The irony of “reconciliation”
posted at 9:30 am on August 19, 2009 by Ed Morrissey
The New York Times offers a strong hint that Democrats in the Senate will use the budget reconciliation process as a cover to move ObamaCare through the chamber to avoid a filibuster. The Democrats will “go it alone,” the headline reads, although the actual report makes the how of that rather ambiguous. And well it should, since the Democrats know — or should know — that to try reconciliation would be an invitation to a war that would bring Congress to a screeching halt:
Given hardening Republican opposition to Congressional health care proposals, Democrats now say they see little chance of the minority’s cooperation in approving any overhaul, and are increasingly focused on drawing support for a final plan from within their own ranks.
Top Democrats said Tuesday that their go-it-alone view was being shaped by what they saw as Republicans’ purposely strident tone against health care legislation during this month’s Congressional recess, as well as remarks by leading Republicans that current proposals were flawed beyond repair.
Rahm Emanuel, the White House chief of staff, said the heated opposition was evidence that Republicans had made a political calculation to draw a line against any health care changes, the latest in a string of major administration proposals that Republicans have opposed. …
The Democratic shift may not make producing a final bill much easier. The party must still reconcile the views of moderate and conservative Democrats worried about the cost and scope of the legislation with those of more liberal lawmakers determined to win a government-run insurance option to compete with private insurers.
In fact, the article never mentions the word “reconciliation,” the process by which the Senate approves a budget for the federal government. Under the rules of reconciliation, no cloture vote is needed, as the chamber has a Constitutional duty to produce a budget. Some Democrats have threatened this for months, notably Chuck Schumer, but the plan has a couple of big flaws. First, the Democrats have to convince the Senate parliamentarian, ostensibly non-partisan, to agree that the bill is primarily budgetary. No one in their right mind could honestly make that judgment about massive regulation of 15% of the American economy. They’re likely to get denied before they even get started.
However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next year. Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent. Bill-reading is just one example. One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee. For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.
Traditionally, Senators give each other the courtesy of unanimous consent to allow business to proceed at a normal pace. If the Democrats try to force ObamaCare through reconciliation, that unanimous consent will dissipate faster than an Obama expiration date. It won’t take the entire Republican caucus to gum up the works, either; it only takes a single objection to end unanimous consent, and the GOP has more than a couple of conservative firebrands who will gladly toss sand in the gears to stop Harry Reid from steamrolling them.
Democrats might think that this will gain them sympathy with the public, but not if they’re breaking rules to pass an increasingly unpopular and intrusive piece of legislation. It will create a firestorm of anger even worse than what we’ve seen in the townhalls thus far. They would be signing their way to minority status, especially in the House. They can kiss the rest of their agenda goodbye for the rest of this session, too, including cap-and-trade. Even budgeting will prove very difficult.
There’s a reason the Times didn’t mention reconciliation. It’s a bluff. Not even Harry Reid is this foolish.
Blowback
Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.
Trackbacks/Pings
Trackback URL
Comments
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
Don’t bet against religious ideologues. I know the communists in charge of the WH and HOR will shoot their foot off to get their dream of big brother. Reid is out on 2010 one way or the other so he doesn’t care.
DAMN THE ELECTIONS, FULL SPEED AHEAD!!
jukin on August 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
profit margins are around 10 percent, found it on top idustries most profitable cnn money
CMonster on August 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
elduende, I agree that the public doesn’t want government takeover and the public option fails to get majority support by a few percent. But the Dems can say that they couldn’t get GOP approval for even the co-ops or any reforms the way things are now shaking out, and so were forced into them by the GOP’s unwillingness to cooperate.
Like I say, Gringrich’s shutdown of Congress to prevent increased federal spending allowed Clinton’s re-election. Some type of significant healthcare reform is much more popular than an increased federal budget. Do the math.
Jimbo3 on August 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:08 AM
PROPAGANDA in our world is, as you guess, a one-way street (your choice of words) leaving clear intent with no room for confusion.
