So Snowe's left the building on health care reform, barring miracle. That means that the Democrats pass this on a straight party-line vote, if they pass it at all, making the parallels to Social Security reform ever more compelling. As I thought might happen, the fact that Baucus wants to pay for his bill by taxing high cost health plans has alienated Snowe, since she comes from a state with some of the highest premiums in the country. Baucus has added a provision to scale the tax to local cost--but of course, when you do that, you don't raise so much money with it.
I'm reliably informed that the Democrats think they're better off doing this alone than not doing it at all, and so it has to pass. If so, it will be the first time in history that I can think of that a single party passed anything of this size--certainly not a major new entitlement. Medicare and Social Security both had considerable Republican votes, something I don't see this time around.
At the very least, this changes the tenor of the debate. I'm willing to bet that the Democrats start throwing the less popular provisions out of the bill. If you're going to pass a $1 trillion bill all by your lonesome, you don't want to, say, piss off 25% of seniors who like their Medicare Advantage, even if you and all of your fellow party members hate the program. Unfortunately, the popular bits are the expensive things. The unpopular parts are where you pay for them.
Luckily for the Democrats, outside of the Concord Coalition, no one votes on deficits.
Copyright © 2009 by The Atlantic Monthly Group. All rights reserved.
I don't really understand how Washington works. Why is losing a Republican vote likely to result in big changes in the bill? Because of the optics of "bipartisan" or something? Would Lieberman or Bayh not have the same effect? (Note: no sarcasm intended, honest questions.)
honest answer: remember, most of Washington is all about image - and this looks very bad.
Hundreds of people confront their congressmen at Town Halls, in an obviously real grass roots movement.
A Congressman is moved to call the President a Liar, to his face, in Congress. He apologizes for the protocol breach, but stands by his accusation - and a lot of people read about it.
Tens of thousands of people march on DC, and are ignored by the "Mainstream" media.
These are the kinds of things that can, and very likely will, get a lot of Democrats fired in 2010. As incompetent as the GOP is, and you'd be hard pressed to find a gang that is more goofy, even they can "make hay" with this.
can, and very likely will, get a lot of Democrats fired
I figure the Republican Party has about 6 months, at most, to either get Beck and Limbaugh under control, or sufficiently distant from the party. If they can't do that then the only people voting for Republicans in large numbers will be poor rural evangelical Christian (and Mormon) white males, who are only majorities in areas already held by Republicans.
Wishful thinking. The Democrats never got the loons under control and it didn't hurt them.
tsotha, my understanding is that the '68 and '72 elections were pretty much nothing but the loons hurting the Democrats. For that matter, we don't know how much better(or worse?) they'd have done if they did, somehow, get the loons out of the party. It's all guesswork, really.
And, of course, don't forget the impact on the deficit. I sarcastically point out that Obama has *promised* that his plan will be budget neutral, while simultaneously increasing coverage for everybody. Megan did a fun piece on "Waste" about a week ago, clearly showing that Obama's "promises" are empty.
As bad as GWB was as a deficit spender, and as bad as he was with special interests, he was a Boy Scout compared to this - and, again, the GOP will run with that.
In addition to RobM's points, the Dems may not have 60 votes because of the Kennedy/Byrd situations, which may not be resolved anytime soon (the Mass. state legislature changed the rules a few years ago to prevent the seat from going GOP if Kerry won, and changing it again makes them look like rank partisans). So even one GOP vote makes a big difference.
The problem for the Democrats is if they pass it without any Republican support, they own it. As with every controversial change, people who are pissed off will remember longer than people who are happy.
It's easy to say they should "man up" or "get a spine" or something to that effect. But the way the money game is played these days the only way you're ever going to lose a seat as an incumbent (on policy grounds, at least) is to "get a spine". And keeping the seat is goal #1 for every person in Congress on both sides of the aisle.
