Breaking News
Oprah Quitting TV Show In 2011

Harry Reid Fails Again: No Bill Before Recess

Harry Reid is a joke. A laughable, sick joke that is allowing Americans to have a substandard way of life.

Democratic divisions in Congress stalled President Barack Obama’s health care overhaul Thursday, with Majority Leader Harry Reid now saying that the Senate will not pass a reform bill before the August recess.

Reid told reporters Thursday the Finance Committee will act on its portion of the bill before Congress’ monthlong break. Then Reid will merge that bill with separate legislation already passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

Reid said the decision to delay a vote was made Wednesday night in the hopes of getting a final bipartisan bill.

When Reid goes home at the break (covered by his congressional health care) he should just stay in Nevada. He does just as much good to the country sitting there as he does in Washington.

Both comments and pings are currently closed.

33 Responses to “Harry Reid Fails Again: No Bill Before Recess”

  1. mike in dc says:

    I don’t care if they don’t vote on the bills before recess, but it will be completely pathetic if they actually let Baucus leave for recess without even trying to get a bill out of the Finance Committee. If it looks like that’s going to happen, Obama should pressure Reid to keep the Senate in session until Baucus produces a bill out of committee. Why? Because f**k him, that’s why.

  2. Reid said the decision to delay a vote was made Wednesday night in the hopes of getting a final bipartisan bill.

    Does Reid really think any Republicans are going to vote for it? If he does, he’s the dumbest man alive.

  3. MacDaddy says:

    It’s sad when blue dog democrats and Reid, the top democrat in the senate, are actually helping Republicans to defeat health reform. All Reid is doing is giving lobbyist-owned Republicans time to place even more doubt to a gullible public that the government is going to take over healthcare and their lives.

    I’m thoroughly disgusted. Ultimately, this is not about Republicans. This is about bought-off democrats, including Reid.

  4. mike in dc says:

    Obama needs to take a page out of LBJ’s playbook here…he’s still a popular president, and popular presidents have all kinds of ways to bring Congress in line.

  5. jr says:

    Harry hearts the status quo

  6. joaquin says:

    If a tad difficult to bring Congress in line, as Mike in DC said, when a majority in the House and the ‘folks back home’ are not supporting this bill.
    I know that you guys are in love with Pres. O, but the reality is that he doesn’t have the clout to twist many more arms.
    The LibDems in Congress have carried his water for the first 6 months and now they are seeing the pitiful results.

  7. Burn says:

    Reid epitomizes the spineless, limpdick Democrat who just cowers in fear like some dumb old dog that’s been kicked his whole life. You don’t even have to kick him anymore, just make a move like you will and he’ll piss himself.

    Fucking pathetic. Democrats have a solid majority in the Senate, yet Reid just gives in time and time again. When will Democrats learn from Republicans? When they have the majority, they just steamroll anything that gets in their way and they stand lockstep arm in arm. When Democrats have the majority, they just cannot wait to bend over for the minority party. This is why I never registered as a Democrat, nor will I ever.
    How funny, for a moment people who hate Reid come from both sides of the aisle.

  8. Reid is an anemic tool that has become what most career politicians become; utterly useless,except when it comes to maintaining his position as Congressional house cat.

  9. Duros62 says:

    Then Reid will merge that bill with separate legislation already passed by the Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee.

    Oh sure, water it down even more like the cap and trade bill. Good fucking plan.
    I’d be willing to bet if there was a vote of no-confidence in the speaker, Harry would vote for it.

  10. Duros62 says:

    What does it take to get a new majority leader?

  11. Steve LaBonne says:

    Obama needs to take a page out of LBJ’s playbook here…he’s still a popular president, and popular presidents have all kinds of ways to bring Congress in line.

    Special session. Article 2, Section 3. “Recess, Harry? WHAT recess? Sit your ass down and get to work.”

  12. Indeed says:

    Point to Hugeass Insurance (and against Teh Peoples).

  13. Duros62 says:

    Special session. Article 2, Section 3. “Recess, Harry? WHAT recess? Sit your ass down and get to work.”

    WIN.

    Actually, let him go to recess. He’s fekkin’ useless anyway. Everybody else stays.

  14. I'm a Hick says:

    “Special session. Article 2, Section 3. “Recess, Harry? WHAT recess? Sit your ass down and get to work.””

    It would be a good way to celobrate Turnip Day!

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turnip_Day_Session

  15. SaveFarris says:

    So Obama goes on national television last night to bang the drum for Health Care and push Congress into passing a bill now. The next day, Harry Reid calls off the vote and the President’s response is “That’s OK.”. So all the sturm und drang of last night was all for nothing. “Just words, just speeches…”

    This guy is the gift that keeps on giving.

  16. On the plus side, this gives an extra month to highlight how much the “Blue Dogs” are getting in bribes from the insurance industry. Plus a month to constantly ask all the members of Congress how they’re enjoying their month off with a government-funded insurance plan.

