Top House Liberal Rips Dem Plan To Skip Conference To Pass Health Care
Uh oh. Looks like the Dem leadership’s plan to quickly pass health care reform by skipping House-Senate conference negotiations has further alienated House liberals — a potential problem, since liberal support will be essential in passing the bill in the House.
A top House progressive, in a statement sent my way, ripped the Dem leadership’s emerging plan to skip the traditional process to merge the House and Senate bills, claiming it will make it even tougher to improve the bill and slamming it for stifling real debate.
The Dem leadership in the House and Senate, according to multiple reports, are mulling this scheme to pass health care, as a way of leapfrogging GOP intentions to block reform with parlimentary tricks. Dem leaders may informally negotiate a compromise between the Senate and House bills, rather than merge them with a formal series of votes subject to GOP obstructionist tactics.
But in a statement, Rep Raul Grijalva, the co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, criticized the scheme and complained he hadn’t even been consulted yet:
“I am disappointed that there will be no formal conference process by which various constituencies can impact the discussion. I have not been approached about my concerns with the Senate bill, and I will be raising those at the Democratic Caucus meeting on Thursday. I and other progressives saw a conference as a means to improve the bill and have a real debate, and now with this behind-the-scenes approach, we’re concerned even more.”
To be sure, many expect House liberals to ultimately support the plan no matter how this process plays out. But House progressives are already infuriated by the multiple concessions they’ve been forced to make, and cutting them out of the process could only bruise feelings more and harden their resolve to hold the line against the eventual compromise.
This blog’s homepage is here. RSS feed here. Twitter feed here. Email me here.
Liberals listen up….Shut up and do what you’re told.
I wondered about this ping pong deal this morning but assumed the House leaders had already approved it. Once again the progressives are being left out of the process and then people wonder what they’re pissed about. Mike Lux, an avid Obama supporter, thinks the WH needs to expend a little more effort giving progressives a seat at the table. It could be essential come election time.
Everyone keeps saying we’ll improve it in conference, but how will that actually happen if there is no conference, just closed door meetings? Trust us, trust us, is beginning to lose its veracity.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/winter-storms-political-a_b_410353.html
Once again, being a cynic proves to be the safe bet. So much for transparency and an end to backroom deals…
At least some of this is kabuki. Rep Grijalva needs to maintain credibility with progressives in Congress and in the country, so he needs to sound concerned. In addition, this sort of statement will get him or an ally a spot at the negotiating table.
thx lmsinca — hadn’t seen that Lux thing. Something tells me he won’t be heeded.
And yup, Mackdaddy, that’s a pretty accurate translation.
“The left” was told that the bill would be “improved” (if not “fixed”) in conference.
They were lied to.
“The left” was told that the bill would include the creation of a public insurance plan.
They were lied to.
“The left” was told that the bill would NOT include “mandates” that force Americans to pay ransoms to corporate predators.
They were lied to.
“The left” was told that the bill would NOT even consider their desire for a ’single-payer plan’.
At least right wing corporate-Dems were honest about that.
“The left” never even got a seat at the table.
These insults have been accumulating for a very long time.
(For me personally, the corporate mandate was one straw too many. If the current corporate-welfare bill didn’t pass, it wouldn’t bother me at all.)
Those who contrast conference committee meetings with these and claim that their use means transparency will be lost clearly don’t know that conference committee meetings are NOT PUBLIC. These are not ordinary congressional committees and are always tucked away in a room working away.
The reason why the Dems are doing it this way is that congressional Republicans can block the creation of a conference committee and cannot block this. It has nothing to do with transparency.
Obama on health-care reform process, January 2008:
“That’s what I will do in bringing all parties together, not negotiating behind closed doors, but bringing all parties together, and broadcasting those negotiations on C-SPAN so that the American people can see what the choices are, because part of what we have to do is enlist the American people in this process.”
The health-care reform process, January 2009:
“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”
Greg
I think the whole bruised feelings characterization is a little degrading. There are after all real policy issues involved and progressives have lost almost every fight.
NR – Can someone on “The left” explain how Lieberman or Nelson were going to be convinced to vote for a bill that didn’t include those “insults?” Because given the undemocratic rules of the Senate, those two pretty much had veto power on what could be passed. We can argue about whether the administration or leadership could have fought harder to avoid those provisions, but the impact of that would have been atmospheric. Unless you have some idea of how to change their minds, these items aren’t insults to anybody, they’re a reflection of the balance of power in this Congress.
Mainer, I read that explaination this morning, hopefully it’s accurate. It seems they would have given him a heads up though seeing as how he’s co-chair of the progressive caucus.
lmsinca — fair point, I just meant that liberals really want to win a substantive victory.
“House rules require that one conference meeting be open to the public, unless the House, in open session, votes that a meeting will be closed to the public. But apart from this one open meeting, conference committees usually meet in private, and are dominated by the Chairs of the House and Senate Committees.”
If Reid and Pelosi were serious about transparency then they could hold any conf comte hearing in public.
Greg, I have absolutely no doubt this thing will pass, hence victory, not sure how substantive it will be however.