# the spreading of ideas, information, or rumor for the purpose of helping or injuring an institution, cause or person.
# ideas, facts or allegations spread deliberately to further one’s cause or damage an opposing cause.
# The systematic propagation of a doctrine or cause or of information reflecting the views and interests of those advocating such a doctrine or cause.
# Material disseminated by the advocates or opponents of a doctrine or cause.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
It’s okay to say George Soros’ name out loud.
He has no power here.
VibrioCocci on August 19, 2009 at 10:35 AM
That’s “government” run healthcare though…
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM
Hi Moby. Insurance Industry profit margins are 3.3%.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM
In other words, let me help you, Mav was correct and you are too embarrassed to admit it…so you go on the personal attack.
Trust me, it will be much easier for you just to admit it like a man, and move on. Everybody makes a mistake, but not everyone tries to cover it up by heaping personal attacks on the person who “outed” you.
Good call Maverick Muse…until I saw FW’s answer I wasn’t so sure.
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 10:36 AM
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:34 AM
The Government option is the main priority in this bill. The President and the Democratic Leadership have all re-iterated that fact. The President, on video, in 2003 and 2007, proclaimed it as a goal.
kingsjester on August 19, 2009 at 10:37 AM
In my case it was Japan. Besides my infrequent hospital visits for minor things, I remember when my daughter was born in 1992. My mother, an RN working in the childbirth area came over to help out. She was flabbergasted at the poor state of hospital facilities, technology and procedures there, reminiscent apparently of the US in the 1960s. And this was not some rural hospital, it was a major Tokyo hospital with a well-know maternity ward.
Now I live in PRC, where of course there is a very poor quality government run system. Granted China is a developing country, though certainly industrialized. After 6 decades of socialist medicine there is finally a recovering private health care industry. Hopefully the US won’t have to go 6 decades down Obama’s socialist road to nowhere before we come to our senses.
DarkCurrent on August 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Look, jerk. You’re always going on and on and on about how we are all doomed. It’s old.
Blake on August 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Cranky reminds me of Proud Rino, who started out posting as a center right guy to try and build some credibility, but now rarely presents anything other than leftist talking points.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:38 AM
Are you kidding, the inclusion of AIDS coverage (and which law requires that by the way) leads to higher premiums for all? Since most insurance plans exclude pre-existing conditions I seriously doubt that. And also, since the majority of people who contract AIDS in this country are working class non-white folks don’t tend to have private health insurance anyway.
I think healthcare monopolies (which the bill doesn’t address and, again, which town hall protestors didn’t seem to care about for some reason) are the real cause of premiums. Ironically it’s the LACK of competition that’s causing problems. Why hasn’t there been a strong push to end healthcare monopolies from congress?
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:39 AM
Hey Cranky, before you continue down the road…how about finishing your other post.
Show us where you got that large profit margin figure, or admit you were wrong…and admit that the “concession” was a CYA…
You don’t post a lie, or false accusation, then just ignore your mis-information…you own it, now correct it.
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM
Well, Mav, since you’re a “no one” and you state that no one needs my permission to make an observation, I’d say that you need my permission to make an observation, wouldn’t you agree?
So, in response to your request for permission, I steer my pirate ship over to Wayne’s World and Mike Myer’s basement to dredge up this golden oldie of a catch-phrase: Denied!
FlameWarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM
That’s what many of the liberals I talk to don’t get. They seem to be in a fantasy land where if the government runs health insurance, everyone will be covered, premiums will go down and somehow the quality of care won’t suffer. Apparently they think the government is just that much more efficient, even though the government has no reason to even try being efficient.
taznar on August 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM
FlameWarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:32 AM
You’re imbalanced.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 10:40 AM
The way to stop these guys, is to have them take ownership of their posts…not throw a “bomb” then run from it.
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 10:41 AM
We can do reform without the government taking it over and without adding to the budget deficit. But that’s not what Obama and his socialists are pushing, is it?
People have had it with the government interference in our lives and unless that changes an insurgency in congress will be rewarded.
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM
No, you nailed him and he doesn’t know how to respond as a man…so he reverts to “wayne’s world” and “pirate ships”.
