Report: Dems near deal on ObamaCare before health-care summit?
posted at 2:35 pm on February 17, 2010 by Allahpundit
Here’s the state of play. Right now, leadership aides say, the White House is in talks with House and Senate leaders over the so-called “Cadillac” tax. The House wants the threshold tweaked to make it more palatable to Dem members who oppose it. Some Senators adamantly oppose this. But the leadership is discussing various tweaks that could work.
Crucially, the House leadership may sign on to the compromise even without a tweak to the Cadillac tax, according to a senior leadership aide. That’s because the compromise is not going to be voted on — it’s merely to create something to take to the summit. So this logjam may still get resolved in time…
Meanwhile, Senate Dem leaders are warming to the use of “reconciliation” to fix their bill after the summit, a senior Senate aide says.
“We’re getting closer,” the Senate aide says of reconciliation, adding that the leadership is more likely to pursue that course if the summit doesn’t yield any kind of compromise with Republicans, as expected. “People want to get rid of health care. They want it off the agenda. The simplest answer is that reconciliation may be the most expedient way to do it.”
In other words, instead of bargaining with the GOP from scratch — as Boehner and Cantor initially insisted and as 57 percent of the public wants, per yesterday’s Zogby poll — The One’s going to do the opposite by walking in, pushing a fake deal in front of the GOP, and declaring before the cameras that America’s health-care problems can now be solved unless the “party of no” insists on further obstructionism. And if they do, of course, he’ll have no choice but to save America by ramming the bill through in reconciliation. It’s not a negotiation, in other words, it’s an opportunity to frame a blame-placing narrative in which evil conservatives unite to block some sort of phony legislative deus ex machina. Which makes me wonder: Were Ed and I wrong that the GOP should attend no matter what? I think showing up and calling Obama out on this charade is more effective than a boycott, but I’m open to persuasion. Dazzle me.
Bear this in mind, though, if you’re counting on some sort of further public backlash over O-Care and the Democrats’ tactics. According to PPP, the vast majority of people opposed to the Dems’ health-care bills have already made up their minds not to vote for them in November. They’ve taken most of the hit that they’re going to take from this, in other words. In which case, why not cowboy up and go ahead with reconciliation? If you’re going to screw the public, might as well screw ‘em hard.
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 Next »
What king of amendments should the GOP offer if reconciliation prevails? Conservative amendments? Progressive amendments?
Do we force thw Dems to vote on:
- Cap and tax
- Card check
- More spending on education
- More farm subsidies
- Pork in Democrat districts
- etc.
One idea could be to force them to vote on things their base supports. These items will if accepted, break the bank. If rejected, may anger the Dem’s base.
WashJeff on February 17, 2010 at 3:15 PM
Rush said it best, thinking the GOP can control the conversation at this summit is like a liberal caller thinking they can control Rush Limbaugh’s show simply by calling in…not gonna happen.
If I were the GOP, I would use this story to ram it down their throats as to why they won’t even bother showing up…it’s a no win scenario.
javamartini on February 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM
Capejasmine…totally agree. Call me a skeptic/conspiracy theorist…whatevah. I don’t trust any of them. All of these dems conveniently “dropping out” suddenly, OBowma now setting up the GOP again with this lie, still so much left over from the porkulus….something stinks to high heaven.
What is the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over again and expecting a different result? I think the GOP needs to tell Obowma to ki$$ their a$$ and stay home. There is something really strange going on.
sicoit on February 17, 2010 at 3:17 PM
I say send Michael Savage and make it pay-for-view.
Dire Straits on February 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Translation: We are going to lie through our teeth and hope the MSM lets us get away with it.
The plan that you have outlined will bankrupt all private insurers within 10 years leaving the govt as the only option.
MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM
Reagan, Clinton and Bush I and II used reconciliation to pass tax reductions/tax increases a bunch of times. Reagan also used it to pass COBRA. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress). And remember that the need for 60 votes in the Senate hasn’t been eliminated. If the GOP were to do that in a few years, then I would have a legitimate right to b!tch.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM
I’d guess that she doesn’t but she’d managed to keep everyone quiet on this. She and Harry will fake out they have a deal and the votes.