Transparency that I’m sure all involved would be happy to provide if it didn’t allow Republicans to further stifle debate by filibustering the conference process.
“drkrick”, Obama started off with a WEAK negotiating position and then abandoned even those weak positions as soon as he got in office.
If Obama wasn’t so afraid of conflict he could have done considerably more to influence troublesome Senators.
And you can’t blame Lieberman or Nelson for Max Baucus failing to allow single payer advocates a seat at the table to make their case.
And where was Obama on this signature legislation?
Avoiding conflict in public while making secret deals with the Republican’s corporate cronies.
The current corporate-giveaway is an embrace and empowerment of corporatism that is a complete betrayal of everything actual progressives believe.
The corporate-giveaways went too far. I could have lived without the public option, but the forced ransom payments to corporations is a betrayal more deep than corporatist-Dems want to acknowledge.
And why should they? They’re being paid handsomely by those corporations to pretend that the forced ransoms that they are extorting out of American’s pockets isn’t a big deal.
It is, and it’s a deal-breaking betrayal that reveals that corporatist-Dem extortionists have severely abandoned Democratic Party Principles.
If I were a Senator I’d say, “ENOUGH, if you want health legislation you can shove it through reconciliation and include the promised ‘public insurance’ plan.”
Forcing Americans to pay ransoms to corporate predators is a deal-breaker.
BTW, I’m all for progressive members posturing for leverage on the bill. There are a number of ways they could improve the bill that weren’t part of Lieberman or Nelson’s narcissistic demands (the drug re-importation/negotiation ability that lmsinca and I, and Obama are in favor of for one).
@paul w: Can you provide some reference so that I can determine if the Repubs have the ability to filibuster the conference cmte process? I understand Dems wanting to prevent any Repubs from serving on the conf cmte itself, but I had no idea that the Repubs could stop the whole process – are you sure about that?
Paul W
I really hate to break this to you but while Obama was in favor of it during the campaign, he fought against the ammendment because it goes back on the deal he made with Pharma. Maybe you’re referring to something new that I’m unaware of, I sure hope so. I know Waxman is trying to push something through.
Confused here. I know the Dorgan Amendment failed in the Senate, thanks to votes against it even by the likes of safe-seat Dems such as Kerry. What is the equivalent reimportation langauge in the House version of the bill?
DTR
There is not re-importation ammendment that I’m aware of any longer. I know Waxman is trying to get larger concessions from Pharma because he doesn’t feel the House is bound by Obama’s deal. The house never had re-importation in their original bill and he said he doesn’t anticipate adding it. I was hoping maybe Paul W had information I may have missed.
not=no
DTR — something I read this morning (sorry, not sure where now) said it wasn’t reimport legislation, but something about pushing seniors into the donut hole in Part D. If I can dig up the reference I will post it. My understanding was that reimportation isn’t in the House bill at all.
DTR
Here’s that Waxman link:
http://news.firedoglake.com/2010/01/03/house-senate-health-care-conference-begins-in-earnest-tomorrow-phrma-deal-targeted/
I’m sorry lmsinca, but nothing I have seen outside of FDL sources has shown me that the WH directly intervened in the the vote for the drug re-importation amendment. Something that Senators were more than capable of exercising their own free will to vote for or against.
SBJ, Booman says there are 4 points where the Republicans can:
“Ping-pong will be an amendment to the Senate bill, but it will still need 60 votes.
But it will only need it once instead of:
1. on requesting a conference
2. on appointing the conferees
3. on instructing the conferees
4. on ending debate for a vote on final passage
Each of those votes would have a 30-hour requirement.
Also, doing it this way allows the House to avoid a Motion to Recommit, which could cause problems. “
So they could obstruct in either the House or Senate.
As for including republicans in the conference process… well you have to vote for something in order to be included. So consider Joseph Cao your man of the hour sbj!
DTR — Imsinca had the link ahead of me, but here’s the money quote:
Here’s my confusion: back when the Dorgan Amendment was shot down, I asked what the politics behind this was if it was not part of the Pharma deal; I think Ethan and maybe Paul W. both responded that there were probably mechanizations at play here in order to provide the House something to win back (and look good after so much was gutted from their bill). But the final bill can only bring together those parts that are in either the House or Senate bill, so I must have misinterpreted?
Got it all, thanks.
lmsinca – It may be the case that there is no formal language for drug negotiation in the bills already submitted (I honestly have no way of knowing other than the Dorgan amendment failed), but don’t despair! The conference process allows for any language to be inserted.
So! What do we watch for, especially when trust is waning in the Obama administration on the Left? You need to see who is being included in the talks. You want more folks like Pelosi, Waxman, Harkin, etc and less of the Baucus and Harry Reids. I don’t know what the roll call is atm.
Paul W.
Back in July is when Obama began backing down from drug re-importation. I’m definitely holding out hope for a better bill and waiting to see who is involved in the meetings whether through formal conference or not.
http://www.kaiserhealthnews.org/Daily-Reports/2009/July/08/Reimportation.aspx
Thanks for the Kaiser link, I think they have a good grasp of most things health care and take their opinion seriously. I’ll try and dig into this after work, or maybe….
