facto "Kill the Bill" movement.
So, shut your pie holes and call your Senator because that's where this bill is now stuck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 23, 2010 4:22 PM in reply to DA in LA
Speaking as one who's firmly entrenched in the Pass-The-Bill-Now camp, I have to say that calling my Senators and urging them to pass the House-proposed changes through reconciliation is a good idea. I called my Rep last week. I will call my Senators and my Rep again Monday. Thank you.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 4:47 PM in reply to barbara63
Pressure them both. But House must make the recon bill and send it to Senate. That's how it works.
So no excuse for House Dems to sit on their asses and whine. Absolutely pathetic.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 23, 2010 5:14 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
That's not what they are doing. They are trying to figure out a way to make this work that satisfies the base.
It's smart politics, as opposed to the idiots in the White House and the Senate, who screwed the base.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 23, 2010 9:52 PM in reply to DA in LA
Oh, the White House and the Senate Democrats don't have a base and the House Democrats do....oh, wait....
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 23, 2010 11:55 PM in reply to cube3u
At one point in time the White House did have THE base, they no longer do. The way the Senate was formed, with six year terms, was intended to give them a little freer hand in making decisions, the House on the other hand must be re-elected every two years so they are much more answerable to the people and thus much more in touch. It is called the Peoples House after all and in this case their mis-trust of this White House and this Senate is reflected in the opinion of the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 4:43 PM in reply to DA in LA
There's no reason they can't do reconciliation to fix this, BUT you do know that reconciliation bills always come from the House, because they are budgetary in nature. So get to it!!
*House must pass recon. bill, send to senate, get 51 votes.
*Then House can pass both bills.
It's totally doable. House Dems can then get changes made. That is -- if they are actually serious and not trying to find an excuse not to act.
I think that is what this comes down to: Are House Dems and Senators trying to find an excuse not to do anything? Yglesias thinks so.
Even if Coakley had barely one, who doesn't think that these assorted cowards in both houses wouldn't run for cover so they can go back to being GOP-Lite sellouts?? This gets them off the hook. That's why we need an actual vote either way. Then we can see which ones are the cowards/sellouts.
We must have accountability. If they refuse to act like Democrats, they need to be fired.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
January 23, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
It's funny, people on progressive radio (and elsewhere, probably) have gone back to the "What do Dems stand for?" conversation. Is it really that big of a mystery? Really, just ask people who vote for Democrats and the answer is clear: an affordable life for the middle class. That's comprised of:
1. Health care that doesn't send you into bankruptcy.
2. Energy solutions that don't send out nation into bankruptcy.
3. Educational opportunities that don't send college students into bankruptcy.
How is the answer to the easiest question in the world so hard for Dems to address? They are so very stupid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 23, 2010 4:13 PM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
You're daft. The Democrats are doing none of those things.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
January 23, 2010 4:33 PM in reply to DA in LA
Maybe I'm wrong, but I thought Joshua meant that the elected Dems in Washington are so out-of-touch that they can't even answer the question: What do Democrats stand for? They're on the verge of accomplishing Number One on the list and they just can't bring themselves to do it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
January 23, 2010 4:34 PM in reply to DA in LA
That's the point: they run on those things, then freak out when it's time to deliver.
Of course, I just might not have seen your snark tags.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 23, 2010 5:12 PM in reply to Joshua the Teacher
Ah, sorry. I think you're missing the fact that they don't want to pass those things. They are the carrot, like Republicans use the abortion carrot on the right.
Democrats have been taken over by the DLC and corporations. If they were smart, they would govern with populist legislation and hold Congress for decades. But, they've decided to go the other route, particularly the Senate. They won't last past 2012 if they pass this bill as is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jim43
January 23, 2010 4:37 PM
The longer it takes for some plan to develop, the more likely it is that health care is dead. The election - i.e; politics - is far more important to these lawmakers than the betterment of Americans' lives.
http://www.sunstateactivist.org/ssablog/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnMcCSF
January 23, 2010 4:49 PM
Governance Fail: Nothing good happens in "pause" mode (Benen)
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/archives/individual/2010_01/022064.php
Personally I could give a tinkers damn whether House Dems trust the Senate, the WH, or neither
If HCR dies, the House Dems will be the ones who administered the coup de grace
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 23, 2010 5:17 PM in reply to JohnMcCSF
And if the bill passed as is, the Senate would be the ones who administered the coup de grace.
Not sure why you people can't this through your heads. The bill as is, is ruinous for Dems in the next elections. And not passing health care reform is the same.
The House is actually doing the only smart move: Trying to figure out how to keep the Democratic Party from complete destruction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 23, 2010 6:00 PM in reply to DA in LA
The Senate should not be let off the hook, but the House actually has a large majority and no fillibuster to contend with. This is why the pressure is there, because the Senate is hopeless unless they go nuclear (which I favor).
At this point, they already voted yes on the bill. They are on the hook, all of them. But voters will not reward cowardice and spinelessness. It is revolting to behold.
However, only 1/3 of the Senate is up for relection this year. House Dems will reap the whirlwind.
