White House Will Pass Health Care Via Reconciliation If GOP Obstructs
Tweet
Well it’s time to do the damn thing.
37 Responses to “White House Will Pass Health Care Via Reconciliation If GOP Obstructs”
GOP Rep. Spencer Bachus Facing House Ethics Probe For Insider Trading
Jennifer Aniston Reportedly Pregnant With Twins
PHOTOS: Tamara Ecclestone At The Langham Hotel
Red Front? “Center For American Freedom” Logo Echoes Communist Style
Romney Calls For Defunding Planned Parenthood, Wife Was A Donor
GOP Fundraising Email Asks Supporters To “Knock Out” Obama
Romney Comes Up Limp In Nevada
Obama Opens Lead On Romney In New Poll
Latest Entries
Why Do Liberals Support Drone Strikes?
Weekly Standard Rolls Out The Iraq Argument For Iran
Equal Polarization, My Ass
Some Crazy Stuff That Happened In World War II
Maryland Republican Campaign Funds Used To Defend Voter Suppression
The Obama Jobs Record In One Graph
Martin O’Malley All In For Marriage Equality
Newt Gingrich, Filled With More Excrement Than Your Average Politician
New Year, Powerline Still Stupid
Thanks Again
Meta
Blogroll
Disclaimer
The views on this site are mine and mine alone, and do not reflect the views of my employer, Media Matters for America
© 2000-2011 Oliver Willis
“RECONCILIATION CAN ONLY BE USED FOR TAX CUTS FOR PEOPLE LIKE ME”-Matt Drudge
Socialism. Abuse of power. The American People spoke when they specially-elected Scott Brown. I don’t want the government running my Medicare. Reconciliation has never, ever been used, and Bush doesn’t count.
/right-wingnuttia
The plan doesn’t include the Stupak Amendment. Which means, even with Reconcilliation, it won’t get past the House. And it will be DEMOCRATS that obstruct it.
Obama the Neophyte strikes again!!!
You’re assuming that every Democrat who voted against it last time will vote against it again. This, when we’ve tried to explain to you that there are probably a number of Democrats in the House that voted against it because Pelosi had the votes to spare.
Are you this dense?
others’ reading of the Obama proposal describe it as somewhere between the Senate and House bills, but without the Public Option.
Personally, if they add in the PO and take out the Stu(pid)pak Amendment, I suspect they’d still be able to pass it through the House on a 50%+1 vote, and still have a similar fighting chance in the Senate (especially if the Prez steps up to the plate, and sends Rahm on an extended Caribbean vacation)
Personally, all I’m waiting for now is for the Senate Leadership to start their song-and-dance routine to delay discussion, pre-compromise the salient points away, or otherwise water-down the proposal to uselessness….
And just who’s going to switch from ‘No’ to ‘Yes’? Kuchinich is the *ONLY* possibility. Everyone else is either a Blue Dog and/or comes from a competitive district who can’t afford to vote for it if they want to stay in office.
I’m liking the strategy here. It seems as if Obama honestly thought 12 months ago that he could get some GOP votes for a health care bill. This was a tactical blunder on his part, and a bad one.
But if this gets through via reconciliation, and hope of hopes it’s a better bill than Liebercare, all will be forgiven.
Some people here think that running healthcare through the friction of the federal government will actually save money when all the costs are added up.
Maybe, although the gov’t track record supports a wager against that proposition. But the real question here is when we subsidize healthcare to make it “more affordable” who are we going to take the money from? What are the long term consequences of redistributing that wealth from those who are going to get stuck paying the tab?
The Fed provides health care for millions of Americans, and I’ve never heard a US senator complain about their access to medicine and doctors.
Currently America pays roughly twice as much for worse access than other first world countries.
The public option is a good first step towards fixing this. Get rid of private insurers — they’re the root of the problem. Let doctors make your medical decisions, not CEO’s.
It’ll be paid for by taxes. Which is a bargain. I pay $3500 a year now, and my employer pays a similar amount. We ran the numbers once, and the government would have to boost my tax rate to around 50% to equal what I pay now in health care. Since I know the insurance companies have inflated the price of health care, I’m betting that I can get the same quality, and minus the mark up of the middleman.
Now, maybe you say that the government will muck it up. You may be right; but I know private health care still ends up with it’s own muck ups too, and there’s plenty who regretted paying all that money over the years, only to get stiffed when they truly needed it.
abanterer,
It might seem like you are only paying half of your health insurance but you are in effect paying for your employer’s half too. It doesn’t really matter what your paystub says. It costs your employer an extra $3500.00 to have you work for the year. That’s part of the cost of hiring you. It’s the same as your pay, it’s just distributed differently on the books.