And the Democrat's health care reform package will be controversial — no matter how much they might take Ms. McaArdle's advice.
It's also guaranteed to make many people unhappy. So-called "progressives" don't believe this, but now it looks like we'll get a chance to find out. If reform does indeed turn out to be controversial and makes many people unhappy, then it will set a new high (low?) for partisan hubris.
Expect to see major electoral repercussions.
Here's why: they would completely own it. You basically have two options if that is the case.
1) Push through a moderate bill, removing many of the high-cost, contentious reforms, and hope it counts as a big political victory for the party and the administration. Force the opposition to look like careless obstructionists, and make the case to the voters in the next election cycle that your party can be trusted to reform policies and constrain budget deficits.
2) Push through an ambitious bill, under the assumption that "now is our time," since there is no guarantee that even a moderate bill being passed will prevent some Democrat defeats in 2010. Win over your most loyal constituents, and let the chips fall. If it blows up, who cares, because your party will probably be out of power when it does and then it will be someone elses problem to deal with. Call this plan "The Rove."
The reason (to my mind) Obama wanted bipartisan support on the legislation was not because he knew that if it came to Democrats-only, they'd get all the credit for a universally popular reform, leading to a Democrat-majority for decades. It's because he knows there is a chance this will not work out so well, and it's much better to have a broader group supporting it if it does not work out so well.
Yes. Because if the bill can be called "bipartisan," then neither party can be really blamed for it. If it's entirely one party's actions, they'll be blamed for anything unpopular in it.
That's why with, e.g., immigration bills or TARP, lots of Congressmen will only vote for it if it's going to pass with lots of other party votes. And why in cases like that where both party leaderships believe that something is unpopular but a good idea, the members from safe seats vote for it while the leadership lets those in swing seats case votes against.
It won't. It's been clear for some time now that Obama and company are willing to take anything just to get it out of the Finance Committee, because otherwise there is no reform. They're going to rely on negotiations with the HELP committee, and the amendment process, and eventually conference committee negotiations with the House. National health care is closer to passing then ever before in our nation's history. This progress is not the work of stupid people who don't understand the legislative process.
Also, somebody might have mentioned this down thread, but Snowe was referring only to the Finance bill. She didn't say she wouldn't vote for a healthcare bill at all (indeed her concerns are lack of taxes and lack of sufficient subsidies, which sound to me like she's open to a more liberal bill). Indeed, I think the Hill article overstates things in any event (maybe I skimmed too quickly), as Snowe appears to be saying she needs more time to study it, and has not issued a blanket promise to vote against.
The Democrats are going to get the praise/blame either way. A few R votes won't make a diff come campaign time. Just go a pair and do it right.
Sorry, that should be "grow a pair." And speaking as one of his constituents, Max Baucus is a buffoon.
Unless you mean to imply multiple personalities in the case of the Senator from Maine, the headline should read 'exit' meaning 'he or she goes out.' 'Exeunt' is plural, meaning 'they go out.' One more reason for restoring the classics, especially for business people. Next lesson: fallacies;-).
Right . . . fixed. It's early in the morning, in my defense.
Megan, do you have the roll call numbers for the Bush tax cuts? Were they passed through reconciliation or by standard vote?
They had some Dem votes--I don't know how many.
they were passed through reconciliation with some Dem votes
EGTRRA (Bush Tax Cuts)
passed in the Senate 58-33 (12 D voted yes), passed in the House 240-154 (28 D voted Yes). Reconciliation was not used, 2 senators voted present and 7 did not vote.
USA Patriot Act 99-1 in the Senate
NCLB 91-8 in the Senate, 384-45 in the House
Iraq War Resolution 77-23 (29 Ds voted yes) in the Senate, 297-133 (82 Ds voted Yes) in the House
EGTRRA was a bit more complicated, though, as the Byrd Rule was involved, and there were multiple votes. The Byrd Rule means, among other things, that any changes that increase the deficit can't be passed for longer than a ten year period. It takes 60 votes to waive the Byrd Rule.