Nancy will lose Cao without Stupak, she lost Murtha, Wexler of FL has resigned and Abercrombie of HI was supposed resign as of 2/28 to run for governor.
Wonder what the “deal” was on the Stupak language.
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM
The margin won’t tell you how many would vote now. She had more votes than she needed, allowing some who would have voted for it to vote against it to avoid backlash at town meetings.
ROCnPhilly on February 17, 2010 at 3:18 PM
We know POUTS and the D’s are more interested in appearances than in substance (appearance of being suddenly bi-partisan) but the question is, in what are R’s interested… form or substance?
If it’s the merits of the matter — health care — then treat it as a serious negotiation, not as an “opportunity” to look good or improve the public “perception.”
When you look at it on the merits, it’s obvious… (at least to me).
In a debate, would you give your opponent a podium while you sit at a table in the auditorium?
Would you go into a debate when the basis of the debate is Yay or Nay on your opponent’s proposal?
Or, in a war, if the other side is spent and out of ammo, do you force capitulation, or do you drive on over with a truck of ammo so they can reload?
Bottom line: Unless R’s are looking at a “summit” of this type with the POTUS on his signature issue as an opportunity to make political “points” totally aside from the actual issue of health care reform, showing up with trucks of ammo and bailing buckets to help the sinking Play POTUS out makes no sense whatsoever.
My statement: Invite us into the White House to the talks you’re holding NOW with Congressional Democrats, not to the staged PR stunt you plan to roll out after you’ve finished making a deal behind closed doors, again.
To borrow for Ronald R: “There you go again.”
IndieDogg on February 17, 2010 at 3:20 PM
Looks like Reid is on his way out. Are there still enough Democrats willing to go down with the ship, knowing the old prune face will be enjoying retirement in a very few months?
joedoe on February 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Not as long as Obama is president.
MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 3:21 PM
Republicans should definitely stay away from the meeting, especially if the dems are going to use the “reconciliation” process to pass their reform bill! As you point out, the die has already been cast by the public and since they want to “save” us from ourselves, there is no reason to go to the meeting and get rolled over anyway.
The dems are going to demonize the leadership if they reject the deal presented at the meeting, or if they don’t show up. This is not a difficult decision, except for middle of the roaders and politicians
tomshup on February 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM
I hardly ever agree with you, but you usually make cogent statements that have some good points. This statement though is beyond the pale.
Using Reconciliation is in no way part of the democratic process. The fact they are using it to pass something is the exact opposite of what the democratic process should be. Reconciliation was created to pass only needed budgetary measures on a simple majority rule to keep the government from shutting down. How is passing health care even remotely related to this.
If they do this, it will be a death knell to our Republic. The Senate was designed to not work without both sides agreeing. That’s not a bug, that’s a feature. Every action in the Senate requires super-majorities to work because the Founders didn’t want mob rule. They created the House for that. If the Senate does this, then the Republicans will do the same thing with who knows what. I shudder to think what problems will arise from opening this can of worms.
txaggie on February 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM
I keep telling you people that Obowma always does the opposite of what he says!
The fact that he does it without effort, almost to the point of enjoyment, should be very troubling. Maybe he knows he won’t get called out on it, or maybe he is just a psychopath…
Screwing this country over gives him as much grief as cutting up a Thanksgiving turkey.
Seven Percent Solution on February 17, 2010 at 3:23 PM
Scott Brown needs to be at this meeting, and he needs to speak. Without his victory, there wouldn’t be this sham meeting happening in the first place. The man who was elected primarily because of his opposition to Nobamacare needs to be front and center to remind Zero and the Democrats he is the real symbol of the opposition to this plan, and that more like him will be in Congress if this administration and Congress ignore American opposition to this plan.
joejm65 on February 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM
Saw a flash from the past on CNN yesterday. It was a ’94 report on Clinton. In part of it, he was at the podium ranting about the Republicans saying no, no, no, no, no, no….. That tactic didn’t work out so well for them back then either.
joedoe on February 17, 2010 at 3:24 PM
One of the issues that Cantor and Boehner raised in their initial letter to the White House was whether the Dems would use reconcilation. There was no response to this inquiry (as well as other issues).
