Roy Blunt Clarifies, Says House GOP Might Produce Health Care Bill
Turns out the House GOP may produce a health care bill, after all.
GOP Rep Roy Blunt’s office sends me a new quote from the Congressman clarifying his apparent suggestion that the House GOP won’t produce their own bill. As I noted below, this would have broken a previous promise and handed Dems a major gaffe to use in the health care wars.
Here’s the clarification from Blunt, who is also the chair of the “House GOP Health Care Solutions Group,” in which he says the GOP hasn’t yet decided what to do:
“Our reform plan to lower costs, increase access, and improve quality was released weeks ago and it is well-known. There’s a variety of tactics that could be employed during the debate on the House floor and the leadership won’t make a final decision next week until the Democrats announce how they will proceed.”
In his earlier claim, Blunt suggested that there was no reason for the GOP to introduce a bill, asking: “Why start diverting attention from this really bad piece of work they’ve got to whatever we’re offering right now?”
The new quote from Blunt is better for the GOP, though Dems may pounce on the fact that the chair of the House GOP Health Care Solutions Group is still suggesting that producing no bill remains a possibility.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Does it really matter if they do? It’ll probably just be pages upon pages of Bill Kristol’s talking points encased in colorful flow charts.
What does “There’s a variety of tactics” mean exactly? Sure sounds purely political to me.
So it’a all tactics and politics.
The American people thank the GOP so much for caring.
Greg – that soft drink and juice box ad is sponsored by: “Americans against food taxes”, which I never heard of and suspect is paid for by some soft drink producer or group of them.
Here’s the web site:
http://nofoodtaxes.com/?gclid=CM27p7uH7JsCFShRagodyRN95g
And look at this racist attack by that “Republican strategist” on the First Lady.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/postpartisan/2009/07/obama_attacks_docs_and_cops.html
Thanks Tena, appreciate it.
Let me guess – they are going to propose tax cuts for the wealthy? Yeah, I thought so. What a pathetic political party!
Blunt may be right. This is a lose/lose for the GOP. He knows their bill will suck and might not even contain numbers. Producing something like that would yet again be a laughing stock. Not producing an alternative really isn’t much better but at least it keeps the focus off the sucky bill that will very likely have half the caucus not supporting it while keeping the focus on the Dem bill (which I’m fine with by the way).
So what do you do when you’re no longer a legitimate opposition party is the real question.
Greg – that soft drink and juice box ad is sponsored by: “Americans against food taxes”, which I never heard of and suspect is paid for by some soft drink producer or group of them”
They are airing commercials in the DC area showing families camping and having a good time.
I could be wrong, but I believe if the Repubs offer an alternative bill right now Pelosi could simply not allow a vote. Or the Repubs could offer an alternative bill during debate but there is no debate going on yet, and it would depend on the rules for debating the bill that the Dems have yet to determine. Or the Repubs could offer amendments to the Dem bill once debate begins making an alternative unnecessary. I believe it all depends on the rules for debating the bill once it makes it to the house floor, but we are not even there yet.
Yesterday we were complaining that the Repubs are all about politics and only looking for gotcha moments – isn’t that exactly what the Dems are looking to do right now with this quote? Last nite Obama laughingly suggested that he hasn’t been blaming Repubs for this mess – perhaps the Dems in the house should follow his counsel. They’ve got the House of Representatives, the Senate, and the Presidency. The Repubs have been in committees for months now offering alternatives to no avail.
Will this be a “bill” in the same sense that their “budget” was a budget?
isn’t that exactly what the Dems are looking to do right now
You mean in addition to the legislation they’ve been crafting and passing?
“The Repubs have been in committees for months now offering alternatives to no avail.” What alternatives have they been offering? Do you mean the 160 repub amendments referenced by the President last night? Or the misinformation and blatant dishonest politicking that seems to come from their mouths every time they speak?
I think we are all for HONEST debate but flat out making stuff up is just wrong.
Oddjob: (Is that a reference to the James Bond villain?)
Umm, yeah. Amendments would be alternatives . . . are you conceding that when the Dems were out of power that the amendments they proposed during committee were nothing more than obstruction?
You ARE aware that all of the committees that are meeting/have met in the House and the Senate have both Repub and Democratic members who debate the merits of healthcare reform options? This is how our government works. You might find this link helpful:
http://clerkkids.house.gov/laws/bill_law.html
“The committee debates on and marks up the proposed bill, and may or may not make changes to it. Committee members vote to accept or reject the changes made during the markup session.”
An honest GOP health care proposal would consist of taking the entire earnings of the American people and giving it to the health care industry. That is the direction in which we have been moving for 50 years while other developed nations have enjoyed not-for-profit publically funded health care for everybody.
And how exactly is Blunt’s “clarification” different from his original “we won’t do anything with health care” quote?
Isn’t it obvious to everyone right now, that the goal of the Republicans is simply to kill any health care reform plans and keep things just as they are—same as they did back in 1994?
The Republicans have one objective: Keep the cash flowing to the insurance companies and let them continue to hold us all hostage. In return, the insurance companies will give legalized bribes (a.k.a. campaign contributions) to the Republicans in congress that do their bidding.
Any questions?
Why is it that right-sided people often deride people-sided policies, like healthcare for all, with no facts. Just because it’s your gut feeling, it must be true? C’mon SBJ – you can’t write that “Repubs have been in committees for months now offering alternatives to no avail,” and then hear Obama say that 170 of republican proposals are worked into the proceedings, and not for at least ONE MOMENT, think…maybe I should look into that a little more before I just keep going w/ my gut and what FOX tells me. Unless, you were in all those committee meetings and have facts of your own to back up your statement?
Is that a reference to the James Bond villain?
Not a James Bond fan.