That's why many of the Bush tax cuts expire after ten years. There were votes to make them permanent, such as the estate tax cut, but Republicans couldn't get 60 to waive the Byrd Rule. Several Democrats voted against the tax cuts on procedural motions trying to help stop it, but then when it seemed certain to pass voted for the tax cuts in order to claim credit on their re-election campaign. (This was much more common among Senators running for re-election in the next cycle.)
The answer to the question of "why do the Bush tax cuts expire after 10 years" is thus, "a majority could pass the tax cuts for ten years, but it would take sixty to make them permanent."
Some of the more bipartisan parts of the tax cuts were made permanent, though not yet the middle class tax bracket cuts that Obama says he wants extended. (And would make the deficit worse than the CBO baseline.)
It's not that Democrats don't care about deficits, they just have an obvious solution for them - higher taxes. Raising taxes is politically difficult, but eliminating (or even reducing) major entitlements is even worse. I'm guessing that Democrats have a long-term strategy in mind where they can argue that, "We don't want to raise taxes, but we have no choice if we are to save the country and restore solvency to the nation's balance sheet."
So it's the opposite of the Republican long-term strategy:
Lower Taxes -> Increase Debt -> Constrain Future Growth of Government = "Starve the Beast"
vs.
Increase Spending on Socialized Entitlements -> Increase Debt -> Raise Future Taxes = "Gorge the Beast"?
Either way, whatever choice we make, we have a conspiracy to bankrupt the country.
Is that their strategy? 'Cause I keep hearing Obama talk about his tax CUTS for working Americans. I loathe taxes but I'd get back a lotta respect for him if he actually said, "Now that we've instituted a lot of needed programs, we have to raise taxes a lot." That kind of honesty might even make me vote for the man, seeing as how I'd prefer a massive government in the black, rather than the GOP promise of a massive gov't in the red. In reality both parties are in love with the free lunch the ChiComs have been giving us and neither has any plans to significantly raise taxes OR cut spending. It will all end pretty badly, that I am sure of.
It will end most badly for the ChiComs, I think. As I see it the most likely result of all this red ink is inflation. That way they won't have to raise tax rates - they can take a bit of every dollar we already have.
Apres l'Obame, le deluge....
Of course, Republicans passing legislation with straight party-line votes in the Senate is not news enough for us to criticize. Because no one-- no one-- holds the Republican party to anything resembling standards.
People hate Democrats, they bash Democrats, they excoriate Democrats-- and yet, quietly, the expect more from Democrats. If only they could actually get around to what that should mean in terms of the regard they should demonstrate for Democrats!
Really, where were you the last 8 years...
The GOP couldn't even confirm judges on a party-line vote.
Because no one-- no one-- holds the Republican party to anything resembling standards.
What alternate universe are you living in? The NYT consistently calls the filibuster an anti-democratic anachronism when the Dems have a majority, but when the GOP is in the majority it's a sacred and necessary convention to protect minority opinion.
Has the GOP leadership in the senate actually said they would filibuster the bill, or are the Democrats simply assuming they will?
a) Normative != Positive
b) Republicans failed on social security reform precisely because they were worried that they'd be held accountable for a straight party-line vote, which they were forced into by intransigent Democrats insisting that the core of the Republican proposal be taken off the table. No party has, as far as I am aware, done a vote this contentious on a straight party line, at least not since the civil war. Even NIRA and the Wagner Act garnered substantial Republican support, conversely, even the Bush tax cuts had Democratic supporters. http://www.senate.gov/legislative/LIS/roll_call_lists/roll_call_vote_cfm.cfm?congress=107&session=1&vote=00170
Freddie, perhaps you could find an example or two to share with us. If you'll look upthread, you'll see a few counter-examples
Freddie, this is daft. When have the Republicans ever passed something on a straight party line vote? I can't think of a single instance.