Greg, can you dig into (or do you know) what sorts of concessions progressives are hoping to extract over the next 2 weeks?
From The Hill:
FDA opposes Senate drug importation amendment offered to healthcare bill
The article doesn’t say specifically that OBAMA interfered, but…
@ Paul W: If Senate and House dems decide to bypass formal conference in order to prevent GOP obstructionism, then is it still true that “any language can be inserted” to the reconciled bill?
Here’s a December post where Axlerod says Obama supports re-importation but not in this bill. He says it will be re-visited later, let’s hope so. Re-importation could save consumers up to 100b in the ten year cycle.
http://www.nowpublic.com/health/obama-drug-re-importation-not-reform-bill
@PaulW: Thanks for the polite – if not snarky – reply.
So we agree that the Repubs could NOT have somehow stopped the conference committee process. And we agree that the Dems would be ping ponging to avoid the extended debate that the conference committee requires.
Back to my original point about transparency…
Paul W., isn’t Kaiser also an insurance conglomerate? Kaiser Permanente? I realize the Kaiser Family Foundation is not Kaiser Permanente, but still? Please correct me if I’m wrong, but I’m a little suspicious of anything they say.
msmolly
I’m glad you’re posting here again BTW. Your input is valuable, especially on HCR.
Neither KHN (Kaiser Health News) nor the Kaiser Family Foundation is affiliated with the health insurance company Kaiser Permanente.
I’m for any tactic that will reduce the Republicans’ chances to stonewall. Though I’d prefer a more liberal bill myself, I’m realistic enough to accept that we not going to get anything much better than the Senate bill, which is a HUGE step forward over what we have now – all the naysaying from the left to the contrary. The Repubs want to string this out as long as possible in the hope that some Democratic senator dies or changes his mind. The longer it waits, the more we risk this. We need to get this into law ASAP.
Thanks, Imsinca, and thanks for the clarification, sbj. I thought I had read that they were connected. I had always heard that KFF is reputable and nonpartisan.
The problem with secret deals is that they are, uhm, secret, so you don’t really know all the details.
So Obama/Rahm Emmanuel’s secret deal with corporate-drug dealers isn’t something we know much about but there has been some reporting about it:
“Internal Memo Confirms Big Giveaways In White House Deal With Big Pharma.”
“A memo obtained by the Huffington Post confirms that the White House and the pharmaceutical lobby secretly agreed to precisely the sort of wide-ranging deal that both parties have been denying over the past week.
The memo, which according to a knowledgeable health care lobbyist was prepared by a person directly involved in the negotiations, lists exactly what the White House gave up, and what it got in return.
It says the White House agreed to oppose any congressional efforts to use the government’s leverage to bargain for lower drug prices or import drugs from Canada — and also agreed not to pursue Medicare rebates or shift some drugs from Medicare Part B to Medicare Part D, which would cost Big Pharma billions in reduced reimbursements.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/13/internal-memo-confirms-bi_n_258285.html
Wiki:
Teh Google is my friend…
We’re on the verge of passing a bill that will constitute the biggest downward redisribution of wealth since Social Security, the biggest expansion of federal regulatory oversight over a series of industries loathed by liberals since the Clean Air, Clean Water and Endangered Species Acts, the most dramatic expansion of access to health care since Medicare, and the biggest leftward shift in the policy paradigm since the New Deal. And still, self-described “progressives” persist in donning the mantle of disempowered victimhood and singing the lament of their alienation because the policy specifics were not the ones dictated by their dogma.
And that’s not the most laughably absurd part. That would be their complete obliviousness to the way they are replaying the role assigned to the left in this country by history in moments of leftward realignment of the prevailing policy paradigm.
The Radical Republicans vociferously complained because the Emancipation Proclaimation obstensibly freed slaves only in Confederate-held territory, blind to the fact that the institution of slavery was doomed the moment Lincoln signed it. The left of the 1930’s complained bitterly about the tepid moderation of the New Deal and accused Roosevelt of trying to save his fellows in the oppressor class (which was kind of true, actually, but only an inherently bad thing through the lense of their dogma).
Ten years from now, they’ll have dropped all their criticism down their personal memory holes and will recount how only their steadfast support got this bill passed. In thirty years, they’ll be classified as well-intentioned but foolishly short-sighted.
This year, however, we have to worry whether they’ll whine the Republicans right back into control of Congress.
News Reference: I had read that HuffPo piece, too. My problem is that I read a lot of stuff and later can’t recall exactly where it was. I wasn’t sure it was part of the PhRMA deal.
SBJ they can block/delay/obstruct if the conference process proceeded under formal methods. Ugh, I read a good article saying there are 3 options now that both houses have now passed bills, can’t find it now. Let’s see if I can surmize:
1) Formal conference, appointed representatives via Senate floor debate and House floor debate.
2) Informal conference, contact between the two houses about what both would agree on in the first go round of a vote to approve a final bill.
3) House votes yes on Senate bill, then goes to president.