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM
It hit me yesterday, while considering some of my customers, local small businesses: They either buy this garbage for their employees, including part-timers, or they get hit with an 8% tax. That’s higher than their profit margins, for most small businesses. Law of Unintended Consequences? Or Intended ones?
bikermailman on August 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM
That’s Mister Jerk to you, Half-Blake.
FlameWarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:43 AM
Then why is it that healthcare insurance pools with the most indidividuals, and by consequence, the most number of claims, have the best plans that cost the least?
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:43 AM
I could be wrong, but I think I remember AnneinCA doing that, too.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM
right2bright on August 19, 2009 at 10:42 AM
‘Morning
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Isn’t it interesting how you hear that the AMA supports this, but when you talk to doctors they’re against it. And now we have an insurance agent bucking the “insurance industry.” Things that make you say “Hmmmm…”
Dee2008 on August 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Allowing consumers to shop across state lines would force the state monopolies to compete with lots of other companies, lowering prices and improving quality.
It’s a great idea. And in a 1000 page bill there’s not a word about it.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Bingo!
Rovin on August 19, 2009 at 10:44 AM
Huh?
Does the name Pelosi ring a bell?
fogw on August 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM
Maybe because plans that (at least appear) to be the best and cost the least attract the biggest pool of buyers.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 10:45 AM
And in the case of the health insurance industry those profit margins are pretty outrageous, 30-40%. – CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 9:56 AM
pearson on August 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Bravo. I’m investing in THAT.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM
AnninCA also has a special reverence for Hillary, much like our CrankyIndependent.
myrenovations on August 19, 2009 at 10:46 AM
Before I even bother Crank, do you have health care insurance and if so who is it provided by? Don’t need exact details.
ClassicCon on August 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM
I think I’ll just sit back and let you boys have at one another. Right2bright, meet Half-Blake. Half-Blake, right2bright.
FlameWarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:47 AM
There are some issues where its difficult to debate the lefties, but health care isn’t one of them. Almost every single fact lines up on our side of the argument, and the Democrat plan can be cleary shown to both reduce quality and choice and increase deficits.
When Cranky tosses out a claim like 30-40% profit margins without a link (most likely because he read it a TPM or ThinkProgress) it destroys his entire argument.
Facts are stubborn things.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:49 AM
aka Nurse Ratchet with the memory hole
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 10:49 AM
If the Republicans do not shut down the Congress they do not deserve office and should be removed. Nothing, and I mean nothing at all should happen in Congress if the dems try to bypass the system. They can seize control of health care but they cannot fund it if republicans stop the process.
JIMV on August 19, 2009 at 10:49 AM
You live in China? Where?
AsianGirlInTights on August 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
What health care monopolies? Heck, at my job, there were five different health plans offered, and that was just a single employer.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Hmmmmm
misslizzi on August 19, 2009 at 10:51 AM
Shanghai
DarkCurrent on August 19, 2009 at 10:51 AM
I will be there. Think we could get an open thread or something a few days beforehand to use to keep in touch??
hollygolightly on August 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM
The Dems have wanted socialized medicine FOREVER. Why would they make incremental changes that improve the system when that would deprive them of their last best chance to get it?
Dee2008 on August 19, 2009 at 10:52 AM
I actually like AnninCA. She’s hopelessly naive but seems sincere. I think there’s room for her to devlop some conservative ideals.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:53 AM
Well, duh.
FlameWarrior on August 19, 2009 at 10:53 AM
That’s so cool! How long have you been there? I’ve visited my grandparents in Fuzhou and few times and spent a couple of days in Shanghai. It’s a wonderful city!
AsianGirlInTights on August 19, 2009 at 10:54 AM
Exactly. Your employer was able to offer high quality affordable care options because it negotiated with a large number of locked in customers in its workforce. The same goes for state governments who are able to pool all state employees into one massive buying bloc leading to lower premiums and better quality of care. The only thing that a public option would do is create a pool of consumers who work in industries or for employers that don’t offer coverage and negotiate a set of plans that those consumers cuold choose from.
A
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:55 AM
Well just to be clear, I’ve never claimed to be center-right.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:56 AM
You mean Dems like Richard Nixon and Eisenhower?
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 10:57 AM
About 3.5 years now.