Passing no health care = Surrender = Political suicide
Both houses deserve to be punished if they quit. The president too. Do your fucking job. Stop whining about it. Do it or go home.
And don't buy any bullshit about "moving on". Moving on to what? So you can get to the next issue you will surrender on? Fucking spineless cowards with no principles.
The current situation of sitting around, whining, pouting, blaming, looking weak .... is simply a disaster.
Every single one of these mofos deserves to be slapped up thge side of the head as far as I'm concerned.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joshua the Teacher
January 23, 2010 8:32 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Word.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
January 23, 2010 7:38 PM
F*ck'em all bunch of feckless wimps. Don't deserve to have majority if this is how they act. I see two parties, the teabaggers and the progressives. Not enough strong willed progressive dems. If you think they heard yelling in August, wait till they get home again. OMFG!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
January 23, 2010 7:53 PM in reply to Jackster
The teabaggers and progressives just might get us a public option ... in spite of corporatist enablers such as yourself.
BTW. Can you post video of your "teabag army of one" assault on your rep? That ought to be good for some lulz.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
January 25, 2010 9:37 PM in reply to kgb999
I've been in communication with my rep an he (in his words), happens to disagree. He is a conservative corporate ditto brain. If I get a chance I will ask him why he is the corporate enabler in opposition to real suffering human beings. It seems you may have miss judged my position. I am totally PISSED at TB's and Dem's equally if not more at the feckless dems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
b2330934
January 23, 2010 9:18 PM
House Democrats need to vote for this bill and fix it later. They seriously need to get on message and close ranks, or it is GAME OVER. Do not let the perfect be the enemy of the good!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
January 23, 2010 11:26 PM in reply to b2330934
Yeah, they'll fix it later, but I doubt the fix all the loopholes that have been stuck in there for the Insurance companies. Either way we're fucked, but hey, they'll have that Health Care reform notch in their belt. SO what if they have to spend the next four years fighting off Republican nonsense about death panels and such, because nothing of any substence goes into effect until 2013, so there will be nothing to prove the Republicans bullshit wrong. Yeah pass it, super, great, excelent idea.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DoubleFelix
January 23, 2010 10:11 PM
Why is it presumed that the House should have to pass the Senate bill FIRST?
The Senate can and should pass its "clean up" bill. Then the House could vote on both of them at once.
Only an idiot would pass the Senate bill now on the promise that Obama and the Senate would get around to doing the clean up at some later time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
shooter242
January 24, 2010 1:17 PM in reply to DoubleFelix
You don't get it yet... It's pass the Senate bill, or nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 24, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to shooter242
You don't get it. The Senate bill is dead and was the minute they gave in to Lieberman and Nelson.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bill
January 24, 2010 1:07 AM
While I respect Mr Harris’ opinions, these are the key questions and the factual answers.
Who are Obama's 'constituencies'? Follow the decisions:
1. Decision - Ignore previous Republican crimes and misdemeanors: Constituencies - Republican voters and Republican Congress people he hoped would go 'bi-partisan'.
2. Decision - Support a stingy stimulus full of tax breaks and pork: Constituencies - investors, special interests.
3. Decision - Kill the only option that would have slowed the cost of health care & led to universal coverage: Constituencies - Health insurance and pharmacy industries.
4. Decision - Accelerate the Bush bailout,: Constituency - Financial industry.
5. Decision - Escalate a meaningless and fruitless war: Constituencies - military and corporate mercenaries.
6. Decision - Gut real financial reform and substitute finger wagging and silly taxes and fees: Constituencies - financial industry and the wealthy.
7. Decision - Not help people with bankruptcy and mortgages remediation: Constituencies - financial industry, banks and wealthy.
and
8. Decision - Fiddle around and not pass a jobs bill: wealthy and Republicans.
Obama’s constituencies are the health insurance and pharmacy industry, military-mercenary complex, the financial industry and banks, and the wealthy.
Why has Obama lost the support of the voters? Based on the decisions Obama has made, these appear to be the reasons for the lose:
1. Republicans are better off with real Republicans;
2. Independents, who wanted change, see the status quo protected and coddled;
3. Democrats see a so-called Democratic White House and so-called Democratic Congress pushing Republican policies and catering to traditionally Republican constituencies.
Obama has made decisions that have hurt most Americans, and, he is either:
1. Oblivious to them,
2. Doesn’t care, or
3. Erroneously assumed the military-mercenary, health insurance-pharmaceutical, financial-banking industries and wealthy constituencies would remain loyal and rescue him from troubles.
Obama is apparently constitutionally unable to support the middle class and the traditional Democratic constituency (as one advisor said, he 'doesnt have a populist bone in his body'). It is not difficult to understand why Obama's ratings and his 'agenda' have been rejected and Democrats no longer enjoy the support of the majority of voters.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cat
January 24, 2010 4:26 AM
Well,their "betrayal" or whatever is much more important than health care for millions of Americans. Poutrage alert!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
prescient_1
January 24, 2010 8:53 AM
The house does not trust the White House or senate on health care?
What a coincidence, Americans do not trust the house, White House or Senate on anything.