As best as I understand it, once both houses have submitted a bill (and remember that the Senate bill is actually put into a stripped House “vehicle” that was formally passed by the House for something else then turned into the health care bill) then the conference committee takes one of those and rewrites it. That rewritten bill is submitted to both houses again, then sent to the Pres.
So, you can rewrite the vehicle and as long as you think it will pass anything goes as far as I know.
In the meantime, here are American Prospect’s thoughts on what to watch for in a merged bill.
“So, you can rewrite the vehicle and as long as you think it will pass anything goes as far as I know.”
Let’s hope that all that time we spent kvetching about the particulars of the House and Senate bills was not a complete waste of time!
I would not categorize the mandate that requires purchase from private companies simply a policy specific dictated by dogma. We will get “access to health care” by forcing people to buy insurance from these companies, whether or not they can afford either the purchase or the co-pays for access to it. I would not categorize the abortion restrictions as a policy dictated by dogma, or the women affected as simply “disempowered victims.” There are a lot of objections to this bill that aren’t progressive “dogma.” Please don’t be so dismissive. There is a lot not to like about the Senate bill. What comes out of the upcoming back room negotiations may not be better.
“Steve”, the current healthcare legislation does have some good things in it.
For instance, the final bill may force corporate-insurance companies to accept preexisting conditions BUT it doesn’t mean that you can afford the prices charged.
My complaint about the bill is that it’s the largest regressive tax since Republican Reagan raised taxes on working Americans.
Average working Americans will be forced to pay at least 17% of their income as ransom to the corporate-insurance industry.
Poor Americans will be forced at least 8% of their income to the corporate-insurance industry.
And that’s ON TOP OF paying high deductibles and co-pays which are specifically designed to deter people from using healthcare.
The mandate is a capitulation to corporatism that will leave US even more subservient to the corporations that pull the strings of the politicians (who in turn wrote the legislation to force Americans to pay ransoms to the corporations).
It’s a sick circle that will just make the system sicker.
I read this morning on TPM that doing it that way got the bill past the Republicans – they weren’t going to get to cut it up anymore doing it that way. Why am I not surprised it doesn’t work for the Progressives, either.
*sigh*
and merdre!
“It’s a sick circle that will just make the system sicker.”
Teah cause that’s just how it worked in Britain and in Canada and everywhere else they’ve passed a mandate.
We’ll be the sole exception, in other words, to the entire rest of the industrialized world. They did it, but damn, America just can’t seem to do it too – boy are we lame.
sbj, “Let’s hope that all that time we spent kvetching about the particulars of the House and Senate bills was not a complete waste of time!”
You crack me up, I thought you wanted to scrap the whole thing and start over, even more incrementally.
Steve, we’re not whining and have no intention of putting Repubs back in office. We’re having a healthy policy debate, hopefully our elected leaders will do the same and make the bill better.
1854 when President Franklin Pierce vetoed a national mental health bill on the basis that it would be unconstitutional to regard health as anything but a private matter in which government should not become involved.
—
“I readily, and I trust, feelingly acknowledge the duty incumbent on us all as men and citizens, and as among the highest and holiest of our duties, to provide for those who, in the mysterious order of Providence, are subject to want and disease of the body and mind; but I can not find any authority in the Constitution for making the Federal Government the great almoner of public charity throughout the United States. To do so would, in my judgment, be contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution and subversive to the whole theory upon which the Union of these States is founded.”
TPM is now “breaking” news about a third person slipping past the SS, at sometime somewhere. Why the f*ck should I care though? Why are we holding the SS to this impossible standard that nobody cared about during Bush’s, and I’m sure he would have failed this stupid test too.
I hate all news outlets seeking sensationalist clicks, and at the moment that includes TPM. *sigh*
What I find so endearing here is that suddenly everyone seems to have forgotten that 88% of Dems and 60+% of Indies supported the PO. It’s not exactly progressive dogma that we lost. It was more of a compromised, compromised, compromise. Let us fight for something fractionally better.
To be more specific, my biggest complaint is:
The current Corporate-welfare giveaway forces Americans to pay ransoms to the corporate predators who are the root of the problem.
This embrace of right wing corporatist ideology is being falsely advertised as some kind of ‘new progressivism’ when all it is a right wing giveaway to corporations in the most offensive way possible: Regressive taxes.
Right wing corporatist ideologues are just rubbing salt in the wound by acting as if principled progressives are the problem.
“Right wing corporatist ideologues are just rubbing salt in the wound by acting as if principled progressives are the problem.”
Well darlin, of course you see it that way – you consider yourself more principled than others so of course you think that.
Troops, Franklin Pierce?? You know, there have been some precedents since then…..
And just for the record, do you think Medicare should exist or should it be abolished tomorrow?
@lmsinca: “You crack me up.”
Thanks. I thought my use of “kvetching” would have tipped you off to the sarcasm.
Nebraska’s wish comes true: 13 states will sue over Reid’s health care bribe
The letter threatening legal action was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state.
Paul W., I agree completely on the “3rd guest” scoop.
Who cares??!!
Let’s put it differently, though. People are taking great risks to sneak in to an Obama dinner. It’s likely that for Bush’s dinners people were sneaking out…..