DarkCurrent on August 19, 2009 at 10:57 AM
Fair enough. But you don’t strike me as particularly centrist either. It’s difficult to be informed about the current health care bill, support it, AND not be a leftist.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:58 AM
same at Emery, and they encouraged you to shop aggresively for the level of coverage you wanted indexed to premium….
CrankyInDepends wants us to believe that:
1) the illegal government ran plan will not have the aid of democrats who will allow it to engage in practices that were they done by private business would be illegal
2) Ogabenomics has somehow repealed the laws of supply and demand and that government ran care will deliver more care using the same resources at lower cost with no rationing
3) that a majority of people are stupid enough to favor the running of their health options by a crowd that can’t run a government on several trillion dollars….
I am looking forward to the implosion of the $uper$tate….it may take two years it may take 100 but we’ve seen this movie enough to know how it ends.
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM
Heh. That’s what President Obama needs on his side right now; Nixon.
Please address your claim that insurance industry profit margins are at 30-40%. It’s difficult for people to take your argument seriously when you just toss out incorrect statistics.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 10:59 AM
If you’ve read my posts you know that I don’t support the current bill. As I said to you, there’s no tort reform in the bill. It does nothing to allow consumers to shop for insurance across state lines. It’s going to have an insurance mandate. The Big Phrma deal means that prescription medication costs are not going to be addressed. All four of which are the result of lobbyist influence.
But I am generally leftist and I do support a public option for the reasons I’ve outlined. And electronic medical records and delinking testing from incentives and pushing for more generic prescription drugs etc. etc. So I want reform, I just don’t like the corporate giveaway that is the bill that’s primarily coming out of the Senate.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:00 AM
You believe this based on what?
chemman on August 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM
This is the key point. President Obama is trying to sell the nation an impossible equation.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM
It seems I was wrong about that particular stat and I’ll admit it. I’m not wrong about the fact that premiums have risen faster than wages over the last decade and none of the reasons cited by anti-reform folks explain that.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:01 AM
Frankly, after reading Nixon’s writings on the subject and Obama’s I think the President has copied almost verbatim the reforms that Nixon proposed in the early 70s. No fooling, there’s a case for plagiarism.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:03 AM
This troll sounds like AnninCA. In the trenches time right Ann?
elduende on August 19, 2009 at 11:04 AM
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 10:50 AM
Leftist convolution. The only monopoly would be government involved health care, socialism.
In Rousseau’s initial socialist vision, there was no government sponsored health care. Throughout Europe’s multiple 19th Century socialist revolutions through 1848, there was no government health care monopoly as a rally cry from revolutionaries.
The masses simply wanted what we always enjoyed as American citizens, that was affordable until people bought the marketing of the “need” to insure a simple doctor’s visit, at which point large insurance companies made wealthy targets for opportunistic and unscrupulously greedy trial lawyers.
Socialists usurp, plunder and monopolize in order to hold all power. Legislators become rulers via socialism, and citizens become subjects without rights for self determination. Given socialism, “unalienable rights” are a myth as irrelevant as private property, punishable offenses.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Only in polls that test liberals at a higher proportion than their actual population density.
I live in a very blue area of the Upper Midwest. VERY BLUE. Historically very heavy in the support of the Democrats.
I cannot believe the abject anger I am hearing around here directed at the Democrats and our Dem Congressional Rep. A Rep who has never had a real challenge to his seat. These people are really angry and do not support the Health Bill. I mean SERIOUSLY pissed off people! I’m describing people who have NEVER voted anything but a straight Dem ticket, and have never thought of voting any other way.
I repeat: THEY ARE PISSED OFF, BIG TIME. TARP, Cash for Clunkers, bailouts: they have had it. TheY are saying NO HEALTH BILL!
The Dems DO NOT have even their base supporting them around here and after Rep. Stupack had his head handed to him at the only live townhall meeting he held he has retreated to time-limited, selected phone townhall meetings. If he votes for this the population around here has determined that his senority in the House will not protect him. They plan on replacing him. I believe he does not think that could happen.
Yoop on August 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM
What?
