That's correct, for now. But the bill will pass. It will be a great day for America. And on that day, I truly cannot wait to read your whiny baby posts.
Krugman nails it. http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/26/opinion/26krugman.html?partner=rssnyt&emc=rss Afflicting the Afflicted By PAUL KRUGMAN Published: February 25, 2010 If we’re lucky, Thursday’s summit will turn out to have been the last act in the great health reform debate, the prologue to passage of an imperfect but nonetheless history-making bill. If so, the debate will have ended as it began: with Democrats offering moderate plans that draw heavily on past Republican ideas, and Republicans responding with slander and misdirection. Nobody really expected anything different. But what was nonetheless revealing about the meeting was the fact that Republicans — who had weeks to prepare for this particular event, and have been campaigning against reform for a year — didn’t bother making a case that could withstand even minimal fact-checking. It was obvious how things would go as soon as the first Republican speaker, Senator Lamar Alexander, delivered his remarks. He was presumably chosen because he’s folksy and likable and could make his party’s position sound reasonable. But right off the bat he delivered a whopper, asserting that under the Democratic plan, “for millions of Americans, premiums will go up.” Wow. I guess you could say that he wasn’t technically lying, since the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the Senate Democrats’ plan does say that average payments for insurance would go up. But it also makes it clear that this would happen only because people would buy more and better coverage. The “price of a given amount of insurance coverage” would fall, not rise — and the actual cost to many Americans would fall sharply thanks to federal aid. His fib on premiums was quickly followed by a fib on process. Democrats, having already passed a health bill with 60 votes in the Senate, now plan to use a simple majority vote to modify some of the numbers, a process known as reconciliation. Mr. Alexander declared that reconciliation has “never been used for something like this.” Well, I don’t know what “like this” means, but reconciliation has, in fact, been used for previous health reforms — and was used to push through both of the Bush tax cuts at a budget cost of $1.8 trillion, twice the bill for health reform. What really struck me about the meeting, however, was the inability of Republicans to explain how they propose dealing with the issue that, rightly, is at the emotional center of much health care debate: the plight of Americans who suffer from pre-existing medical conditions. In other advanced countries, everyone gets essential care whatever their medical history. But in America, a bout of cancer, an inherited genetic disorder, or even, in some states, having been a victim of domestic violence can make you uninsurable, and thus make adequate health care unaffordable. One of the great virtues of the Democratic plan is that it would finally put an end to this unacceptable case of American exceptionalism. But what’s the Republican answer? Mr. Alexander was strangely inarticulate on the matter, saying only that “House Republicans have some ideas about how my friend in Tullahoma can continue to afford insurance for his wife who has had breast cancer.” He offered no clue about what those ideas might be. In reality, House Republicans don’t have anything to offer to Americans with troubled medical histories. On the contrary, their big idea — allowing unrestricted competition across state lines — would lead to a race to the bottom. The states with the weakest regulations — for example, those that allow insurance companies to deny coverage to victims of domestic violence — would set the standards for the nation as a whole. The result would be to afflict the afflicted, to make the lives of Americans with pre-existing conditions even harder. Don’t take my word for it. Look at the Congressional Budget Office analysis of the House G.O.P. plan. That analysis is discreetly worded, with the budget office declaring somewhat obscurely that while the number of uninsured Americans wouldn’t change much, “the pool of people without health insurance would end up being less healthy, on average, than under current law.” But here’s the translation: While some people would gain insurance, the people losing insurance would be those who need it most. Under the Republican plan, the American health care system would become even more brutal than it is now. So what did we learn from the summit? What I took away was the arrogance that the success of things like the death-panel smear has obviously engendered in Republican politicians. At this point they obviously believe that they can blandly make utterly misleading assertions, saying things that can be easily refuted, and pay no price. And they may well be right. But Democrats can have the last laugh. All they have to do — and they have the power to do it — is finish the job, and enact health reform.
David Gergen weighs in on the Health Care Summit: <object width="560" height="340"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/4y70VVj6tuU&hl=en_US&fs=1&"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/4y70VVj6tuU&hl=en_US&fs=1&" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="560" height="340"></embed></object> Just as a reminder, every day that passes brings us closer to the 2010 midterm elections. With every day that passes, the Reps and Senators that are in competitive races will become a little more queasy and unlikely to pass this unpopular bill, or any other highly controversial legislation. As we prepare to enter the month of March 2010, it is official - we are "in an election year". And if the Democrats are still messing around with this thing after Memorial Day weekend in June...then it is really going to be pretty much impossible to pass anything but the very most stripped down version of this bill. June 2010 arrives roughly 90 days from now people. It is going to be interesting to watch this play out. But how is it this is still going on? I thought the Democrats pledged after the Massachusetts special election that they were now going to focus on the economy "Like a laser". Apparently not. Where is James Carville when you need him? His sage words are as applicable today as they have ever been in the history of this country. And of course those words are "It is the economy, stupid." Mr. Carville or someone else needs to give President Obama a call an inform him about this widely recognized political reality, as he and the Democrats in Congress appear to believe it is all about health care. It's not, and come November, the voters are going to communicate that to the Democrats in a very personal way.
Sadly you don't get it. They have been. The Jobs bill passed its first hurdle already. In addition Health Care is part of the economy.