Paul:
Transparency that I’m sure all involved would be happy to provide if it didn’t allow Republicans to further stifle debate by filibustering the conference process.
So, in other words, Dems are in favor of transparency unless it might impede their agenda, in which case they are in favor of backroom deals.
I wonder why Obama wasn’t more honest about this in his campaign.
Troops, Franklin Pierce?? You know, there have been some precedents since then…..
And just for the record, do you think Medicare should exist or should it be abolished tomorrow?
–
What powers changed in the US constitution that allows the government to force citizens to buy a product?
I think that medicare should go away, grandfather in those who are currently eligible and give the taxpayers there $$ back same with Social Security. I can manage my money much better than the US Government which is on the verge of bankruptcy like most states ran by dems and union thugs.
sbj, hence the “you crack me up”.
dems aren’t interested in transparency it’s a buzz word they use. If they were why did Reid and Pelosi backdoor their legislation evening leaving out most of their own party?
dems have to legislate in back rooms because they know the public does not support their agenda only freaks that hang out on blogs like this support garbage that will continue to bankrupt this nation and provide pee poor health care and tax the heck out of taxpayers.
Actually, under the Senate bill, families making 400% of the poverty line who don’t have employer provided insurance will have to choose between paying a maximum of 8% of their income to an insurance company for insurance for their whole family or paying 2% of their income to the government for the privilege of only buying insurance after they get sick. And then, only if there is actually a policy they can buy for that price.
A family at 400% of the poverty line is probably having a tough time if they live in an urban or suburban area, but it’s not like they’re living out a Dickens novel. I don’t want to denigrate the difficulty such a family will have coming up with 300 buck a month, but if they’re living without any health insurance now, I truly believe the overwhelming majority of them wouldn’t thank “progressives” for saving them from the burden.
3rd guest shows how Obama can’t even secure his own house! It is news especially after 2 terror attacks and one failed attack on your messiahs watch in less than a year.
Nebraska’s wish comes true: 13 states will sue over Reid’s health care bribe
The letter threatening legal action was signed by top prosecutors in Alabama, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Michigan, North Dakota, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Virginia and Washington state.
–
Article 1, Section 9: `No preference shall be given by any regulation of commerce or revenue to the ports of one State over those of another.’
Article 4, Section 4: `The United States shall guarantee to every state in this union a Republican form of Government.’
US code Title 18 201, Titled “Bribery of Public Officials and Witnesses,” Section B: `Whoever directly or indirectly, corruptly gives, offers or promises anything of value to any public official (officials is defined as a member of Congress, Delegate or Resident Commissioner) … with intent (a) to influence any official act; or (b) to influence such public official or person who has been selected to be a public official to commit or aid in committing, or colluding, or ally any fraud or make opportunity for the commission of any fraud on the United States.”
let the lawsuits began. there will also be a class action suit filed by citizens over this unconstitutional legislation filled with bribes using tax payers money!
Here is one glaring difference between the House and Senate bill where the House bill is so much better. This is the reason so many of us would like to see negotions with hope for improvement. I don’t care if it’s a formal conference or not, but I agree with Paul W. it depends who’s at the bargaining table.
The quotes are from Jon Walker, the wonkiest policy guy on HCR.
“The House bill uses the power of the federal government in three ways to hold the insurance companies honest. It creates a national exchange with a national insurance regulation enforcement mechanism. It creates a national public health insurance option to serve as a check and benchmark for the private insurance companies. And, finally, it repeals the health insurance companies’ anti-trust exemption. These tools help put regular Americans on a more even footing against the private insurance companies.
It is both immoral and financially reckless to do what the Senate bill does. It uses the power of the federal government to force people to buy private insurance and gives the private insurance companies hundreds of billions in federal funds. Yet it does not use the power of the federal government to police the insurance companies to make sure they are not wasting the billions in federal funds they receive, or abusing their millions of federally mandated customers.”
Britain and Canada’s health care systems are NOTHING like what’s being currently legislated.
There’s no honest comparison.
Britain has a completely socialized system of health care.
Most Brit’s love their healthcare system, a system where the British Government OWNS the hospitals and under which the Doctors and Nurses are EMPLOYEES of the Government.
It’s similar to our popular Veteran’s Administration healthcare system.
http://www.businessweek.com/magazine/content/06_29/b3993061.htm
The Canadians have a partially socialized Single Payer system.
Canadians largely love their system as well. Most hospitals are private, most Doctors work for private hospitals, BUT the Government is the one that pays for Citizen’s health care.
This system is similar to our very popular Medicare system.
Neither the British nor Canadian system is being instituted by this legislation.
The system the current legislation pushes is to force Americans to buy overpriced CORPORATE insurance and to falsely claim that that makes everyone ‘insured’.
To paraphrase Obama, that is as stupid as making it criminal not to own a house and then claiming that homelessness was thus solved.
The only honest comparison between the British and Canadian systems and the current system in our Legislature is that our system is a grotesque abomination that manages to pervert everything good about the other systems.
But folks can pretend that people that can’t afford corporate-insurance and expensive deductibles and co-pays are now ‘insured’ because it’s now criminal not to pay ransoms to corporate-insurance companies.