That doesn’t make any sense at all.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 11:05 AM
Ever seen a more menacing group than Obama, Soros, Pelosi and Reid? What a cabal of corruption.
marklmail on August 19, 2009 at 11:08 AM
Um? It doesn’t? Let me try to break it down a different way. Your employment based health insurance is a single payer system. Try to keep breathing. Your employer says “I’ve got these many employees, you want our money, you have to offer us decent services.” As an individual you can’t make that claim and the insurance company treats you in isolation, making decisions about what kind of coverage you can get. The same is true for state and federal employee plans. All federal employees have the same plan (from janitors to senators) and they negotiate great policies because of the number of customers they represent to the insurance industry.
A public option (and this should be done without an insurance mandate) simply broadens that pool to include any U.S. citizen who wants to buy into it. Like your employer there’d be a slate of plans (they are calling it an exchange because Washington purposefully makes things more difficult) and based on what you could afford you’d buy into one. But at the least you’re going to get a plan that gets you more bank for your buck than if you were buying one on your own. That is the public option.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM
It is pretty simple to explain why premiums go up — there is a demand for more coverage. Now, that demand might come honestly from the individual, as a result of in increasing number of more expensive medical options, or it could be because the government outlaws providing less coverage.
Both are at play, here.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 11:11 AM
I’ll give you credit for debating and not sniping like most of the lefties here do (lefties not being a derogatory term; I just have no idea if our trolls are Democrats or not).
Health care costs have to rise. It’s a direct result of medical advances and new technologies. You wouldn’t accept 1990s medicine 5 years from now if it meant costs stayed the same. This is essentially what many single-payer systems do; limit the use of new, expensive technologies to control costs. It’s why our survival rates for cancer are almost always higher than single-payer nations. The drugs and technology cost a ton of money to develop, and as a result cost a ton of money to administer.
Look at other products for an example: The basic pair of shoes that people buy costs roughly the same as it did 20 years ago (inflation adjusted). That’s a result of well established mass production techniques and a lack of new technological and R&D development costs.
Cars, however, cost more than they did 20 years ago. Technological development costs neccesitate that a company has to sell the car for more money to make a profit. And that’s with well established mass production practices that health care can’t really incorprate.
A semi related, but comical side note: The cost of first class posted has risen faster than health care costs in the last 10 years.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:12 AM
Show me a talking-points list that does. The design and plan is to confuse, and to keep it that way. You have to admit that it is working on the liberal base. The real thinging public: not so much.
Yoop on August 19, 2009 at 11:13 AM
Wow, that’s quite a long time. Do you like there? How long do you plan to stay?
AsianGirlInTights on August 19, 2009 at 11:14 AM
And the bad news gets worse …
Republican Congressman Spencer Bachus told the Tuscaloosa News: “Social Security could face default within two years.”
The date that Social Security outlays exceed revenues has moved up due to the recession. It was supposed to be 2017.
For years, Progressives have been telling us that this date was meaningless because there is a file full of T-bills in West Virginia which were the IOUs the government has been issuing in lieu of spending the “excess” Social Security revenue as part of the budget.
Well surprise .. surprise .. the date is not meaningless.
This was mentioned in the past, but some were proud to do nothing (go to 0:54)
J_Crater on August 19, 2009 at 11:14 AM
Additionally (to keep my last post from being way too long), there are 4 simple things the government could do to lower costs:
Tort reform – we seem to be in agreement on this one.
Allowing consumers to shop across state lines – It’s so common sense, why it’s not in the house bill is beyond me.
Allowing those who buy private insurance to deduct it from their taxes – This would level the playing field with regard to employer based coverage and give people an incentive to buy insurance instead of a plasma tv.
Decoupling health insurance from your job – This one is perhaps the most important, but impossible, because neither party has the stones to do it (McCain tried to propose something like this and President Obama lit him up).
