The Senate Republicans have the votes to prevent “fixes” via reconciliation.
What’s important for people to understand (including the wavering House Democrats) is that once the Senate bill passes the House, Obama can simply sign it, and the war is over. They have no incentive to keep their promises. Or at least not enough to do so. And even if they want to, as noted above, they won’t be able to. So it has to be stopped now.
[Update a few minutes later]
For those who comment without following the link (far too many), let me provide a couple quotes to make it clear:
“There are a lot of things they want to see fixed that are going to be subject to parliamentary point of order in the Senate,” Kyl said during an interview on Fox News. “And we believe we have the votes to sustain those points of order, which means that those things will come out of the legislation.”
“…It is a very risky proposition for those Democrats in the House who are nervous about their reelection, and are banking on the Senate banking [sic — I assume he means “bailing” — rs] them out,” he said. “It’s probably not going to happen.”
That’s the way I’d bet. But maybe they think that “transforming America” is more important than keeping their seats. I hope not.
[Thursday morning update]
Michael Barone says that the Dems have put themselves in a no-win situation. Well, since their victory is the Republic’s defeat, good.
It’s beginning to look like the goal of health-care legislation was a bridge too far. There’s a reason it’s hard to pass unpopular legislation on party-line votes. It’s not the Senate rules. It’s called democracy.
Unfortunately, the misnamed Democrats don’t appear to believe in that.
The reconciliation phase of this is definitely a mirage. Obama and all will simply take the win (the House voting for the Senate bill) and walk away.
It isn’t just that Obama thinks the American people are stupid — clearly he also believes House Democrats are the stupidest living things on the planet.
And he may not be wrong. Time will tell.
Remember, he’s been getting into a spitting contest with the Supreme Court and there will be plenty of challenges to this reform waiting in the wings if this monster passes.
I have a feeling most lobbying groups that have something to lose as a result of this are getting lawyered up in preparation for this. Add in the fact that SCOTUS are not happy with the Messiah and it’s quite clear that all sorts of holes will be stabbed through it.
Yawn, talk about space.
Finally the Republican’s grow a pair. I saw Sen. Kyl on the news and couldn’t believe they’d finally decided to put up a bit more fight.
Yawn, stfu.
But maybe they think that “transforming America” is more important than keeping their seats. I hope not.
You want legislators who, forced to choose between what they think will help the country, and what will help their re-election efforts, pick the latter? Really?
Lots of Dems are going to lose their seats no matter how they vote on health care. They might as well do some good (i.e. extend insurance coverage to millions, save the lives of thousands, reduce the deficit by billions) while they can.
There’s a reason it’s hard to pass unpopular legislation on party-line votes. It’s not the Senate rules.
Is he joking? There are dozens of possible compromises between the House and Senate bills that could easily get majority votes in both chambers. This is only hard in a logistical sense because Senate rules have them stuck with the Senate bill that passed before Scott Brown was elected. It’s only hard in a political sense because getting that bill 60 votes in the Senate meant kowtowing to Ben Nelson and Mary Landrieu, which tarnished the whole effort in the public eye.
If the Senate ran by majority rules, we’d have had health care reform last year.
It’s worth noting that Kyl is trumpetting his intention to block changes to health care reform that virtually everyone — Republicans, Democrats, and the public — say they support. He’d rather hold those changes hostage than actually, you know, improve things.
You want legislators who, forced to choose between what they think will help the country, and what will help their re-election efforts, pick the latter? Really?
When they’re fascists, yes, that is my preference.
He’d rather hold those changes hostage than actually, you know, improve things.
Yes, and I’d rather he do that, too, because even with those “improvements,” we’ll still be much worse off if the bill passes.
Too bad deliberately destroying markets to surreptitiously usher-in Federal single-payer won’t achieve the results as advertised.
Too bad deliberately destroying markets to surreptitiously usher-in Federal single-payer won’t achieve the results as advertised.
You’re wrong about both the intention and the result. ObamaCare is the last, best hope for private health insurance in the U.S. Single-payer is what we’ll get, eventually, if it doesn’t pass. Without something like ObamaCare to prop it up, private health insurance will price itself out of existence.
When they’re fascists, yes, that is my preference.
You want facists to stay in office?
How about we have all our legislators do what they think is right, and vote according to what we see.
“You’re wrong about both the intention and the result.”