CAFTA is the closest I can think of right now recently for major legislation, outside of really blatantly partisan things like "vote to reprimand Pete Stark for calling Bush a liar on the floor of the House."
Oh, and the Clinton impeachment articles were pretty straight party line, no?
CAFTA in the House was 202 Republicans and 15 Democrats Aye, 27 Republicans, 187 Democrats, and 1 Independent No.
That's about, say, Cap-and-Trade "bipartisan."
Of course, Republicans passing legislation with straight party-line votes in the Senate is not news enough for us to criticize
As everyone has said, please cite your evidence.
I'm not sure they can pass it even with Dem votes. There seems to be a hard split between those who will not vote for a bill without a public option and those who will not vote for a bill with a public option.
You don't read a lot about that, but I have the same "not sure" feeling. Look at Rockefeller's comment, yesterday.
Obama promised the whole world that he won't raise taxes on anyone making under $250,000 (or whatever).
Last week he promised that his plan won't increase the deficit by a dime.
But he also promised that he *will* get this plan through.
It's not only the Blue Dogs that have to fear what happens in 2010 when these mutually exclusive promises fall apart.
You can tell this bill scares Dems. Despite all the rhetoric of "crisis," it doesn't take effect until 2013 -- after Obama's re-election campaign.
More likely this is just part of the accounting trick to make the bill appear to be deficit neutral. Because the bills are scored over a 10 year window they have the taxes start before the benefits begin. That means that if you look at year 11 and on it gets completely upside down and this plan is not self sustaining whatsoever. Its a total accounting trick. Interestingly enough Conrad asked the CBO to score the bill over 20 years instead of 10 which should bring all this to light.
Good point.
I'd say two birds, one stone.
Good for Conrad, btw.
TallDave: If you really really really want a public option, it makes sense to signal it's a deal breaker. But liberal Democrats aren't stupid enough to vote down an otherwise progressive bill (conversion of private health insurance to public utilities + generous subsidies) if the only thing it lacks is a public option. I'm personally predicting a triggered public option will be the compromise that emerges from conference, but we shall see.
Megan:
What silly complaint, both yours and Politifact's, whose rundown includes the following passage:
If there aren't any liberal Republicans anymore, and Lincoln Chaffe was the last of that now-extinct breed--why would anyone expect Republican votes for a liberal program?
I'm afraid it's simpler than that; I think, because of her dedication on this issue, Megan has decided to simply become a partisan Republican for the remainder of the health care debate.
Oh noes!
Still waiting for your evidence, Freddie....
Freddie:
Enflaming demagoguery, quasi-populist ignorance combined with quasi-elitist self-righteousness (I know those are mutually exclusive but that never stopped them) topped off by a steady and perpetual litany of lies, distortions and decptions?
You don't say.
You're both confusing a positive analysis with a normative statement. Straight party line votes on hard issues are politically risky. That's going to change how they execute. I made no statement about whether they should get Republicans, can get Republicans, etc. I'm just pointing out that now that they apparently can't, that has implications for the bill that will pass, presumably that it will get more expensive.
Megan:
Seriously. Pardon me. So many of the others who say that offer it as a normative judgement that I just responded reflexively.
On the other hand, as a positive assertion you're wrong. It can now be more easily paid for now by taxing the rich since the Dems don't have to worry about gathering a few Repub votes.
Sure the Repubs will respond with their usual tax demagoguery, but they'd do that in any case.
The problem is, there aren't that many rich, so you have to raise taxes on them sky-high. This is why European top rates kick in at such a low base.
Megan:
I don't have a problem with that.
"I don't have a problem with that."
Unfortunately for you, they're Democrats and not Communists
"If so, it will be the first time in history that I can think of that a single party passed anything of this size--certainly not a major new entitlement."
Finally! This is the best possible thing that could happen to the country, if not the world.