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM
Really? Has population skyrocketed? We know the number of baby boomers who are living longer has increased, but they tend to be on medicaire, so that doesn’t explain it. No. The reason premiums are going up is that more and more states have healthcare monopolies and less competition.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:16 AM
It makes no sense because the goverment, under the current proposal, wouldn’t be negotiating with private insurers for lower rates. The government would be the insurer.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:18 AM
Actually, the employer centered model leads to less competition because all the insurance company has to do is convince the human resources bureaucrat of the employer to offer its plan. You are imagining that the said HR guy will be able to extort a better deal out of the insurance company because of how many people he is representing, than if every person could just pick the service they liked best without going through the employer.
Come to think of it, you think like a labor union.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM
How does it work without a mandate? The 24 guy who is currently without insurance because he thinks it is a waste of money will continue to not buy into an insurance pool. Without a mandate, there is no fine levied for not buying insurance and that fine has been factored in to “pay” for the public option.
myrenovations on August 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM
When you are self employed you can deduct premiums from your taxes.
Blake on August 19, 2009 at 11:19 AM
It’s not beyond me. Our representatives are bought corporate shills. That is all. The Democrats who are raging against the health insurance industry have no problem taking millions of dollars from then during the election cycle. I am consistently confused by conservatives unwillingness to have conversations about real election reform. Legislation that’s written by corproate representatives isn’t going to increase competition in the free market, it’s going to favor those corporate interests with the deepest pockets and the largest current share of the market. Meanwhile conservatives baffingly cheer the eventual overturning of McCain Feingold which isn’t even a real attempt at delinking private power from the legislative process.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:20 AM
Pray they’re that stupid. Pray we’re that lucky.
– King Leonidas
Mr. Pickles on August 19, 2009 at 11:21 AM
You’re completely right, but take the next step in the completely wrong direction. Decoupling insurance from the workplace would increase competition and lower costs.
A public ‘option’ would do neither. You seem to be mistaken about what the public ‘option’ actually is. See my 11:18 post.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Sometimes I have fantasies that this is actually standard operating procedure for every bill these people write and/or consider before passing. (((sigh)))
Mommypundit on August 19, 2009 at 11:22 AM
Interesting that you bring up Eisenhower. I assume you’re referring to Kerr-Mills, which he signed. It was intended to provide coverage for those over 65 who were indigent. But even then Ted Kennedy tried to get ALL those over 65 covered, regardless of whether they could afford their own care.
Kennedy has been trying since before 1960 to put all the eggs in the government basket. There’s not a conservative you can name who can match his record on this.
Dee2008 on August 19, 2009 at 11:22 AM
It would appear that Cranky
IndependentProgressive is succeeded in high-jacking this tread.How about we go back to original topic: Reid the autocrat.
CPT. Charles on August 19, 2009 at 11:22 AM
A public option (and this should be done without an insurance mandate) simply broadens that pool to include any U.S. citizen who wants to buy into it. Like your employer there’d be a slate of plans (they are calling it an exchange because Washington purposefully makes things more difficult) and based on what you could afford you’d buy into one. But at the least you’re going to get a plan that gets you more bank for your buck than if you were buying one on your own. That is the public option
You don’t understand what you are talking about when you state that insuracne companies shoulod take all comers, but not require a mandate. What is to stop an individual from optin into the system when they need coverage and opting out once their treatment is completed? Also, your statement about 10% profit margins is way off base, too. Please show me one insurance company that makes 10% profit off of it’s healhcare products.
Greg523 on August 19, 2009 at 11:23 AM
Medical innovation has lead to the availability of more expensive treatment options (generally more often than reducing the cost of existing ones), and governments keep piling on requirements that increase costs.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 11:24 AM
The real question is not whether Reid and the Dems could be so foolish as to think they could go the route of reconciliation but whether or not the Reps would have the cajones to follow through on a threat to “shut down the Senate”.
katiejane on August 19, 2009 at 11:26 AM
There’s another landmine for Congress if it declares Obamacare to be a simple exercise of budgetary discretion. If it were presented as a careful consideration of Congressional prerogatives under the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause, then it’s not budgetary. If it’s budgetary, then what power under the Constitution authorizes it? Of course, many would agree that expropriating the entire health care industry is not a power implied in the Constitution’s interstate commerce clause (or in any other clause).
Mark30339 on August 19, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Really? What about your 3 or 4 employees?