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Go back and read the comments from the original thread about the meeting proposal. People explained everything quite clearly, there.
neurosculptor on February 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
I’m sure there is something in all of these pages that will keep anyone from repealing….as you say MTG, as long as The Won is precedent.
sicoit on February 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Burning their own bridges. Smart power.
bloviator on February 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Reconciliation is not used by Presidents, it’s used by the Senate. Its legitimacy in any particular instance is determined by the Senate Parliamentarian, not the President, nor even the Senate Majority Leader.
If the parliamentarian (current one has been serving since 2001) says it’s a no-go, the only one who can overrule him is the VP, which is something that hasn’t happened (for any reason, reconciliation or otherwise) since Nelson Rockefeller.
notropis on February 17, 2010 at 3:25 PM
Presidents do not use reconciliation, the Senate does. Presedents sign the legislation that comes from the Hill, didn’t you ever see Schoolhouse Rock?
thomasaur on February 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Leadership Folk, Leaders…do you really believe the Republicans have anyone who can stand toe to toe to Obama AND his tame media and win the discussion?
Who??
JIMV on February 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
All I’m saying is that you need a 2/3rds vote to over ride a veto.
MarkTheGreat on February 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
republicans have to attend. But that doesn’t mean they need to say a word. Stay silent until the pressure becomes unbearable, then simply state…we came here to begin negociations from scratch, we must have misunderstood the date and time. Then get up and walk out en masse.
booter on February 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
You must type really fast.
thomasaur on February 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM
thomasaur on February 17, 2010 at 3:27 PM
Now you went and done it. The rest of the afternoon I’m going to be hearing that song in my head. I’m just a bill…I am only a bill…
kingsjester on February 17, 2010 at 3:29 PM
If I were the Republican leadership, I’d bring a copy of the Senate bill and this reconciliation draft and 2 paper shredders. I’d use one machine to start shredding, and invite the Democrats to hop on the other machine so that everyone could start over, per the desire of the majority of Americans.
Let those conspiring buffoons fall in their own trap.
free-thinker on February 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Don’t items that are passed by reconciliation have a sunset date? And it only takes 51 votes to repeal. There is no win in this.
El_Terrible on February 17, 2010 at 3:30 PM
Liz Cheney.
darwin on February 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Which is part of the reason why the US will not survive The Precedent’s full tenure, intact, no matter who controls Congress. There aren’t even that many Senate seats up to yield such a needed super-duper majority. The other reason is that the Executive still wields immense power on its own, and all that power is directed at destroying our nation and will not stop.
neurosculptor on February 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Think about this for a moment…Obama will be able to make up numbers (jobs created and saved), data, and details about the plans that may or may not be in it and no one will know. Good heavens, half of every speech he has given on the issue has been simply not true, as any reading of the bill in question would show, but no one stands up to him, face to face, and says “Mr. President, read the plan and stop making up facts and numbers”..
Unless some Republican is prepared to do that, any face to face is stupid.
Will it be some inept republican leaders v Obama with his teleprompters linked to whatever experts he needs so as to spin any argument or make up any number…
JIMV on February 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Just my small contribution kj. -_*
thomasaur on February 17, 2010 at 3:31 PM
Asking them to start over was equally silly, of course. Even with public support, I doubt the public could have stood another round.
AnninCA on February 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM
I don’t think so – there’s another “hit” coming from people who don’t like this being ramrodded down the throats of the majority. If you’re on the fence about O’Care – certainly you’re not for passing it in this manner.
And the GOP still has “lots” of reconcilliation tricks up it’s sleeve.
This is high stakes poker for the Dems – they might want to exit the casino right now while they still have the shirt on their back.
HondaV65 on February 17, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Which if they do this against the will of the American people they are likely to get at least by 2012 if not sooner.
txmomof6 on February 17, 2010 at 3:33 PM
Reconciliation IS NOT USED TO SHOVE SOCIAL POLICY DOWN THE ELECTORATE’S THROATS.
