Political Reality On The Health Bill: It's Up To The Senate

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 02:18:17 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Paul Krugman:

[B]oth houses of Congress have passed broadly similar bills. In a normally functioning Congress, the differences would be negotiated, and a deal would be struck. But thanks to the filibuster, that can’t happen: a 59-41 majority isn’t enough.

There is, however, a fairly straightforward way to get back to more or less majority rule. The Senate has to pass a reconciliation bill — a money-related bill, that doesn’t require 60 votes — that modifies its original bill, making it more acceptable to the House. [. . .] Then the House passes both bills, and sends the combo to the president’s desk. [. . .] I’m not sure what the Senate’s problem is [. . . b]ut this is what has to be done.

For those folks who really want the Senate health bill to pass, that is the reality. If it does not happen, it will be because of the Senate.

Speaking for me only

< Cops and FBI Want Longer Access to Your Internet Data | Fingerprinting is So Last Year >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

Political Reality On The Health Bill: It's Up To The Senate | 25 comments (25 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

sort of (5.00 / 1) (#1)
by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 02:40:32 PM EST

the main point of his post is this I think:

"The problem is that somebody really has to get the troops in line -- and that someone really has to be Obama. Is anyone home?"

The senate will sit there and dither till the cows come home. Time to start twisting some arms.

: Last time Obama twisted the Senate... (none / 0) (#19)
by NealB on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 06:40:46 PM EST

...they gladly, and immediately jettisoned the public option and Medicare buy-in, and proceeded to pass the bill that lost the Massachusetts Senate seat. Thanks to Obama's unqualified support of Rahm "f*cking r*tarded" Emanuel, and their apparent willingness to bury the middle class, I shudder to think what would happen if Obama injected himself into the health care debate again. His hugely successful campaign to insult and demoralize the liberal base of the Democratic Party is Obama's only effective accomplishment one year down. And considering the Democratic Senate's furtive, sick thrill at executing Obama's kamikaze missions, I hope and pray Obama stays the hell away from the Senate.

Bud Abbott and Lou Costello would (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by Anne on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 02:47:06 PM EST

be so proud that their "Who's on First?" routine is being reprised by Senate Dems; as a comedy routine, it's hilarious - as an example of Democratic "leadership," it's enough to make one weep.

Obama seems to be in no hurry, and frankly, if he starts twisting arms, the question I have is, what will an Obama-driven reconciliation bill look like?

Not particularly encouraged that any pressure he would bring to bear would improve the ultimate result.

: we know what the bill looks like (5.00 / 1) (#3)
by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 02:51:06 PM EST

more or less at this point. We know more or less what the sticking points are for the house. It wouldn't be Obama deciding what the house will accept so much as him telling the senate to suck it up and strike a deal.
This is ultimately a house driven reconciliation bill, since it needs to placate them - Obama would sign the senate bill no problem. But it's not the job of the house to twist arms in the senate to get things moving. That's the job of the president.

The Dems seem to be enjoying (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by andgarden on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 03:06:12 PM EST

the minority hostage situation in the Senate. "See, someone else is to blame now!"

Obama got the stimulus passed (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by me only on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 03:46:38 PM EST

what more do people want? Being President is hard. You can't expect the man to work miracles everyday.

If the bills were acceptable to the (5.00 / 1) (#7)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:02:08 PM EST

public then none of this would have happened.

Point is, the bills are not acceptable and any devious tricks used will come back to haunt the users. The so-called Blue Dogs and threatened with losing an election Senators understand that.

Let's throw this trash in the garbage and come up with a simple single payer system that covers everyone based on the Medicare model.

Then we will find out who wants all Americans to have health care and who wants to pay off the drug and insurance companies.

define (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by CST on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:09:16 PM EST

"devious tricks" please.

Reconciliation is not a devious trick. It's a part of the process for a reason.

The so-called blue dogs are threatened either way. They already voted, people are pi$$ed about the economy - the best they can hope for at this point is to at least salvage a bill. If they're gonna lose for it, they're already toast. This way they can at least have something concrete to stand up and defend.


People are angry about a variety of things (none / 0) (#10)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:58:59 PM EST

and the health care "bill" is especially hated by seniors who rightfully see it as harmful to Medicare and a straight lead into care rationing and denying.

You may disagree with their analysis but that is their analysis and seniors vote. And politicians know that seniors vote.

And what do you mean "stand up and defend?" Is your position that you merely want Obama to win or do you want something that would be good for the country?


just to clarify (5.00 / 1) (#25)
by CST on Sat Feb 06, 2010 at 01:00:08 PM EST

it is my opinion that passing this bill (with fixes to the excise tax) will be better for the country than what we currently have. And that public opinion of the bill will improve once it is passed and we only talk about the merits of the actual bill rather than what people are afraid it is. There is too much misinformation out there.

I realize that a lot of people here come from the stand point that no bill is better than this bill. That is not my point of view. And that has nothing to do with wanting Obama to "win" (he isn't even on the ballot for a while). It is my personal opinion based on the expansion of medicaid, the new regulatory restrictions on insurance companies, and the subsidies for lower income individuals.