Uhm, no.
Obviously the National Public Option is gone but the exchange could still be Federally regulated rather than state based and would give consumers more bargaing power as well because of sheer numbers.
Troops, dany buddy, you forgot about the part where this law was passed in houses where they had flags with yellow fringe in the flag pole holder which, as all alternate universe constitutional lawyers know, constitutes constructive treason which, like, totally invalidates teh law.
I love it when militia nuts practice law. It leads inexorably to Rule 11 sanctions and, ultimately, jail for contempt when they refuse to pay.
Steve, I get the subsidy thing in order to pay for insurance and agree it’s a great idea to help pay for premiums. What happens when they have to use it though?
Troops…you are at least consistent and certainly not “progressive” You sir are the very definition of regressive. And when combined with logic regressive is not a compliment.
Regressive Logic. obtained from or characterized by backward reasoning.
You wish to live in a country that resembled the U.S. in 1854. What genius. Why yes you could still enjoy slavery, women would not be able to vote..OMG if only there was some way to get you back to the 1850’s Troops.
Alas I’m not sure your egotistical huge head would fit in any time machine…
“I can manage my money much better than the US Government which is on the verge of bankruptcy like most states ran by dems and union thugs.”
Wow we’re happy that you can manage your money! Be proud of your genius and your lack of heart…I can make it screw everybody else. Yes Troops you do belong back in the 1850’s.
All, happy hour roundup posted:
http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/terrorism/happy-hour-roundup-138/
Wait, President Franklin Pierce said it was un-Constitutional to interfere with a women’s private medical decisions?
Well, that makes it official then.
“Ten years from now, they’ll have dropped all their criticism down their personal memory holes and will recount how only their steadfast support got this bill passed. In thirty years, they’ll be classified as well-intentioned but foolishly short-sighted.”
Yes, but in 50 years conservatives will still be attacking and trying to kill it, just like they’ve been doing with the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare in all the years since their passage.
““Ten years from now, they’ll have dropped all their criticism down their personal memory holes and will recount how only their steadfast support got this bill passed. In thirty years, they’ll be classified as well-intentioned but foolishly short-sighted.”
Yes, but in 50 years conservatives will still be attacking and trying to kill it, just like they’ve been doing with the income tax, Social Security, and Medicare in all the years since their passage.”
Sorry, but I misread the passage and responded as if it was to Republican opposition rather than progressive dissatisfaction with the degree of reform in the package.
Medicare, Health Insurance Program For The Elderly
http://insurance-infoland.blogspot.com/2009/03/medicare-health-insurance-program-for.html
“I don’t want to denigrate the difficulty such a family will have coming up with 300 buck a month…”
Again, my complaint is that it is an abomination to force anyone to pay ransoms to CORPORATIONS.
It was one thing when there was a public option, but apparently that was just part of the corpoartist-Dems BAIT-AND-SWITCH to force ransoms to be paid to their corporate puppeteers.
This will only empower the corporations which already have far too much power.
It would be one thing if the corporatist-Dems and their allies had been honest about what they were doing, but instead they’ve been insulting, conniving, and deceitful about both the legislation, the legislative process, and the right wing corpoartist ideology of the President who said one thing in public while making secret deals with corporate industries in private.
Republicans are only angry that they couldn’t be the ones to give their corporate masters these gifts: Direct ransom payments of hundreds of dollars a month paid by millions and millions of Americans to the Corporations that, to paraphrase, ‘frankly own Congress’, and apparently also the White House.
steve/rukidding
Show me the clause in the US Constitution that gives congress/senate the power to force citizens to buy a product.
thank you very much!
Two words for these Demon-crats:
Tar.
Feathers.
‘Nuf sed.
“Grand unifying theory of progressive frustration.”
http://www.openleft.com/diary/16648/grand-unifying-theory-of-progressive-frustration
There is a distinction between the corporate approach of Rahm Emmanuel and what Obama is now pursuing and actual progressivism.
“my complaint is that it is an abomination to force anyone to pay ransoms to CORPORATIONS.”
Who do you buy your food from?
I find hard to over look, if the rethugs weren’t such a$$holes perhaps this approach wouldn’t be necessary! An open debate is impossible with the rethugs “all be damned determination” to obstruct even at the determent of the American people, and nation security Hello Demitt! I would love to orchestrate their waterloo! The progressive should fight harder for a seat at the table. Nelson, and Liberman should be run out of town tonight! The senate bill is shameful, but the rethugs alternative is even worst!.
Yep Dimturds are the only ones that voted for this abortion and it is all the Repukes fault. What a joke you whiny clowns are. Your party has a majority in both chambers therefore the only one holding back your garbage is you. Dims lie and our soldiers keep on dying. Real Hoax and chains to believe in.
And for you real knee jerk dims that wouldn’t know research if it bit you in the behind, do a little search regarding campaign financing and you’ll see that your party and your messiah were the biggest benefactors of corporate campaign contribs from Pharmaceuticals, health care and banking. Do you really think that if you keep lying about who really is in the pocket of business that people are going to believe you? Get another talking point because that lie has been played out and disproven. Whiners in glass houses shouldn’t throw stones.