That is the Democrats full proposal for addressing this nation's economic problems? This little $15 Billion bill is a pretty small response, from the party of big government, who generally seems to believe that more federal government is the answer to virtually every situation. Don't get me wrong, I am fine with the jobs bill, partially because it is so small. But do you think it will work? Will the voters be impressed? Because to me it looks like the Dems just threw something together real fast so that could return to trying to pass their health care agenda just as quickly as they could. But maybe I will be the only person who sees it that way. So, you guys may have nothing to worry about on this front. Steady on, then.
today from Ezra Klein And on health-care reform, Obama believes that his arguments are right. The basic structure of his plan is sound. The Republicans’ alternatives are inadequate. The problem is too serious to entertain thoughts of inaction. Comprehensive works better than incremental. Compromise only makes sense if the other side is willing to give something up in turn. Good policy will be electorally defensible even if it's not obviously popular. The big story out of the summit is not that Republicans and Democrats extended their hands in friendship, but that the White House has dug its heels into the dirt. The Democrats are not taking reconciliation off the table, they are not paring back the bill, and they are not extricating themselves from the issue. They think they're right on this one, and they're going to try and pass this legislation. Today was a boost for that effort. The Democrats got hours to make their case, at an event they planned, with one of their own controlling the discussion. For that reason, I imagine that this will be the last bipartisan summit we see for awhile. The format is simply too kind to the president, and he takes advantage of it ruthlessly. When the camera panned, you could almost see Republicans wondering why they'd accepted the invitation. The people who came off best were those who knew the most about the issue. Paul Ryan and Tom Coburn on the Republican side. Dick Durbin and Chris Dodd for the Democrats. But above all of them, the president, who got to enter, adjudicate and conclude discussions at will -- not to mention say when others didn't know that much about the issue, or weren't offering comments in good faith. That willingness to put himself above Congress, combined with the structure of the event, allowed Obama to fully dominate the proceedings, and he used the opportunity to firmly assert ownership over the health-care bill. This is now his legislation. But for all that he's made the bill his own, it still has to make a final pass through Congress. Importantly, Harry Reid and other Democrats were not only using the word reconciliation, but defending it from attack. Obama joined them in this effort. But the question is what the handful of ambivalent Democrats in the House and Senate thought. Obama spent the day trying to convince them that passing this bill was right: Not just politically, but intellectually and morally. That was his argument for why he's still here, lashing himself tighter to this legislation, and why they should stick by him.
No problem Jorge. So let me ask you, is the reason you are so opposed to health care reform enacted by democrats is that the republican brand will forever be associated with murderous wars, the Democratic brand with health care? If I was a republican I would be terrified by that prospect.
if the gop threatens to filibuster, why not take them up on it and see if they actually do it? obama needs to go lbj on these b****es "If the circumstances make it such that you can't **** a man in the ass, then just peckerslap him. Better to let him know who's in charge then to let him think he's got the keys to the car." -lyndon b johnson
I've been saying that for awhile. The only reason why there are so many filibusters now is because they don't actually have to filibuster. Lets make those senators get out there and keep on going Strom Thurmond style.
You'd have to change the Senate rules, and that can only be done at the beginning of a new session, I believe. I'm not sure if it requires a supermajority to change the rules or not, but if so, that also makes it impossible to change - the minority will only agree to things that make the filibuster easier/stronger, not weaker, which is why each time it changes, it becomes more powerful and more used.
I don't think they need to wait till the start of a session to change the rules as the Nuclear Option was brought up mid session and there didn't seem to be an issue about doign it then just whether it was a good idea. According to Article 1 of the Constitution it doesn't specify whether a supermajority is needed and from my understanding rule changes can be made with a simple majority. If I recall right this was the case with the Nuclear Option which is why it could bypass filibuster.
The Nuclear Option was using a point of order to declare the filibuster unconstitutional. It was basically to delete a rule of the Senate. That can be done anytime with the simple majority. However, changing the Senate rules to revive the old-style filibuster involves implementing a new rule. That's actually a different process. But I don't know what that process is.
I'm looking on the Senate's site regarding rule changes and there doesn't appear to be anything that would require a rule change to made at the start of a new Senate. http://rules.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=RuleV [rquoter]1. No motion to suspend, modify, or amend any rule, or any part thereof, shall be in order, except on one day's notice in writing, specifying precisely the rule or part proposed to be suspended, modified, or amended, and the purpose thereof. Any rule may be suspended without notice by the unanimous consent of the Senate, except as otherwise provided by the rules. 2. The rules of the Senate shall continue from one Congress to the next Congress unless they are changed as provided in these rules. [/rquoter]
Here's a piece on it (not sure the accuracy): http://mailman.lbo-talk.org/pipermail/lbo-talk/Week-of-Mon-20100118/000729.html It's long, but the entire argument is laid out in the first three pages. The next 60 pages consists of backing it up. The "constitutional option" is their term for this maneuver, and is now in general currency. In a nutshell, it's this. Senate rules are not in themselves perpetual. They need to be approved at the start of each session. What makes them look perpetual is that normally this is done by rote. But in fact and historically, there is nothing forcing the Senate to adopt the rules that governed the preceding session. It could make up a new set from scratch if it wanted to. Or could just change the parts it wanted -- like throwing out the filibuster -- and then adopt them. And since adoption of the rules has only ever required a majority vote, voila, we're out of the catch 22 loop. If the Senate approves the present set of rules by majority vote, as they usually do, then we're locked into place, because among those rules is one that requires a 66 vote majority to change any rule. But at the start of the session, before adoption, the Senate is bound by no rules -- except the constitutional charge that it has to adopt some rules. It does go on to say the 2005 Nuclear Option used this same argument, though, so I'm not sure how that works since it claims that you need 66 votes to change the rule mid-session.
I don't agree with that analysis as it would conflict with what is posted on the Senate's own site that the rules continue from one Senate to the other and can be changed anytime with a days notice.