  17. (And maybe by August, Michael Steele will have figured out what insurance company he has)

  18. Jay Tea says:

    Oh, absolutely, get the bill passed before anyone gets a chance to read it! Once enough people know about the “no new policies from private insurers” provision and the “OK, old people, you gotta just stop costing us so much and die” provision and lord knows what else is buried in there, there’s no way they’ll vote for it. So let’s take 18% of the economy (well, 18% before the banks and GM/Chrysler were taken into the government) out of the private sector post-haste!

    J.

  19. OL'RetVet says:

    Jay…WTFO? Point it out…
    “OK, old people, you gotta just stop costing us so much and die”
    http://edlabor.house.gov/documents/111/pdf/publications/AAHCA-BillText-071409.pdf

  20. calling all toasters says:

    Majority Leader Dick Durbin. That sounds so much better.

  21. Jay Tea says:

    OL’RetVet, Section 1233, page 424 onward: Senior citizens will be required to have a “death with dignity” consultation with their government-paid doctor or nurse practitioner at least once every five years. Even if you’re Catholic, for example, and refusing life-extending treatment is a mortal sin.

    Every five years, whether you want to or not, you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die, by someone paid by the people who will pick up the tab should you decide you don’t want them to pull the plug on you, even if it would be cheaper.

    Just one of the many details they don’t want people to know about, OL…

    J.

  22. Senior citizens will be required to have a “death with dignity” consultation with their government-paid doctor or nurse practitioner at least once every five years.

    Yep, that’s exactly what it says, alright.

    Let’s see, this one’s sourced to RedState, or maybe QandO, but I think they copied it from there before you copied it to here. Or maybe from Protein Wisdom, which, heh, I guess would be kinda ironic.

    I love that you’re at this level of crazy only a few weeks after the bill was released. I guess that’s another small advantage of the month delay- the newer and increasingly sillier things folks like you are going to copy and paste from other weblogs.

    You haven’t even started with free abortions for illegal immigrants yet!

  23. Jay Tea says:

    Well, then, August, what DOES it mean? The language seems pretty clear to me.

    And attacking the source? Pretty lame. Hell, just the other day Hot Air was pointing out how they, Michelle Malkin, and Little Green Footballs” are consistently mocking and denigrating the “Nirthers” (Obama birth certificate nuts).

    J.

  24. fafaroo says:

    Every five years, whether you want to or not, you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die …

    Jay Tea, I just searched the PDF doc of the bill at the link above and read the section you listed. No where in the bill does the phrase “death with dignity” appear.

    It’s important to note, because the section is dealing with consultations about “end of life” care, not “death with dignity.”

    End of life care is a big deal for people with terminal conditions and includes such things as, quoting from the bill:

    An explanation by the practitioner of the continuum of end-of-life services and supports available, including palliative care and hospice, and benefits for such services and supports that are available under this title. 8

    Palliative and hospice care are designed to reduce the pain and suffering of patients with terminal illnesses and conditions so that they can die with dignity.

    In other words, the bill is not requiring people to die with dignity instead of receiving care.

    It’s requiring doctors to inform patients about all the options available to reduce the pain and suffering of terminal conditions.

    In other words, Jay Tea, you’re a complete fucking moron.

  25. And attacking the source? Pretty lame.

    LOL that’s so silly. I’m not attacking the source, I’m admiring the intense, detailed scrutiny you applied to this rock-solid analysis of the section of the bill you clearly came across when personally poring over it. You should totally call up Erick oat RedState and bitch him out for plagiarizing what you would write, in the future.

  26. fafaroo says:

    Even if you’re Catholic, for example, and refusing life-extending treatment is a mortal sin.

    Jay Tea, do you ever do any research on anything period?

    All hospitals and health care facilities are required by law to provide written information to the patient about the right to accept or refuse medical treatment and the right to formulate an Advance Directive and/or designate Durable Power of Attorney (“Patient Self-Determination Act of 1990”). The health care facility must also provide written policies stating how the patient’s Advance Directive or Durable Power of Attorney will be implemented. Individuals should remember that they do not have to sign any Advance Directive given to them by the hospital.

    So hospitals are already required by law to tell every patient, catholic or not, that they have an option to refuse treatment.

    Also:

    Generally, a medical procedure that carries with it little hope of benefit and is burdensome is deemed “extraordinary” and is not obligatory. For example, a person may judge in good conscience that the pain and difficulty of an aggressive treatment for terminal cancer is too much to bear, and thus decide to forgo that treatment. Whether a particular treatment is excessively burdensome to an individual patient is a moral question that often requires the advice of a priest or someone well-trained in moral theology. Individual patients and their families should seek the guidance of the Church whenever there is any doubt about the morality of a particular course of action.