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 3:34 PM
Here’s a little dazzle for ya Allah:
Do you really believe that the GOP will effectively call out Obama on this charade at the meeting? And if so, point to any action by those attending that proves they are willing and/or able to do so.
We can’t live in fantasy land.
chicagojedi on February 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM
??? Uh … yeah, I’ll stand as many rounds as it takes before I just accept the crap Obama wants to impose on this nation.
darwin on February 17, 2010 at 3:35 PM
I believe it is the Dems who are talking about getting rid of the filibuster right now. As to your other points 1) reconciliation is for budget issues, not for enacting whole new policies and 2) it doees not address the utter dishonesty that is necessary to claim this will be budget neutral.
If the left pursues this, they demonstrate that the majority party can do whatever it wants – and hopefully the GOP will remember this lesson when they win in 2012 (largely because of healthcare).
Why anyone wants gov’t controlling their healthcare, or wants a system like canada’s, england’s et al is beyond me. Some people just like misery for misery’s sake I guess.
Monkeytoe on February 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Gets back to the genius of our Founders….Congress has the power of the purse. They do not have to fund whatever the Executive does or even laws already on the books. They have to pass a budget every year, which is the whole reason Reconciliation came about.
txmomof6 on February 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Obama Audio-Animatronics Robot Meets with Republican Members of Congress at Health Care Forum http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/02/obama-audio-animatronics-robot-meets.html
Mervis Winter on February 17, 2010 at 3:37 PM
Whatever happened to that free $500 billion that served as the main funding for the dems’ un-Constitutional health care takeover? The dems can work on getting that “waste and fraud” out of Medicare and back to the Treasury to reduce our deficits.
There is nothing else to talk about, as concerns health care/insurance and the fedearl government. Nothing.
neurosculptor on February 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM
The GOP should take the same stance toward B.O.’s little summit here that the Mayor of Las Vegas gave him toward his wanting to have a private meeting: GET STUFFED!
pilamaye on February 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM
When you compare 2000+ pages with 100-200 pages, I don’t think the public would have a problem with a do over and would actually welcome it. 57% are AGAINST this sham now. The senate and house proposals s**k and need to be thrown out. The GOP has had their proposals posted online for all to see….except of course PBHO and his minions. Why should they waste time when they have already decided that they are going to push it down our throats?
sicoit on February 17, 2010 at 3:40 PM
Beware. It’s a Potemkin bill.
Dhuka on February 17, 2010 at 3:41 PM
–
–So why did Bush 1 and 2, Reagan and Clinton use reconciliation (or Congress use reconciliation to pass bills approved by those presidents) if it’s not part of the democratic process? And those tax and revenue bills that were passed certainly had some other non-budgetary things in them, like COBRA. Sorry. I think you’re pretty clearly wrong.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM
And this respects separation of powers how? Berating 6 Supremes before a national audience was just practice.
Barnestormer on February 17, 2010 at 3:44 PM
This isn’t going to happen folks…
NRA Lifer on February 17, 2010 at 3:45 PM
This argument has been trotted out again and again for the better part of a year, and yet the numbers keep sinking.
Maybe one day you’ll be right, but why should today be that day?
Lehosh on February 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM
I think that the democrats are really really pretending they have a consensus before the BIG INFOMERCIAL health care summit. It’s all smoke and mirrors, spin and lies.
Dhuka on February 17, 2010 at 3:47 PM
hardly ever agree with you, but you usually make cogent statements that have some good points. This statement though is beyond the pale.
Using Reconciliation is in no way part of the democratic process. The fact they are using it to pass something is the exact opposite of what the democratic process should be. Reconciliation was created to pass only needed budgetary measures on a simple majority rule to keep the government from shutting down. How is passing health care even remotely related to this.
If they do this, it will be a death knell to our Republic.
–And, FYI, aggie, the langugage of the original act is broader than just budgets: Although reconciliation was originally understood to be for the purpose of improving the government’s fiscal position (reducing deficits or increasing surpluses), the language of the 1974 act referred only to “changes” in revenue and spending amounts; not specifically to increases or decreases. In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would substantially worsen the government’s fiscal position: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000. During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which substantially increased the deficit. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.”