The American people will get to see first hand the miracles that are possible in a one-party progressive country. The results will no doubt convince millions to give up their foolhardy grip on archaic, counter-productive, counter-progressive ideologies such as "freedom" or "democracy".
I predict that very soon Friedman's prescient praise for the one-party progressive autarky enjoyed by China will be joined by a commanding majority of the American people. The evils we are forced to live with by the evil Republicans will be washed away in the new progressive dictatorship and everyone, without exception, will be better off.
This is the change we have been waiting for!
Of course, it's both inevitable and desirable. How else can we implement Holdren's plans for mass sterilization? The planet's resources are finite and by 1970s estimates all the oil and minerals are already gone, and mass starvation looms.
We need to be repressed for our own good. Yes We Can!
It's so refreshing to hear such honesty in public discourse.
Have you been offered a partnership at AKPD Message and Media?
Somehow I've missed something in Megan's many posts on health insurance. What I've missed is whether she thinks the status quo can be improved, and if so, what her ideas are for improving it.
I'd also be interested in what she and her groupies think of the Andrew Sullivan problem. This concerns what somebody should do if he or she has a serious health problem and is fired. The two solutions I can think of are a) pay for your treatment out of pocket until you're destitute, and then apply for Medicaid, or b) commit suicide. Any thoughts, Libertarians?
I'd also be interested in what she and her groupies think of the Andrew Sullivan problem. This concerns what somebody should do if he or she has a serious health problem and is fired.
Andrew Sullivan should be fired for his serious mental health problems. He should then be deported to the UK where he can enjoy universal health care until the death panel decides he's a drain on national resources and they gently ease him into the endless night.
Hey! TallDave, you're a valued commenter. Please no more of that sort of personal attack.
Sorry, it was intended as a tongue-in-cheek response to the notion of an "Andrew Sullivan problem" but it reads a little harsher than intended.
'Nuff said, then.
Yes, Dave, please keep your personal attacks focused on the minor children of Republicans. This will keep you from being banned and might actually get you a paying gig on the Atlantic web site.
I won't speak for everyone but a combination of the following could address this:
- Move to eliminate tax advantage status of employer provided care
- Eliminate state limitations on insurance
- Eliminate restrictions on organizational pooling to allow for broader groupings and more permanent policies.
- Government re-insurance for catastrophic events / illnesses
- Expansion of medicaid to cover events with high price-tags
- Some regulation to limit recission and promote guarantee re-issue policies
- Move to eliminate tax advantage status of employer provided care
- Eliminate state limitations on insurance
I agree wholeheartedly. These are the main reason why, unlike every other kind of insurannce, your health insurance doesn't follow you around your whole life.
We might not even need pooling. One of the relatively unheralded benefits of the Internet in the 1990s was the fall in term life prices -- suddenly you could go online and compare everyone's rates and policies without going through a broker.
Well, there's COBRA for 18 months, which should cover the span of most serious illnesses. I don't have statistics, but I'm guessing a minority of pre-existing conditions have huge (i.e. surgeries, long-term hospitalization) ongoing costs long after that period with the possible exception of continuing and expensive prescription drug requirements.
And by "Andrew Sullivan problem" I thought you meant maintaining any sense of objectivity when the US Attorney's office blatantly singles you out for protection against even minimal penalties when you flagrantly violate the laws of a country you are on Visa as a quid pro quo for your unending shilling for them.
Guys, c'mon . . . I know you don't like Andrew, but I'd rather you didn't make my blog the forum for that.
I wouldn't normally (I'm not sure I've ever brought him up, I don't much think of him anyway) but the snark there was way too much of a lob over the plate to pass up...
I will show more restraint in the future.
If the car I'm riding in is going to drive off a cliff, I don't need to provide an alternate destination. Just getting the idiot drivit to stop the car is good enough.