Todd, it only seems that way because commies like you are impervious to facts, you only run on emotion and Marx.
By the way Greg and Todd, “who runs gov”? Oh yeah, it is the the Democrats with overwhelming majorities. It seems very odd that they can’t pass this terrible bill. I guess maybe it is true: not all Democrats hate America.
@Geri A. Mellgren-Kerwin
That’s why we spend twice as much per person on healthcare as our counterparts in the other industrliazed democracies and get worse results from doing so than they do.
As a radio talk show host pointed out years ago, as long as we don’t (usually) throw those who show up in an emergency room out on the street when they can’t pay we already have universal healthcare.
We just have a really, really, really, really, really stupid, wildly over-expensive, ineffective version of it!
Speaking of no facts, there goes oddjob again. Tell me oddjob, on what do you base the statement we get worse results for the money we spend?
http://www.firstthings.com/blogs/secondhandsmoke/2009/07/21/most-cancer-survival-rates-in-usa-better-than-europe-and-canada/
@BabyHugo,
and you only run on really, really old, tiresome cant.
Run along.
Our life expectancy is shorter and our infant mortality is higher.
That’s no secret, except perhaps to clueless wingnuts.
Oddjob, that’s also a bald assertion, not a citation to anything like evidence.
My “cant” only seems tiresome to people whose statist aspirations it is intended to thwart. And it only seems old because economic geniuses like you and Greg haven’t had a new idea since Marx. Or maybe since Eduard Bernstein and Rosa Luxembourg. Either way it is a long time ago.
Country Comparison: Life Expectancy at Birth
And the Austrian School is even longer ago.
F*** off.
GOP healthcare plan:”Let them eat cake”, Keep in up GOP and they may get the same justice as Marie did.
No thoughts on Bill Kristol’s brutal attack on Michelle Obama?
@todd: “Unless, you were in all those committee meetings and have facts of your own to back up your statement?”
Ask and ye shall receive.
Per Hatch: “For months, I have been participating in bipartisan discussions with other members of the Senate Finance Committee in an effort to craft a compromise bill . . . During our discussions, I grew increasingly concerned that the President and congressional leaders have, to date, been unwilling to roll up their sleeves and agree to protect a bipartisan health care compromise from being gutted on the Senate floor and in a conference with the House . . . It has become increasingly clear to me that Sen. Baucus has not been given the flexibility necessary to construct a realistic healthcare reform bill that can achieve true bipartisan support.”
Please note the rather important bit about protecting “a bipartisan health care compromise from being gutted on the Senate floor and in a conference with the House.”
@oddjob: There are many factors that impact infant mortality in the US.
http://www.cbo.gov/doc.cfm?index=6219&type=0
@ sbj, I see you are running to the defense of your Party once again. The only thing missing this time is a link to NRO or Weekly Standard. Other than that, you’re right on cue for wanting to defend Republicans now but absolutely won’t admit to their failure over the last 8 years that has led to the very world we live in today.
Moreover, if your Republicans add amendments then wouldn’t that make the legislation bipartisan? And wouldn’t a true opposition party have alternatives in place to counter the majority?
There are many factors that impact infant mortality in the US.
But the biggest one cited in the report is low birthweight, which correlates highly with low income of the parent(s).
Which brings me back to my underlying point. The GOP believes the best society we can have is defined by, “I’ve got mine. The rest of you can go to hell.”
And of course, per oddjob, the right answer is “from each according to his abilities, to each according to his needs.” With Obama and his ilk deciding who has needs and who has abilities.
Actually, Baby Hugo doesn’t know me from Adam, and so doesn’t know I find that particular slogan ridiculous. It’s elegant and nice enough in its sentiments, but so utopian, and so demonstratably ignorant of the biological world of which we are an integral part that it’s no surprise to me that those societies that tried to build themselves upon have all been appalling failures.
They will always be so.
(And I knew that when I was 15, in 1975.)
So that slogan is dumb, but you still reserve the right to take what is “mine” and give it to your favored constituents?
By the way, that is by far the smartest thing I have read on this blog that I didn’t write.
In the interests of creating the best society in which we all live it is the most sensible thing to do, and has always been so.
You don’t like it? Move to a desert island.
(Or Haiti, where you can get all you want of whatever you want until someone with more resources takes yours.)
I’ll make you a deal, oddjob, let’s see whether the Bolsheviks prevail and then we will see which one of us needs to move. I feel like the White Russians just may be winning this argument, despite what the leftwing echo chamber may be telling you.
And are you saying Haiti’s plight is a failure of the free market? I retract that compliment; that is so dumb it undoes any progress you had made.
Oh baby Hugo, spin away my friend, just don’t get too dizzy.
Circulatory disease deaths per 100,000:
* Canada: 219
* United States: 265
Child maltreatment deaths per 100,000:
* Canada: 0.7
* United States: 2.2
Digestive disease deaths per 100,000:
* Canada: 17.4
* United States: 20.5
Infant mortality rate per 1,000 live births
* Canada: 5.08
* United States: 6.3
Intestinal diseases death rate
* Canada: 0.3%
* United States: 7.3%
Proability of not reaching age 60:
* Canada: 9.5%
* United States: 12.8%
Respiratory disease child death rate per 100,000
* Canada: 0.62
* United States: 40.43
Heart disease deaths per 100,000:
* Canada: 94.9
* United States: 106.5
HIV deaths per million people:
* Canada: 47.423
* United States: 48.141
You get the point. If this is “socialized medicine,” sign me the hell up.
All stats from http://www.nationmaster.com/
A. Political, the library called and said How to Lie With Statistics was overdue.
I’m sure they had you when you heard someone else was paying for it. Why don’t we all pitch in and buy your car insurance too while we’re at it.
By the way, why do you think people seeking health care only cross the US-Canada border in the southbound direction?