But that’s another topic. Why do you think the government won’t restrict the treatment offered? Have you ever noticed much flexibility in a government agency? Do you think that a government worker at a government agency is going to act in a timely fashion when you are waiting for tests, treatment, or medicene?
But I disgress, if you think you will be paying less taxes than the cost of your insurance who is it you want to pay for your share of the cost?
Jaim,
Why do you think it will be doctors making the critical decisions? Incidently do you really think that CEO’s are stamping your potential bills approved or unapproved?
“Currently America pays roughly twice as much for worse access than other first world countries.”
I suppose it depends on what your definition of access is. You’re not really comparing apples to apples. Our outcomes are better than most of the first world. If you get cancer or have heart problems your survival rates are very good here compared to most of the first world most of the time.
I think you over estimate the profit made on insurance and under estimate how costly the public sector is in running their affairs.
LOL Jaim,
Do you think that the Obamacare will give you access to the same program that Senators currently have access to? Surely you are less naive than that.
“Have you ever noticed much flexibility in a government agency?”
Like I said, please cite the US senators who complain about their health insurance plan. Or any significant amount of seniors who want to give up their Medicare.
“Our outcomes are better than most of the first world.”
Compared to Sierra Leone? Sure. Compared to other first-world nations? Nope. US life expectancy isn’t that great. Canadians, Koreans, Japanese, Germans, and the French just to name a few live longer and on a whole pay less than Americans pay for health-care.
“If you get cancer or have heart problems your survival rates are very good here compared to most of the first world most of the time.”
You also lose your house in bankruptcy.
“how costly the public sector is in running their affairs.”
The burden of proof is on you to show how countries with singe-payer or nationalized health care are more expensive than America’s for-profit system. And here’s a hint — you won’t find any, because Americans pay twice as much as the citizens of other developed nations for less access to health care. End of story.
That’s exactly what a public option would do. So we’ll have to wait and see.
But thanks for coming out and admitting that America already rations health-care based on income.
Why do you think the government won’t restrict the treatment offered?
They will restrict treatment. Any insurance plan, government or private, will restrict the treatments offered. Otherwise, entrepreneurs will be offering chocolate cake treatment for dementia and beer therapy for cancer.
The relevant question is, what makes you think government will restrict treatments any more than private insurers do now?
Clearly, I and my employer currently pay the private sector now in health insurance. If a government plan arose, I put it to you that I could get the same care that I have now, at a lower cost to me than what I am paying now, and moreover, my employer would end up paying less as well. I suspect this greatly, because I know the insurance companies take a cut, and are otherwise picking our collective pockets by continuously raising the rates. Why would I be paying more money by cutting them out?
Moreover, you are suggesting an option between not getting timely care with the government, and getting timely care with the private sector. That might be a good case, if I couldn’t dredge up from personal experience incidents where treatments were delayed for months on private health plans.
I truly see no advantage to sticking with the private system as it stands. And I seriously doubt it is going to change in my favor out of the goodness of it’s heart.
What are the long term consequences of redistributing that wealth from those who are going to get stuck paying the tab?
Jeez, you are stupid.
if you think you will be paying less taxes than the cost of your insurance who is it you want to pay for your share of the cost?
JEEZ, you are stupid.
f you get cancer or have heart problems your survival rates are very good here compared to most of the first world most of the time.
AS long as you have the ca$h. You conveniently left that out.
WE’RE 37TH!
WE’RE 37TH!
WOOT!!
“If you get cancer or have heart problems your survival rates are very good here compared to most of the first world most of the time.”
Have you ever cited a link to back up your claims, Amused? Ever?
According this article whether there is a better survival for cancer depends on which type of cancer you have and which country you live in:
In the US itself, it depends what state you live in:
And it depends on your race:
http://www.webmd.com/cancer/news/20080716/cancer-survival-rates-vary-by-country
Do you have a link to some other stats, Amused?
Some people here think that running healthcare through the friction of the federal government will actually save money when all the costs are added up.
Others seem to think the invisible hand of the market is entirely frictionless. Those 40 percent annual increases in premiums notwithstanding.
But the real question here is when we subsidize healthcare to make it “more affordable” who are we going to take the money from?
Where does it come from now? As conservatives are quick to point out, no one is denied some measure of healthcare, even those who lack insurance. Who pays for them today?
“If you get cancer or have heart problems your survival rates are very good here compared to most of the first world most of the time.”
Too bad the same cannot be said for infant mortality.
(Assuming, of course, the same can even be said for cancer and heart problems in the first place)
fafaroo,
As if your opinion is based on facts in the first place.
Zython,
From your link on birth mortality, we find that our statistics are skewed by americans originating in Africa. Well meaning progressives will argue that these americans need larger subsidies because of the cost of access to the health system. Perhaps they are right. These people seem unable to cope in this modern world by themselves.