Jim,
If the plan hasn’t passed yet, then the result is an unknown. You have no more evidence backing your claim about what will happen than anyone from the other side of this issue. Opinions are not facts.
You want facists to stay in office?
No, but again, if the choice is for them to stay in office (hopefully in the minority) and pass fascist legislation, it’s a price I’m willing to pay.
Without something like ObamaCare to prop it up, private health insurance will price itself out of existence.
Nonsense. All we need to prevent that is to finally, after decades, allow the market to work.
Obamacare is neither private nor insurance. Your continuing abuse of epistemology is felonious. One cannot have a “private insurance” industry which is based upon adverse selection, which is all that Obamacare can bring. 20th Century erosion notwithstanding, the US legal system was designed to prevent the sort of iron-fisted totalitarianism necessary to make Obamacare succeed. Were it to pass, it would fail, and then they’ll get their ultimate dream of “just put everyone on Medicare!” because the supposed “last, best hope for private health insurance” will have failed.
Jim, it’s not the job of a legislator to do what he or she thinks is best for the country. It’s their job to represent the interests of their constituents. As we saw all summer (and see again and again in repeated opinion polls), a majority of those constituents Do Not Want government to increase its involvement in health care. Period, dot, stop.
If I may address the underlying mentality behind the notion that “wise representatives” should inject their personal opinion when it goes against the wishes of the constituents, that is the notion that some should rule because their ideas are just “naturally” better than another’s. Is it any wonder then, that you get a large group (Congress) trying to enact their whims, led by a smaller group (the House leadership) that doesn’t give a damn if most of that large group is destroyed (sent packing in the next election) in the process? And that a smaller-still group (The President and his command-control coterie of czars) doesn’t much give a damn if his Party loses control of Congress in the doing?
“We want this, we want it now, and we don’t care what you think because we’re smarter than you!” – My God, the level of hubris and arrogance in that mindset should preclude anyone whose actions demonstrate it from ever coming within 100 yards of the levers of power. It is the mentality of the petty tyrant, and when people think they can dictate to me how I live my life “for my own good,” it becomes an intolerable cruelty.
I don’t know about you Jim, but I trust my fellow men to live their lives how they please. Live and let live. If you cannot handle that, don’t be surprised if your meddlesome “concern” for others is taken poorly, or even an attempt to deny our basic humanity and right to self-determination.
Jim, it’s not the job of a legislator to do what he or she thinks is best for the country. It’s their job to represent the interests of their constituents. As we saw all summer (and see again and again in repeated opinion polls), a majority of those constituents Do Not Want government to increase its involvement in health care.
So if the polls showed a majority in favor of health care reform, and Congress did not pass it, you’d say they weren’t doing their job?
All we need to prevent that is to finally, after decades, allow the market to work.
Do honestly think that Congress is going to abolish Medicare? Where would you get such a crazy idea?
Do honestly think that Congress is going to abolish Medicare? Where would you get such a crazy idea?
Same place you got that nutty straw man. I said nothing about Medicare. I was referring to the favorable tax treatment for employer-provided insurance.
Not to mention the inability to buy insurance across state lines.
So if the polls showed a majority in favor of health care reform, and Congress did not pass it, you’d say they weren’t doing their job?
Believe it or not, I would. I would further stipulate that said populace doesn’t have the brainpower to walk and breathe at the same time, but I digress. At this point, there are enough people who recognize that there’s no free lunch, even if the Feds “guarantee” it, that your speculative – when ANY amount of detail is added to the basic “do you support health care reform” question – just isn’t the case.
I’m so glad we live in a nation governed by popular opinion and not one with Constitutional limits on the Federal government!
I said nothing about Medicare.
So having a mandatory, single-payer system for seniors does not interfere with the health insurance market, but having a tax break for employer-provided private health insurance does?
If there was no tax break for employer provided health care, plus other arbitrary market restrictions, I would guess a sort of monopsony would naturally form. At least for prescriptions it makes sense since IMO it is enough of a similar market to food.
For doctor visits it is more iffy. Even if you can go out of state, this is not going to work very well for emergencies, nor for a chronic condition. Which is how a lot of people even get into the system. You want local doctors. Unfortunately this is not an area where telepresence has worked very well. You may also not be in a condition to negotiate treatments, nor tests provided, or even choose your doctor. This is why a sort of insurance scheme makes sense.