Yes, but the first step is to do away with the link between employment and health insurance. The ideal way to do this would be to make all employee health benefits count as fully taxable income; unfortunately this would be very hard to pass, because a large majority of likely voters are against it. A large tax credit for all medical expenditures . . . not only insurance, but out of pocket . . . would be a partial equivalent, but to achieve true tax neutrality it would need to compensate not just for income tax but for Social Security, since health benefits aren't subject to FICA tax either. Given this, health insurance through your employer would not be such an obviously good deal, and many people could be tempted by the sales pitch of "you don't lose this insurance when you lose your job!"
Then you need to make health status insurance universally available (a quick google turns up a number of creditable sites; one good example is http://www.westandfirm.org/blog/2008/12/new-insurance-option.html). This is basically the purchase of an option to continue buying health insurance in the event of long term illness. United offers a form of it in the 25 states where it's currently legal. Taking down barriers to interstate purchase of insurance could help this. This would be even more appealing to people who wanted to be protected if they lost their jobs.
Finally, we might need to look at applying more rigorous standards of contract law to insurance companies. Though http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574409501904118682.html?mod=googlenews_wsj claims that the problem is not nearly as severe or as widespread as Obama suggested. But insofar as it's real, that's what we have courts for. And note, too, that having insurance mostly individually bought would change the market environment. Employee health benefits are perceived as "free" and as entitlements or largesse; what you get without (obviously) paying for it, you aren't very critical of. Not many people are going to refuse to take a job, or refuse to accept health benefits, because they don't like the record of the insurance company on rescission. But if you buy insurance individually, you have every reason to care about it. Consumer organizations have a lot of power; we need a setup where that power can be used to compel insurance companies to compete by delivering what they promised.
For that matter, it would be nice if elected officials faced that same pressure. But that seems a lot harder to achieve.
Stan,
She has answered your 1st question on numerous occasions.
I must have missed Megan's solutions. All I hear from her is about costs. The solutions I've seen that come from conservative bloggers involve allowing insurers to relocate to the state with the weakest regulations (probably Delaware) and capping medical liability payments. Both provide immense benefits to insurance companies along with a tiny bit of trickle-down to consumers. I haven't seen any convincing evidence that either reform would make much difference.
Another suggestion I've seen is to discourage employer provided benefits while encouraging individuals to purchase insurance on their own, as suggested by William Stoddard. The problem with this approach is that a) most individuals don't have enough legal training to make an intelligent choice in purchasing health insurance, and b) individuals lack the kind of bargaining power that big employers have. Both problems would be alleviated by the Wyden-Bennett bill, which I'd be happy to see enacted in place of BaucusCare, but which doesn't command support from either party in Congress.
Regarding the Andrew Sullivan problem, and I'll address this to TallDave, you, Tall One, might come down with diabetes, cancer, cardiovascular disease, or depression before you reach 65. Or your wife might, or your significant other, or your children. If this happens, somebody is going to require medication and tests for a long, long time. So I hope for your sake that you have an employer who's going to stay in business until you retire. The same goes for Megan.
Stan,
I'd settle for this plan.
Stan, Megan and I believe that if this bill passes, then cures that otherwise would be invented won't be, or will be invented later. So I hope for your sake that you, and for that matter anyone in the world, doesn't get a disease that would otherwise have been cured, but instead has to suffer from for a long, long time. The problem of course is that the cures never invented are harder to measure. But I think that this bill will kill more people in the long run than it will save.
I feel that same way about kidneys; I sincerely hope that no one who opposes kidney donation compensation comes down with a kidney problem, as they'll face medication and dialysis for a long, long time, instead of being able to get a new kidney that they would otherwise.
some of us would like both insurers and the government left out of health care payment and have it left to the patient and the doctor/hospital.
which was mostly true pre-1950. and works pretty well where people are allowed to do it (the Amish are poster children for this-- cost per person is quite low and they receive discounts as 'good' as the ones people in large companies get, only their group is much smaller.) funny how that works out, that the group can be quite small and still get very low prices negotiated without insurance.
but nobody in this debate is interested in a world where the government and health insurance companies don't get to have their fingers in the pot.