There are no progressives asking for a conference committee at all. Progressives are too busy organizing to defeat bluedog and corporate Democrats with real progressive candidates. Health Care Reform is dead for this Congress (this bill is not reform)but will come back very soon.
If it isn’t done this way, the Repugs in the Senate will force cloture votes on everything. This is a problem because everytime they do this, you must schedule 30 hrs of debate before you can vote again. They can do this on numerous issues. It could take another 6 mos to get it thru the Senate if it isnt done this way. It might never pass & anything liberal gained during the informal conference will almost certainly be stripped out by the Repugs.
Troops, it’s called the “Commerce Clause.”
Same clause that empowered Congress to pass a law forcing restaurant owners to form contracts for the sale of food with black people, even locals, and force hotel operators have to rent them rooms whether they want to or not.
If you don’t like the way it’s been interpreted by the Supreme Court for the last eighty or a hundred years, go start your own damn country.
The Ports Clause, on the other hand, turns out to relate to, shocking though it may seem, ports.
Steve your logic is flawed. Black people were not forced to by from specific businesses, but to allow them the choice to spend their money at any business they pleased or the choice to NOT spend their money at any business.
How about you go start your own country, it is obvious you ignore the US Constitution and lie to make things fit your flawed agenda that history has proven over and over again is a FAILED agenda..
The Commerce clause is found in Article 1, Section 8 of the U.S. Constitution. It states the numerous powers authorized to Congress, including the power “To regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian tribes.”
In 1994, when Congress was considering a universal health care plan proposed by then-President Clinton that included a mandate that all individuals purchase health insurance, the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) studied the issue and discovered that the federal government had never in the history of the United States mandated that individuals purchase any good or service.
“A mandate requiring all individuals to purchase health insurance would be an unprecedented form of federal action,” said the CBO. “The government has never required people to buy any good or service as a condition of lawful residence in the United States.”
In an analysis published this July, the CBO said that an attempt to justify a mandate that people buy health insurance by using the Commerce Clause—which gives Congress the power to regulate commerce “among the several states”—raises a “novel issue.”
“Whether such a requirement would be constitutional under the Commerce Clause is perhaps the most challenging question posed by such a proposal, as it is a novel issue whether Congress may use this clause to require an individual to purchase a good or a service,” said the CBO.
I find it hard to believe that the liberal left keeps want to pass this god aweful bill when a majority of americans (read any poll you want) is against the plain. Ask yourself… if this bill was so good then why all of the secrecy, late night votes and bribary of US Senators and Congressman. Maybe because it can’t stand on it’s own merits because it’s pure ****? Finally what will your thoughts be if/when the House and Senate have a complete turnover in Nov 2010 BECAUSE of the american people abhor what their elected representives have been doing?
A majority of Americans have been consistently supportive of a PUBLIC OPTION.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE5B20OL20091203
Again, my complaint is forcing Americans to pay ransoms to CORPORATIONS.
It’s like being forced to pay FedEx or UPS when I could get a better deal by buying a stamp.
“Public option gains support: CLEAR MAJORITY NOW BACKS PLAN “
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/10/19/AR2009101902451.html
“Poll: Most Back Public Health Care Option: CBS News/New York Times Survey Shows Most Americans Approve Of Government Intervention In Health Care Coverage.”
“A clear majority of Americans — 72 percent — support a government-sponsored health care plan to compete with private insurers, a new CBS News/New York Times poll finds. Most also think the government would do a better job than private industry at keeping down costs and believe that the government should guarantee health care for all Americans. ”
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/06/19/opinion/polls/main5098517.shtml
What happens when the whole thing blows up like Social Security debacle that is now trillions in debt. Forget who screwed the pooch on it….what happens?
the “Social Security debacle that is now trillions in debt. Forget who screwed the pooch on it….”
As I recall, Republican Presidents Ronald Reagan, Bush 1, and Bush 2 all gave the Social Security administration IOU’s in order to give tax cuts to the ultra-wealthy.
And the easy solution to the Social Security situation is to tax those ultra-wealthy who have evaded Social Security taxes.
If Republicans want a ‘flat tax’ they can start with flat taxing the ultra-wealthy for the share of Social Security taxes that they’ve avoided for decades.
“Poll Finds Most Doctors Support Public Option.”
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=112818960
I hate partisan politics. When The Honorable George Bush was elected President, the Republicans and Independents wanted a health care plan. Now they say that health care is evil, in the name of partisan politics. Dag Nabbit! We the people of these United States will appreciate and can use a fair and reasonable Medical Health Plan, and that darn well better be what we will get. If this health plan is really the doorway to Armageddon as the big money in the current health care system wants us to believe, then there is really nothing we can do to stop it anyway. It just seems evil to deny medical treatment on the grounds of not possessing enough paper to build the room additions to the mansions in possession of the so called providers. What ever happened to care and compassion? The evils in congress are all of the sudden are worse then they were before? NO, I do not believe that Satan himself is behind this current health care debacle. I am not a Democrat and I will not jump on the bandwagon and condemn those that care for the men and women and children of America. Should not the greatest nation on earth have the greatest health coverage? Well let us show the world how great we are and create a plan that works. This is America, WE CAN DO IT TOGETHER!