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM
We’ve got a patchwork behemoth of a bill that no one can understand.
Do we known exactly what this plan entails?
Why not start over?
If they started over and actually listened to the people and the Republicans and incorporated some commonsense solutions into the plan, it most certainly would get public support.
Juno77 on February 17, 2010 at 3:48 PM
I’ve been saying this, much to my wife’s chagrin, that this whole thing is way to bizarre to be as simple as being motivated by arrogance alone – something is up. Look for a crisis in-between now and November that gives him the chance to declare martial law and suspend voting.
Yea ….. I’m just crazy enough to believe it.
oldfiveanddimer on February 17, 2010 at 3:49 PM
Congress is required by the Constitution to pass a budget every year. Reconciliation was created (I think by Sen. Byrd) as a way for the Congress to continue to function and perform its Constitutional budgetary duty without a filibuster stopping the entire federal government. But only matters which are germane (as defined by the Senate Parlimentarian) to the budget can be included in Reconciliation, otherwise it is subject to the filibuster.
txmomof6 on February 17, 2010 at 3:50 PM
So it’s perfectly okay with you that the government take over (adopt, control, whatever you want to call it) 18 % of the economy?
Juno77 on February 17, 2010 at 3:51 PM
I’m guessing that there are not enough senate seats up for grabs this fall to elect a veto proof majority over there?
EconomicNeocon on February 17, 2010 at 3:54 PM
Right on oldfiveanddimer….ooops….showing my age. They have something working in the background. This is all a trick of the right hand and left hand. Watch this hand while I do something with the other…
sicoit on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
–If you got a better plan to handle health insurance coverage issues and costs, then bring it on and be ready to talk about it.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Why is anyone arguing with someone as stupid as Jimbo?
Vancomycin on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Can’t wait to see how nuanced Pelosi’s press conference is tomorrow. Will she stutter?
SouthernGent on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Jimbo, what part about budgetary process don’t you understand? The reconciliation process all have to do with MONEY, ie taxes and appropriations and budget measures. You’re the one who’s wrong here.
Get it?
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
33 plus Clinton, Biden and Obama seats are up. But some of those are held by Republicans already.
txmomof6 on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
This health care summit is phony. It’s just a ploy to make Republicans look bad and the cause of failure for the bill. Personally I would vote for anyone who opposes this bill.
But fears that we will have a national emergency and then a Commandante Hussein Obama for life are no longer just for wild conspiracy nuts.
Dhuka on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
Asking them to start over was equally silly, of course. Even with public support, I doubt the public could have stood another round.
AnninCA on February 17, 2010 at 3:32 PM
Precisely!
Vince on February 17, 2010 at 3:57 PM
Nancy had votes to spare last summer. Whether she does now after the townhalls, Tea Party rallies, elections in VA, NJ and MA and the retirements (including Kennedy’s) is another matter. Obama was higher in the polls then, too.
The House Dems know it’s likely she will lose the House. If so, she may have even less leverage than before. She’ll keep her seat, but could be gone as Speaker and caucus leader. Both she and Harry are kind of lame ducks as caucus leaders right now. And that gives them less influence over their members, whether it’s bribes or threats.
There are no doubt other Dems in Congress to try to put on the screws, as well as Rahm, but Obama’s toxic with Dems right now, too.
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 3:58 PM
I have two duly elected Senators who have been completely shut out of the discussions and all meetings on the Communist health care bill. I see absolutely no reason for them to show up at any meeting with Obama now that he has lost the debate with the American people. Obama is a street hustler who is a chronic liar and cannot be trusted to negotiate anything in good faith. Let’s have the next debates in the newly elected Congress after the avalanche has swept Obama’s Merry little Band of Thieves out of office!
Marco on February 17, 2010 at 3:59 PM
Because he’s stubborn in un-informed—he is NOT stupid.
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Many things are germae, though: http://www.pattonboggs.com/files/News/88a10c8d-62c8-4058-b338-0c375df6da07/Preview/NewsAttachment/3aeb0aba-c569-4a9b-9e81-1c0bb60af7b2/PBUforClients_11_05_09_Reconciliation_Memo.pdf
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM
But there’s no difference between the parties.