Thank you for the acknowledgment. You are right about the lack of legal training. But there are a number of substitutes for this, which work for other sorts of things that have technical aspects. There is straightforward reputation, in which a firm that doesn't deliver what it purports to sell gets known for not doing so and bleeds customers. There is the closely related phenomenon of word of mouth. There are consumer organizations that can hire more expert evaluators to compare the quality of different products. Even if any of these affects only a minority of customers, losing that minority of smart shoppers can make a big difference to a firm's profit margin.
Beyond that, if things like rescission are genuinely a problem, I would think that a remedy could be found in revising contract law to make it harder for corporations to squeeze out of obligations on a technicality. Though I want to note that Scott Harrington, at http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203440104574409501904118682.html, does not seem to believe rescission is as big a problem as Obama claims.
Though I would also suggest that getting health insurance through your employer does not avoid the problem of insurance companies evading their obligations. If you come down with something that is hugely expensive to treat, and want to keep your job and your insurance, your company's carrier has an incentive to raise their rates to your employer. That, in turn, gives your employer an incentive to let you go.
More generally, the claim that "individuals lack the kind of bargaining power that big employers have" is really beside the point. If a big employer is doing the bargaining, they will be bargaining for something that serves their interest. If I don't think it serves my interest, I can put up with it, or look for a different job . . . but it's not likely that I'll be a valued enough employee for them to change to a different carrier on my sole behalf. And in any case, if I leave, they'll hire someone else and their carrier will still sell the same number of policies. So I really have *zero* bargaining power as an individual if I get my insurance as an employee benefit, because the marginal cost of displeasing me is zero for the carrier. If I buy my policy individually, the marginal cost is not zero, and neither is my bargaining power.
If so, it will be the first time in history that I can think of that a single party passed anything of this size--certainly not a major new entitlement.
Um ... the stimulus?
Fish, barrel, etc.
The stimulus package is similar on a ten-year window, true. Good point. It's not a new entitlement, though, so it presumably won't be permanent.
Snowe, Collins, and Specter voted for it, and it was smaller than this bill is priced at.
Fish leaping out of barrel with targets strapped to their backs, etc.
Though no House Republicans.
Sure, but $769B is in the same order of magnitude if we only look at the ten year window. (This bill is much, much worse over the long term, since it won't end.)
Yes, but the ten year window is not, in this case, the correct comparison, and also, it's not a single party vote if three Republicans voted for it.
Fair enough, for the purposes of this post, since this is about the effect of going from one Republican Senator to zero.
However, even if Snowe were still going to vote for it, one could still fairly say that "it will be the first time in history that a major new entitlement passed with only one Senator from the other party voting for it." Honestly, exactly how much bipartisanship does one Senator grant?
Impossible to say, but surely, greater than none?
Incidentally, "exeunt" can't be used when only one person leaves.
That was the "republicans" part
I’m curious whether the bill will even get a vote in the Senate if they can’t command even token bipartisan support. There are an awful lot of iffy Blue Dogs in the House whose votes will be needed to pass a bill and if they don’t think that the Senate has the votes or the political will to get it done, they’re essentially being asked to risk their seats by casting another unpopular vote on another major Trillion Dollar issue with little to no possibility of success. If Baucus can’t get Republican support and the Senate decides to “go it alone,” then the Blue Dogs in the House might just say “not with us you won’t.”
props to Freddie's comment. i adore semantic snobs.
secondly, i read that hill report, ive scoured the intrawebs, and I don't quite understand your stance that Snowe is completely out of the building.
as far as i can tell, she trying to discern whether or not the funding mechanism will hurt Maine too much.
guess, im sayin relax yo.