I think I was asking a question that had nothing to do with the past “forget who screwed the pooch” and was not looking to be sly in my finger pointing. I was looking for an answer about Plan B if needed. I am truly concerned about the whole direction of more and more government “bureaucratic” control ‘cuz it’s never been capable of being cost effective in the end regardless of how it starts out. It is a serious question needing a serious answer rather than a smart-*** finger pointing retort.
Is anyone here capable of a cogent “what if” thought that doesn’t take into account a lot of ” I hopes” or pie=in=the-sky wishful’s? Truth is and the odds are this program is gonna do nothing more than create more government jobs….same old same old.
“Poll Shows 76% Support For Choice Of Public Plan.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html
Thank gawd I am old enough to win in the end and you youngsters are gonna pay the bills. I am quite sure that in the not too far distant future you will wonder where all your coin went at the end of the month. Jokes on you young fella’s after all.
After we both orgasmed at the same time, I collapsed on her and rolled off. I lay there panting, ***** still intact. When I finally noticed it, I reached down to pull it out but she got there first. She was really horny.
She took it out with her teeth and started sucking on my **** making me shake with pleasure. She stopped and starting sucking me clean. She gave me a final lick and came up to kiss me. We started making out again and I felt a hand come up my back. I slid my hands down to her *** and started where I left off in the front room.
After about 10 straight minutes, we began to calm down and eventually fell asleep.
NBC/Wall Street Journal Poll:
“… the American public overwhelmingly favors a choice between getting insurance coverage either through the private market or a government run option. Indeed, 76 percent of respondents said it was either “extremely” or “quite” important to “give people a choice of both a public plan administered by the federal government and a private plan for their health insurance.”"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/06/17/obama-boost-new-poll-show_n_217175.html
Lame answer Bruno…“Poll Shows 76% Support For Choice Of Public Plan.” Ben Franklin referred to the fact that once the public finds out it can vote itself a piece of the treasury the country will be doomed. See your response is of no import or value…it’s not a real answer.
You think CSPAN will be there to film it all?
Hi guys
http://www.officialares.com website may be harmful to your computer.Any music files,movies files can not share through this website..this website is not licensed..
Allegations of price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive sales contracts, local price cutting to freeze out competitors, and the dividing up of markets need to be fully explored through subpoenas and depositions (a law suit by all 50 States and joined by the Feds) so we can get rid of our dysfunctional corporate health care system that’s choking the economy to death.
Federal workers and retirees can select plans at a cost range from $100 dollars a month for the cheapest individual coverage to $500 dollars for the most expensive family plan. I’m voting “MY” pocket book – I want lower premiums and less money taken out of my paycheck – if they want to help spur on the economy they will make sure this happens for all – not just a select group.
Rockefeller’s Medicare plan should also be activated for qualified recipients who can demonstrate that the deductibles are unaffordable to them, and lower the age of Medicare to 55. Plus have a buy in option for those who can afford it – on a sliding scale adjusted to income. That will pump much needed cash back into the Medicare system and with everybody living longer and healthier lives (less red meat) it could eventually be a real strong, positive boost to the whole program across the board.
The bottom line is that 90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country, but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people. I’m for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.
A slavish focus on profit margin might be good for the individual or a business, but it is one helluva lousy way to “govern” a Country. The GOP being a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America has a hard time with that concept.
Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home
Mainer:
Thanks for clarifying- there wouldn’t be any transparency no matter what process the Dems use.
“What happens when the whole thing blows up like Social Security debacle that is now trillions in debt. Forget who screwed the pooch on it….what happens?”
Look to California for clues.
As they have said for decades, California is at the leading edge of where the entire country is headed.
We now know that what that means is we are headed back to the stone age.
As much as I’d like to believe the liberals are “bashing” or “smashing” or “slamming” each other, the truth is that all the Marxists in Washington need to tell the liberals is that this bill will really kill America. Then all the votes will fall right into place.
The problem is that the Hard Left controls all of the government. We can only hope the US can make it nine more months till November. Then the Hard Left will take an electoral dirt nap for a very long time.
“Progressives are too busy organizing to defeat bluedog and corporate Democrats with real progressive candidates. Health Care Reform is dead for this Congress (this bill is not reform)but will come back very soon.”
Delusional. Face it, most Americans oppose the progressive agenda. That’s why polls show the Republicans making gains in the 2010 elections.
I don’t happen to support progressivism because I believe it leads to economic collapse and political authoritarianism.
However, if you are a progressive, you should still be in touch enough with reality to know that a majority of Americans do not agree with you.
Doesn’t matter. They are weasel liberals. They’ll roll over when Nancy throws them another bone. “Need a bridge in your district, you know how to cast your vote!”
friggin communist losers, can’t wait until the whole lot of them get tossed out on their ears and the MSM has to write: “In surprising news, the republicans won 90% of the congressional elections”
Always surprsing when the conservatives mount a mini-comeback…