Is it your opinion that if we increase the subsidy from those who pay taxes to those who are unable to adequately make their way in the world that our national infant mortality rate will diminish?
Is there any upper limit to the amount of public money needed to subsidize the group you identified, african americans, until they are capable of managing their own affairs and are able to take care of themselves?
“we find that our statistics are skewed by americans originating in Africa”
You’re not joking, are you?
Jaim,
You evidently are under the belief that the public option will give the average american access to the same system of healthcare at the same cost as that of US Senators. I find that hard to believe, in fact I think your statement is not credible. Have you a cite?
That’s not what I said. The public option would give all Americans access to affordable health care comparable to that which senators, servicemen, and Federal employees receive.
You’re admitting that the system as stands is broken re: we already ration health care. The public option would put competition back into play against the monopoly the private insurance CEO’s have right now, with rates far out-pacing inflation.
By the way, you’re a racist fucking bigot, did you know that? You realize that all Americans ca. 2010 have ancestors came from somewhere else, excepting native Americans?
As if your opinion is based on facts in the first place.
Right, Amused. Like all those drunk indians you were convinced were responsible for the majority of rapes and domestic violence in Alaska.
You made a statement and didn’t provide a link to any supporting evidence.
I provided quotes and a citation to a study that undermines your claim.
You come back with … nothing.
You’re an idiot, Amused, a complete and total idiot.
By the way, you’re a racist fucking bigot, did you know that? You realize that all Americans ca. 2010 have ancestors came from somewhere else, excepting native Americans?
Yes, he knows, and what’s more he’s proud of the fact. He loves the attention he gets by posting his outrageously asinine, racist remarks. Best bet is to ignore him completely. He may not go away, but he’ll also not get the satisfaction of baiting you into an argument you can’t win.
And on again reading the rest of your post we are once again find your first course of stupid, followed up by a big heaping, helping of racism.
Nice.
It’s the internet. If you really think genteel diffidence is going to make us all better people I suggest you hang out with David Broder.
Well, if you want to be technical about it, ALL of our ancestors came from “somewhere else”. That place being Africa.
I’m not suggesting it’s going to make us better people. I’m suggesting that it’s the simplest and most effective way of getting AOs goat. Ignore the racist old coot. It’ll drive him nuts.
Tsk Tsk,
Are you people never happy? Have any of you gone to the link posted by Zython? Evidently not. If you had you would have found this;
“For African-Americans, the mortality rate is nearly double that of the United States as a whole, with 9.3 deaths per 1,000 births”
When a relatively small slice of the demographic pie, african americans @ 12 -13 % of the population, has a rate of infant mortality approaching 100% greater than the norm that absolutely will skew the statistics for the group over all. Which part of that can you not understand?
When I concur that progressives would find this state of affairs worthy of repair, that perhaps the problem might be lack of access to healthcare because of the inability to pay for it and that these people may need subsidies from the rest of us to do so, this is racism?
Jaim,
Which part of how statistics are skewed do you think is a joke?
When you say; “I’ve never heard a US senator complain about their access to medicine and doctors.”
And when I reply; “LOL Jaim,
Do you think that the Obamacare will give you access to the same program that Senators currently have access to? ”
And you reply; “That’s exactly what a public option would do.”
That makes your next claim look a little foolish. “That’s not what I said. The public option would give all Americans access to affordable health care comparable to that which senators, servicemen, and Federal employees receive.”
Furthermore Jaim this statement of your is as false as your other claims.
“You realize that all Americans ca. 2010 have ancestors came from somewhere else, excepting native Americans?”
We didn’t get it on film but have you heard of the arctic land bridge theory? American Indians didn’t originate here either.
I don’t think that the bill can pass via reconciliation. This is a process that has to affect the budget, and they would have to change the language of the bill and it will change the entire bill. I don’t think we really have to worry about it going into law, because it’s too complicated to do this process. Also, many states are in the process of nullifying the bill should it pass. Other states will follow suit. After all of this, the law will prevail!
The people spoke when they elected President Obama and we expect health care reform to pass.
you are sorely mistaken my friend. First Medicare…being a government run service…has always and will always be run/administered by the US Gov’t.
Second, Reconciliation has been used multiple times by the Dem’s and Repub’s. From everything to the Bush Tax cuts to Welfare Reform.
Please don’t be retarded and say that the election of Scott Brown changes everything. The people elected Barack Obama and a Democratic Majority, which unlike the singular election (in ONE part of the country mind you) does not represent the “will of the people”, it doesn’t even encompass 1/20 of the entire US population.
So get your head out of your ass, and try something different for a change, like thinking. I know this is a new a novel approach for your self, but you can think without being told what to think. It’s really not as hard as one might *think* (pun intended).