This party has demonstrated it does not know its role.
It was put in place to lead and govern.
Instead, America has a party some think is in place to rule while other see it as being in place to confiscate peoples income to level some imaginary playing field.
This ignorance and gross abuse of power will lead to a real leveling of the playing field this fall.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 24, 2010 11:34 AM
Will the House, Senate and WH commit political suicide?
This is like watching lemmings walk off the cliff. I think everyone agrees that what they have been doing is insane.
I have no idea how they get out of this trainwreck (to mix metaphors) but they need to do it fast. Pass HCR one way or another, just do it. Then, not only move on, but hammer home why it's good. Call the GOP on their support for predatory health cos. Repeat the talking points about standing up for the middle class while GOP stands up for millionaire health co CEOs.
Time to change course and go on the attack. The passive approach is a disaster. GOP pay no price and are never called out for lies and obstruction. Make them own their ugly policies and never shut up about it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 24, 2010 3:17 PM in reply to AnswerFrog
Um. Yeah. It's over. Whether or not they pass the bill. Obama has quickly taken a populist wave and turned it into a pile of crap. He is now a lame duck. Dems in the House won't want to have anything to do with him and the Senate doesn't respect him and is not in the least bit frightened of him.
He squandered it.
We bet on the wrong horse. The right horse was a philly.
I've never regretted a vote more in my life.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Oh! You can't be serious
January 24, 2010 11:41 AM
They lost this war over the summer when the Republicans and the insurance companies controlled the media with death panels and the like. I'm a bit amazed they came this close. But this thing is done. They will not reform health care (they should have always called it insurance reform - people like their health care if they have it - they hate their insurance company). Probably gone from the agenda for another 15 or 20 years except for some lame face saving little bits that they may try to pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
January 24, 2010 11:52 AM in reply to Oh! You can't be serious
If they like their healthcare and not their insurance company, they shoud have called it "Expand Medicare".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jward
January 24, 2010 12:57 PM
--ONE LAST TRY -- “Reid, Pelosi work to save reform,” by POLITICO’s Chris Frates: “Struggling to salvage health reform, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi have begun considering a list of changes to the Senate bill in hopes of making it acceptable to liberal House members … The changes could be included in separate legislation that, if passed, would pave the way for House approval of the Senate bill — a move that would preserve President Barack Obama's vision of a sweeping health reform plan. … The changes are being worked on this weekend with plans for Pelosi to present them to her caucus next week.”
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 24, 2010 8:28 PM in reply to jward
Yeah, they want to make those excise tax changes the unions wanted. Just a another kick in the teeth to the middle class.
Worst idea ever.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericAZ
January 24, 2010 1:57 PM
The Democrats need to catch their breath and then get the messaging right.
When the American public understands that the Republicans want us to die in the gutter like dogs after the health insurance industry has taken all of our money, then we can begin to make progress.
Dithering about the details while letting the Republicans control the messaging with lies won't have a good outcome.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
January 24, 2010 6:08 PM in reply to ericAZ
Astute comment about messaging. They need a consistent message that they can repeat ad nauseum. Just hammer the GOP over their obstruction, make a one line explanation of why HCR matters, and everyone stick to the talking points.
I guess TPM took the weekend off. Cant blame them. What a disastrous week. We all need to regroup, and get back into this thing. Gotta come out swinging this year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Oh! You can't be serious
January 24, 2010 7:31 PM in reply to ericAZ
I agree about getting the message right being crucial but they are so far behind the curve on that that I don't see them catching up. The Republicans got their message in people's minds. The Democrats want you to be sentenced to death by death panels, after the government takes your money. It's a lie of course, but it worked. That genie isn't going back in the bottle any time soon I'm afraid.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 24, 2010 8:30 PM in reply to Oh! You can't be serious
The death panel argument died a long time ago. That convinced those already against the bill to still be against it. The public option INCREASED in popularity after August.
The death of the bill came from people who wanted the public option, also known as 60% of America.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Oh! You can't be serious
January 24, 2010 8:42 PM in reply to DA in LA
There is a lot of truth to that. But the death panels had a very general effect in turning people against the bill. Okay, not people building rockets in their day jobs, but still, voters. And they never overcame that negative impression of the bill. Couple that with a bill that doesnt have anyone excited about it (mainly due to no public option) and you have a bill that isn't going to pass.
Oh, and it something else passes, the Republicans will take credit for it in November of 2010.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DA in LA
January 25, 2010 12:43 AM in reply to Oh! You can't be serious
The bill is unpopular because it is a bad bill that doesn't adequately do what it should do.
It's not popular on the left, right or the center and that has nothing to do with death panels. It has to do with it being a bad bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Gilead
January 24, 2010 9:07 PM
Only corrupt governments are unresponsive to the desperate needs of their people and allow corporate exploitation and predation.
The U.S. government has become a tragic spectacle --cheap entertainment. There is no one representing the American people.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jsdc007
January 25, 2010 3:09 PM
And if they continue to engagae in this endless whining, their base won't trust them either and they'll be voted out of office come November.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?