Midas on February 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM
Allow insurance sales across state lines.
Medical malpractice reform.
Disconnect health care from employment by making it a taxable part of compensation. Then employees will start shopping for the best coverage for them.
Tax credits for individuals to help them buy insurance on their own.
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 4:00 PM
We do have a plan to do that, but how does the lack thereof supposedly justify what the Democrats are trying to do?
Again, are you Okay with the government taking over 18 % of the economy?
Juno77 on February 17, 2010 at 4:01 PM
If they try to force this socialist crap down our throats it means war. I don’t think they comprehend the fury they will unleash.
DerKrieger on February 17, 2010 at 4:01 PM
Put a hold on all SCOTUS and any and all nominees.
Period.
Forever.
drjohn on February 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 3:56 PM
–Take a look at the link I posted in the above post. It’s not limited to budget matters; it can be anything that positively or negatively affects spending or expenditures. It was designed for use in the budgets, but it has broader application. (And thanks for saying I’m not stupid).
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 4:02 PM
–
–Three of the four of them are already part of ObamaCare. And there also is a modest attempt at medical malpractice reform.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 4:04 PM
This is like the 16th time you’ve trotted out this BS.
There is no interstate competition across state lines in Obamacare because all the plans will be regulated by exchanges and subject to large amounts of mandated coverage.
The “attempt at medical malpractice reform” is the “creation of incentives” to “study alternatives.” Complete BS, no reform at all.
Missy on February 17, 2010 at 4:09 PM
Then why don’t you show us the language in the bill for the ‘Three of the four’ that are ‘already part of ObamaCare’?
Juno77 on February 17, 2010 at 4:10 PM
This is nonsense. If that was the route they were going to take, they could go back and create a new bill full of Democrat Christmas Ornaments and Pelosi could jam that through the house, and then Reid could reconcile the much more left-friendly bill.
Too much credit is being given to Dem’s who have not demonstrated any particular skill beyond brute force. They are much weaker now.
Punditpawn on February 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM
Sorry, we do not pass enormous, hugely unpopular legislation destined to bankrupt the nation simply because there are certain problems which need addressing and the minority party hasn’t come up with a “better plan.”
The Dems have to demonstrate that THIS solution is the best one, that it will actually help, and that it is worth the huge tradeoff in public funds which will inevitably be a result. And even then it still might not be the right path to take.
So far they have utterly failed to demonstrate this, even to their own party.
Missy on February 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM
The republicans are now doing just what Obama and the democraps have been doing for a year.
THEY ARE NOT LISTENING TO US!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
We are giving them permission, heck we are screaming for them to JUST SAY NO!!!!
Do not go to the set up! We want you to say NO. No to health care, no to cap and tax, no to the budget, no to Obama’s commie appointments, NO NO NO! Be the party of NO proudly and tell them that WE THE PEOPLE TOLD YOU TO DO IT!
Own it. Be proud of it. And believe me it will pay off in the end.
patriotparty1 on February 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM
No, the sales across state lines would only be those policies written by the exchange. The companies would not be allowed to offer any policies they or the consumers wanted. Sales across state lines without the exchange dictating the terms of the policies would provide greater choice and competition, which would save money.
Employers would still be required to offer health care as an untaxed benefit. Only certain “Cadillac plans,” excluding those given to union members, would be taxed.
In the Senate bill, every employer with over 50 employees would have to offer health care, with the exception of construction companies, which must offer it if they have over five employees.
The “modest” med mal reform certainly is that, as it does not have the one basic reform needed: caps on non-economic damages.
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 4:15 PM
Missy on February 17, 2010 at 4:13 PM
+100
txmomof6 on February 17, 2010 at 4:16 PM
Jimbo, spending and expenditures ARE budget matters. Reconciliation is still strictly limited to budgetary matters. You’re entering a grey area here with the word “affects”, which may mean directing policy—which is strictly forbidden under the reconciliation process.
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 4:17 PM
It’s not going to be any summit if the Dems already have a plan. Let’s hope that the GOP aren’t as dumb as they made out to be in the past.