Why the hell are people throwing around the word "progressive" when describing any of these bills? The progressive caucus supports Medicare For All, not the lobbyist-written trash spewed out by the Blue Dogs/moderates.
If anything, they will defeat the bill that comes out of reconciliation. Not just because it is shaping up to be terrible, but because it'll probably kill the issue for a decade and will be toted as the "liberal" reform by conservatives when it is nothing of the sort.
Call this bill for what it is likely to end up being: a bailout for the health insurance and pharmaceutical industries.
The former gets requirements that everyone buy their increasingly terrible product, the latter gets an extension on patents, no Canadian imports, and no negotiation on drug prices for Medicare.
See, this is why I doubt anything's going to have enough Dem votes.
medicare for all is a very obviously unsustainable boondoggle. a lot of doctors won't even take medicare right now, or medicaid. and they want to expand this lack of access?
oh, progressives...
I actually agree with your diagnosis: both that the bill is not progressive and not designed to benefit the uninsured (as one of them, I've looked at it closely and I'm sure it doesn't benefit me), and that it is designed to benefit the health care industries. The irony is that mandatory insurance was originally being put forth by Republicans like Romney and Schwarzenegger as an alternative to Democratic proposals. Here in California, in fact, the labor unions helped defeat the Schwarzenegger mandates, because they saw them as a hardship for working people! How it got adopted as the Democratic proposal is quite a riddle.
In fact, consider the key features of the Democratic plans now being put forth. They attempt to provide a solution to social conflicts through mass action. They don't abolish the current firms or destroy their current ownership structure, but organize them into large industrial associations and have their key decisions made by a central planning agency. They have the government's decisions strongly influenced by having representatives of industrial organizations take part in policy debates. And they deal with the needs of the masses, not by extending real help to them, but by compelling them to do what the government has decided is needed, and to pay for it, and to face punishment if they resist. All of this is, in the technical sense of the word rather than the popular abusive sense, fascist: It's the way that fascist regimes "solve" economic and social problems. In fact, we are seeing the Democratic party being split between a fascist and a social democratic ("socialist" in the broad sense in which Sweden, say, is socialist) solution.
If the progressives go along with this, it will make me think that their real priority is not to help people, but to get together with the Blue Dogs to make sure everyone is firmly under government control. I hope they will remember their ideals and resist. I solidly disagree with their ideas about how to achieve a better society, but I would rather see them resisting the abuse of political power in the service of special interests, which is what the current Democratic ideas look like to me.
ObamaCare - The Time For Action Is Passing Quickly. The Coup De Grâce Is Nigh.
Recall two Senator Jim Demint amendments mentioned in the post above. The first passed unanimously and the second by a margin of 79-14. Both kill reconciliation. That the Dems choose to ignore them is why most of America is so fed up. This privileged mentality of "rules for thee but not for me" is going to destroy the Democrat party. With all of the Republicans in the Senate now opposed to the Senate Finance Bill, if the Demint amendments are brought to the nations attention, enough Democrats could be peeled off to stop even reconciliation. The time to act is now.
Wibbles wrote "nobody in this debate is interested in a world where the government and health insurance companies don't get to have their fingers in the pot."
I am. I don't think you can get the government out, due to the elderly, the poor, and especially poor children. But either you think sick people should get no care unless they have money, or you don't. This is completely separate from encouraging the development of cures... last I checked that was big pharma, not the health insurance companies. To encourage cures, you could do a lot of cultural work... have people who choose those areas get scholarships, have the government put more money and prizes into it, have the media pay more attention to it than let's say Jon Gosselin and Michael Jordan just to name two.
But what if any function does the health insurance industry provide in a world where health care is a human right, and not a tax-dodge perk to get employees, given the current employment picture? I say none. It is a complete waste of money with ZERO value-add for Blue Cross/Blue Shield and the like to exist at all. They only pass paper, do nothing productive. Let's just end them. Why not?