    Most medical treatment received during the course of one’s lifetime is routine and does not raise serious moral questions. Sometimes, however, medical circumstances require considerable reflection about what procedures are appropriate for a given medical condition and time of life. When aggressive and experimental methods are recommended by a physician, the Church teaches that we are free to pursue such treatment whenever there is a reasonable hope of benefit to the patient. We are also free, however, to refuse treatment that is of dubious benefit or when its burdens are clearly greater than its benefits. For example, I might want extraordinary moral means used to extend my life in order to receive the sacraments of the Church, or to see friends or relatives one last time, or to be reconciled with somebody from whom I’ve been estranged. The use of extraordinary moral means always remains optional, but the moral obligation to conserve life obliges us simply to act in the most reasonable manner.

    and …

    When death is imminent one may refuse forms of treatment that would only result in a precarious and burdensome prolongation of life. There is a presumption in favor of continuing to provide food and water to the patient, but there is a stage in the dying process when even these may no longer be obligatory because they provide no benefit. Normal care always remains morally obligatory, but refusal of additional treatment when death is imminent is not equivalent to suicide. It should be seen instead as an expression of profound Christian hope in the life that is to come. An instruction not to provide such treatment, when communicated ahead of time to family and friends, may give great comfort to loved ones during emotionally stressful times.

    From: A Catholic Guide to End-of-Life Decisions: An Explanation of Church Teaching on Advance Directives, Euthanasia, and Physician Assisted Suicide
    http://www.ncbcenter.org/eol.asp

  27. Enlightened Liberal says:

    If it’s any consolation JT, you are long past the point where you can die with any dignity. Also, what fafaroo said. I know it’s easier just to listen to Rush Limbaugh and parrot what he says but it only makes you look dumb.

  28. Sean D. Martin says:

    Jay Tea: OL’RetVet, Section 1233, page 424 onward: Senior citizens will be required to have a “death with dignity” consultation with their government-paid doctor or nurse practitioner at least once every five years. Even if you’re Catholic, for example, and refusing life-extending treatment is a mortal sin.

    Every five years, whether you want to or not, you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die,

    First you call it the “OK, old people, you gotta just stop costing us so much and die” provision. Then you back up a little and call it the required “death with dignity” consultation. You really are reaching to give it a “We’re going to kill you” connotation that doesn’t accuratly describe what it is.

    If you really had a valid, supportable objection you wouldn’t have to resort to incendiary naming.

    Second, everything you said is a complete crock of pure bullshit.

    It’s an “advance care planning consultation” and that is an accurate description of what it actually is: a consultation to discuss various things which a person should be aware of as they get older.

    Section 1233 which you point to (did you bother to read it or just grab someone else’s talking points?) amends subsection(s)(2) of Section 1861 of the Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 1395x). Section 1861 is just a long list of definitions and subsection (s)(2) just defines what the term “medical and other health services” means by providing a lengthy list of services and items that fall under the definition. Your Section 1233 merely adds “advance care planning consultation” to that list and then explains what that is:

    An explanation by the practitioner of advance care planning, including key questions and considerations, important steps, and suggested people to talk to.
    (B) An explanation by the practitioner of advance directives, including living wills and durable powers of attorney, and their uses.
    (C ) An explanation by the practitioner of the role and responsibilities of a health care proxy.
    (D) The provision by the practitioner of a list of national and state-specific resources to assist consumers and their families with advance care planning,

    and, yes, the information provided to the elderly “may include the formulation of an order regarding life sustaining treatment or a similar order.”

    That is, to what extent a person wants to continue treatment if they are particularly ill.

    There is NOTHING that says this consultation is required. On the contrary, the every five years is how often a person can have this consultation if they want it at all. Pretty much the exactly opposite of what you claimed.

    There is NOTHING that says “you gotta sit down and have explained to you your option to just give up and die”. On the contrary, right to die is never mentioned at all, not even euphemistically. Closest it comes is saying you can get information about your right to control what care you receive, but nothing about taking any steps to end your life. Pretty much nothing at all like what you claimed.

    In sort, this section provides that people be provided with valuable information so that they can understand what is available and make whatever plans and choices they deem fit for themselves.

    What is it you have against old people that you want take away their rights to choose, that you want to make them suffer in ignorance?

    (Note: This literally took me less than 10 minutes to find online, read and understand. Is that too much effort for you?)

  29. Sean D. Martin says:

    Jay Tea: Well, then, August, what DOES it mean? The language seems pretty clear to me.

    WHICH language. Quote it. Because it don’ means what you thin’ it means.

  30. Yeah, that stimulus package worked out so well let’s ram through another turd sandwich.

    Harry Reid, dim as he may be..actually got this one right.

  31. fafaroo says:

    Yeah, that stimulus package worked out so well let’s ram through another turd sandwich.

    This would be the “turd sandwich” that right wingers need to lie about in order to defeat?

  32. hf says:

    Let’s take a look at the thinking behind this “kill the elderly” scare.

    We’re talking about something run, ultimately, by politicians who get paid to make voters happy.

    Old people vote.

    Therefore, conservatives would have us believe that American politicians are actively working to destroy their own jobs. Do these self-saboteurs secretly work for Soviet Russia, or just the League of Evil Muslims? Inquiring minds want to know.

  33. Sean D. Martin says:

    Jay? Jay?