Better to be the Party of No then the Party of irrelevance.
orlandocajun on February 17, 2010 at 4:21 PM
Keep trying your universal/government run health care plans at the state level. Then we can see in the real world which type of plan is best.
WashJeff on February 17, 2010 at 4:25 PM
I have to go make some money for our Jazz Festivel
Jimbo—when you have time read this about reconciliation. It might help you to understand its limitations.
Rovin on February 17, 2010 at 4:27 PM
From the Senate bill (to the extent insurance is available through these exchanges, it’s no disconnected from employment and it doesn’t mean that there’s no competition simply because the plans and the Exchanges are regulated; insurance is now regulated by each of the States).
American Health Benefit Exchanges: By 2014, each state will establish an Exchange to help individuals and small employers obtain coverage. … The Secretary of Health and Human Services (HHS) will establish a national public option – the Community Health Insurance Option – and permit states to opt-out. Federal support will also be available for new non-profit, member run insurance cooperatives. States will have flexibility to establish basic health plans for non-Medicaid, lower-income individuals; states may also seek waivers to explore other reform options; and states may form compacts with other states to permit cross-state sale of health insurance.
Making Coverage Affordable: New, refundable tax credits will be available for Americans with incomes between 100 and 400 percent of the federal poverty line (FPL) (about $88,000 for a family of four). The credit is calculated on a sliding scale beginning at two percent of income for those at 100 percent FPL and phasing out at 9.8 percent of income at 300-400 percent FPL.
Sense of the Senate Regarding Medical Malpractice: The Act expresses the sense of the Senate that health reform presents an opportunity to address issues related to medical malpractice and medical liability insurance, states should be encouraged to develop and test alternative models to the existing civil litigation system, and Congress should consider state demonstration projects to evaluate such alternatives.
Jimbo3 on February 17, 2010 at 4:29 PM
If I were in the GOP leadership, I’d schedule a televised townhall where Paul Ryan and a few choice others answered questions from the people about which plan does what.
Rather than be pawns in Obama’s game, I’d like the GOP to do an end run and score the points he wanted to make before he has a chance to steamroll them in this faux summit.
powerpro on February 17, 2010 at 4:31 PM
It is real simple.
The GOP should meet with Obama only if he agrees in advance to veto any health bill passed through reconciliation.
molonlabe28 on February 17, 2010 at 4:37 PM
This is worthless. Ambulance chasers like John Edwards will still drive up med mal costs as long as non-economic damages are not capped.
From the Senate bill (to the extent insurance is available through these exchanges, it’s not disconnected from employment and it doesn’t mean that there’s no competition simply because the plans and the Exchanges are regulated; insurance is now regulated by each of the States).
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 4:38 PM
This would be one of the most despicable acts ever foisted upon the American people in the history of the country.
WisCon on February 17, 2010 at 4:39 PM
If the Republicans go, it should only be to kick ass and take names, and I am not talking in the figurative…I mean bring clubs and beat the commies back from whence they came.
rgranger on February 17, 2010 at 4:41 PM
Pubic Option – where did that come from?
And you still haven’t answered my question: Are you Okay with the government taking over 18 % of the economy, especially through the magic of reconciliation?
Juno77 on February 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM
On a more fundamental level, if the GOP proposals are included in the Senate bill, then why not go with the GOP version, as the Dems agree with those points? If the Dems and GOP agree on points A, B, C, D and E, well, then, there’s your bipartisan bill.
Ditch the rest of the Senate bill (F-Z) and you still have bipartisanship.
And you avoid 100 new agencies, commissions and panels, which will only add to the federal deficit.
Wethal on February 17, 2010 at 4:44 PM
Not sure I agree with this. Yes, the people who will get mad(der?) are already mad.
But are they mad enough to get up off their collective behinds and vote in November? Or will they forget, or let it slide, or ignore it, or just not vote?
Making them more mad, riling up the opposition, giving them the voter enthusiasm that translates into real votes… that doesn’t seem like a good plan to me.
gekkobear on February 17, 2010 at 4:47 PM
Comment pages: « Previous 1 2 3 Next »