The range of mistakes is (none / 0) (#16)
by KeysDan on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:52:05 PM EST

mind boggling. It always seemed unwise for this new legislative initiative to include "reforms" to the existing and well-regarded Medicare program. Certainly, given the fact a Medicare-for-all program was jettisoned before it was a seriously considered option, an effective health care and workable health insurance extension was a daunting task in and of itself. Medicare does need financial, reimbursement and other revisions, but unlike the needs of the uninsured and poorly insured, these are not yet at the point of emergency and should have been severed from discussion at this point. Indeed, some of the Medicare reforms are already being considered in pilot studies or through regulations. But, health economists that were relied upon seemed hell bent upon using this opportunity to (a) curb Medicare and (b) divert its "savings without loss of benefits" to the new program so that new taxes could be downplayed (although even that did not work out). That the "savings" were to stabilize the sinking Medicare program and also finance half of the new extended program involved a sale befitting a good snake oil merchant.


: "a good snake oil merchant?" (5.00 / 1) (#17)
by jimakaPPJ on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:58:17 PM EST

Yes, that is what Obama is.
Medicare should just be expanded to cover EVERYONE. All the admin stuff is there. The health care delivery system exists... So what was the problem?
Obama didn't want his base to have to pay for care so he allowed the horse trading and resulting corruption to start and now the American citizen is disgusted.

Not me, man (5.00 / 1) (#9)
by MO Blue on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 04:11:08 PM EST

At a DNC fundraiser last night, President Obama had an interesting exchange with a Democratic organizer about health care reform, wherein he appeared to suggest that Congress could drop the ball and fail to pass a bill--and that voters should judge them harshly if they do.
"[I]t may be that -- you know, if Congress decides -- if Congress decides we're not going to do it, even after all the facts are laid out, all the options are clear, then the American people can make a judgment as to whether this Congress has done the right thing for them or not," Obama said. link

: Moments like this, (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by Left of the Left on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:13:41 PM EST

and there plenty already, I'm reminded of the baseball movie Major League:

It was out of my reach. What'd you want me to do, dive for it?

Of course this continues to ignore (5.00 / 0) (#22)
by pluege on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 07:32:42 PM EST

that the only thing passing the House is a bill with the Stupak Amendment. But throwing women in general, but poor women in particular under the bus to be second class citizens is just fine for some self-proclaimed "liberals".

consequences of no hillary (1.00 / 1) (#18)
by klassicheart on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 06:31:37 PM EST

Altho part of me is so frustrated and angry at the useless mediator Obama is turning out to be, I also get some satisfaction as the liberal elites stew in the mess they put us in. Harry Reid, if one recalls, was supportive of Obama in the primaries...on the sly...the Democratic party skewed the rules to make it easy for Obama...they overruled the working class and Hillary supporters...and cheated...and it's all coming back to haunt them...including Pelosi. The Democratic party had experienced leadership ready to step in and start cleaning the Bush/Republican mess...and they dumped them (the Clintons) for the new shiny pony...Of course, no one should forget that many of the senators screwing us on health policy were the most supportive of Obama...like Ben Nelson. But no one wants to remember that...Hopefully the Dems will be able to hold on to the Senate and we can get a new majority leader who is not Dick Durbin. And please don't forget that the DNC, under the weak and Obama supported Tim Kaine, not only lost Virginia for the Dems, not only lost Mass. senate,...but gave 500k to Ben Nelson. Doesn't that tell you all you need to know about Obama and the Dem leadership?

I'd like to declare a moratorium on (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by observed on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 06:47:27 PM EST

"too bad Hillary wasn't elected" comments.
Man, I really wanted her, but she didn't get it, and I'm not going to spend 4 or 8 years wishing she did.


The issue is Democratic leadership (5.00 / 1) (#21)
by klassicheart on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 07:29:51 PM EST

My point is that we have a president who was supported by the very politicians who have created this train wreck. The senators who supported Obama in the primaries and deliberately derailed Hillary are directly responsible for the non progressive policies that are currently being pursued including health care. That isn't an issue of the past. It is a consequence of clear choices that were made by people. And the funding by the DNC of Ben Nelson to the tune of $500,000. sends another message, unfortunately, a very bad one. There is a big problem with a weak Democratic leadership and a bigger problem with a weak Presidency. This creates a vacuum of leadership. Either someone else steps up from our party (and we do have a good bench of progressive senators) and starts leading or we face a disaster. The failure to get a decent health bill merely underlines the dimensions of the disaster and the failure to lead.


Just make the point without (none / 0) (#23)
by observed on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 07:46:55 PM EST

reliving the past. It's too painful and not helpful, IMO.
Even if Hillary were President, the Senate would still suck, completely. Don't forget that Obama would still be there if she won . ducks for incoming.


: How does it effect policy (none / 0) (#24)
by jondee on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 10:07:38 PM EST

when ANYONE who wants to run has to raise $500 mil?
All the "leadership" in world isnt going to change a fundraiser/leader into a leader.

If both bills do pass Congress, (none / 0) (#5)
by Dan the Man on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 03:38:15 PM EST

I hope the House reminds President Obama which bill to sign first. I don't want President Obama to "accidentally" sign the wrong bill first.

If healthcare doesn't (none / 0) (#12)
by Natal on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:26:52 PM EST

pass we can look forward to meltdown of the system in a very short period of time according to this article. link

: Generally, I hate worse is better... (5.00 / 1) (#14)
by lambert on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:35:39 PM EST

... but I think this is one time it's OK.
For me, having no insurance and no care is better than being forced to pay for insurance, and then getting no care because the insurane is junk.

: True (5.00 / 1) (#15)
by TeresaInSnow2 on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:51:43 PM EST

If HEALTHCARE doesn't pass, that is true.
If JUNKCARE ala Obama and Congress passes, it will still be true.

Sorry wrong link (none / 0) (#13)
by Natal on Fri Feb 05, 2010 at 05:30:08 PM EST

here it is. link