The way to reduce costs therefore is to make doctors cheaper. You can do this by increasing the supply (e.g. decrease studying costs somehow, increase number of teaching facilities), and reducing operating expenses (e.g. limited liability).
The way to reduce costs therefore is to make doctors cheaper. You can do this by increasing the supply
And yet the parts of the country with the most doctors also have the highest costs. Doctors can create their own demand; all they need to do is recommend a test, or procedure, and they’ll be as busy as they want to be.
And yet the parts of the country with the most doctors also have the highest costs.
Are you really this stupid, and ignorant of economics? Actually, of course, you’ve demonstrated amply that you are (for example, when you said that people added value by breaking, then fixing windows).
The issue is not how many doctors a part of the country has, but also how much demand for them there is. It’s natural that high-population parts of the country could have the most doctors, and still not have enough. But understanding that would apparently require an understanding of mathematics and economics, which you clearly lack. Doesn’t this make you feel bad(ly)…?
The latter was a completely rhetorical question, of course…
I’m so glad we live in a nation governed by popular opinion and not one with Constitutional limits on the Federal government!
Well, yes, I was taking it as the hypothetical action being constitutional in the first place. Which given Congress, might be a pretty bad assumption to start off with – Thank God we’ve got an impartial court that never allows any unconstitutional law to slip past its steely gaze.
You’re wrong about both the intention and the result. ObamaCare is the last, best hope for private health insurance in the U.S. Single-payer is what we’ll get, eventually, if it doesn’t pass. Without something like ObamaCare to prop it up, private health insurance will price itself out of existence.
The amount of delusion and ignorance in this paragraph is staggering. For example, you ignore low lying fruits that the Democrat Congress could have implemented. These wouldn’t take a 2,000 page bill to pass. You also ignore that the health care change bills do not do anything for private insurance other than penalize, even more, people who don’t get insurance (it doesn’t actually help people afford insurance or health care). And they do plenty counter to insurance, for example, requiring insurance companies to cover preexisting conditions (or in other words, guaranteed medical expenses). That change alone will drive up insurance costs considerably.
>R Anderson Says:
> March 11th, 2010 at 9:55 am
> == If I may address the underlying mentality behind the
> notion that “wise representatives” should inject their
> personal opinion when it goes against the wishes of
> the constituents, that is the notion that some should
> rule because their ideas are just “naturally” better
> than another’s. ===
I shuddered when durring the campain Obama talked about how it was time to put more control “back into the hands of the wisemen of Washington.”
You could argue a group (I suppose theoretically this could include congress) might actual be more knowledgeable and know better then the majority of the public — but you can’t argue this should give them the right to overide the choice of the majority. Its peoples lives – right or wrong its their call.
> Jim Says:
>
> March 11th, 2010 at 1:14 pm
> So if the polls showed a majority in favor of health care
> reform, and Congress did not pass it, you’d say they
> weren’t doing their job?
Given pretty much all polls show the majority favor health care reform, and the House and senate health care bills — one could assume eiather teh public is bright enough to realize the bill does nothing favorable to healthcare, or that the felt what was loaded no the bill waas so horrird it was unacceptable even if it did help a problem folks badly wanted solved.
Two thumbs up for bright voters – two down for corrupt games playing congress and White House.
I shuddered when durring the campain Obama talked about how it was time to put more control “back into the hands of the wisemen of Washington.”
Please show us where Obama said this even once.
The issue is not how many doctors a part of the country has, but also how much demand for them there is.
Of course. I assumed it was obvious that “most doctors” meant “the highest density of doctors per-capita, adjusted for the age of the population being served.”
For more on how health care supply drives demand, read up on Roemer’s Law.
>> I shuddered when durring the campain Obama talked about how
>> it was time to put more control “back into the hands of the wisemen
>> of Washington.”
> Please show us where Obama said this even once.
Sorry – hard to google to find something in video.
😉
Sorry – hard to google to find something in video.
That’s a lame excuse — there are transcripts all over the web. You can’t find it because Obama didn’t say it.
> Jim Says:
>March 13th, 2010 at 4:24 pm
> That’s a lame excuse — there are transcripts all over the web. You
> can’t find it because Obama didn’t say it.
No I saw him say it. It was quite chilling.
In any event itscertainly been what hes worked topward over the last year plus. MOre and more power concentratedin the hands offewer adn fewer czars adn other apointed experts – more centralized control, etc.