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:27 AM
Premiums have risen due to the free rider effect of Medicare and Medicaid not paying their bills. The rest of us pay the difference.
Vashta.Nerada on August 19, 2009 at 11:28 AM
Why does everyone make a big Gordian knot out of this issue?
It is very simple to see what will happen to the insurance industry if the public option passes. Businesses will stop offering coverage to their employees as they drop all the plans. Why wouldn’t they? They are going to be taxed to help pay from it anyway. Why keep the premium costs and add the taxes on top? I wouldn’t, Monsanto wouldn’t, Bell Helicopter wouldn’t. Company insurance will go the way of the Dodo. The only way private medical insurance can survive is as a Cadillac policy for those who have deep pockets.
Limerick on August 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Well which version are you referring to, the House or the Senate bill. I think the House bill pretty much does what I’ve proposed, though it would take a few years to get the ball rolling. Try not to die when you click on a ThinkProgress link.
http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/07/15/why-the-houses-public-option-is-better-than-kennedys-public-option/
Also here is the CBO report that talks about why the House version of the public option works better to hold down premiums than the Senate
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Another reason why health insurance costs a lot of money; it covers some really routine stuff that people really should be paying out of pocket. That’s another thing government could fix pretty easily.
Imagine how expensive auto insurance would be if it covered oil changes.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM
What unique position does Obama have? To date, Obama’s taken on the progressive corporatism via Wilson compounded by the welfare state of FDR & LBJ, permeated with Kissinger’s One World Order via Nixon. Wilson’s antipathy preceded Obama’s for the Constitution and for citizens. But no American President ever hated America before Obama. No POTUS before Obama sought the absolute destruction of free enterprise and the obliteration of the dollar along with capitalism.
What makes Obama unique? Other than not being a natural born citizen of two American parents, also noting that both his parents were Marxists, Obama’s only unique feature is that absolute lack of allegiance to America as a sovereign Constitutional Republic symbolized by his citizenships to other nations than ours.
maverick muse on August 19, 2009 at 11:29 AM
Really? Has population skyrocketed? We know the number of baby boomers who are living longer has increased, but they tend to be on medicaire, so that doesn’t explain it. No. The reason premiums are going up is that more and more states have healthcare monopolies and less competition.
Population has increased dramatically from where it was 30 years ago. Medicare utilization also explains some of the increase as the government does not reimburse medicare providers at a sustainable rate, so the providers have to cost shift back to the private sector. I live in Vermont. Howard Dean created the healthcare monopoly there by making it so hard for insurance companies to do business there, all but three left. Is the public option you support going to be self sufficient when it comes to year end accounting? If so, I give it two or three years before it fails.
Greg523 on August 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I read dkos and HuffPo regularly. My heart can handle it.
BadgerHawk on August 19, 2009 at 11:30 AM
I genuinely fear for our nation and our political discourse when so many people on this forum alone can’t put 2 and 2 together. You can be progressive and not vote for either political party, making you a political independent.
CrankyIndependent on August 19, 2009 at 11:31 AM
This is tantamount to a loyalty test. The punditocracy all seem pretty sure that the filthy liar’s plan will get support from the Maine sisters and perhaps a few other Republicans. I say not one dime to any Republican that crosses party lines on so important an issue. One corrupt party cannot be allowed to dictate an action that would result in government seizure of 1/6 the US economy and essentially put private health insurance out of business. Any Republican complicit in allowing them to do so needs to be punished.
highhopes on August 19, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Check out SCOTUS decisions from the early 60′s. I believe it was in 1963 that SCOTUS ruled that congress could spend Social Security taxes in any manner they wanted. Functionally that made Social Security a welfare system funded on the good graces of congress. The IOU’s have always been meaningless.
chemman on August 19, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Are you sure you don’t mean “un-break”? If that hasn’t been part of the government requirements for coverage, it is a consequence of having an employer based system from the corporate income tax and the health care deduction.
Count to 10 on August 19, 2009 at 11:32 AM
so tell me CrankyInDepends, what do YOU think of Harry Reid using the “nuclear option”?
sven10077 on August 19, 2009 at 11:33 AM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »