Listen to this, and explain to me again how the health insurance reform that Baucus is working on is good for you and me:
Visit msnbc.com for Breaking News, World News, and News about the Economy
Also, earlier today I read this gem:
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is “not what this healthcare reform debate is about.”
In making his comments, Ross, who is the centrist Blue Dogs’ health reform point man, questioned one of the primary healthcare goals of the White House and Democratic leaders.
“That is a side benefit to healthcare reform and an important one,” Ross told the Arkansas Educational Television Network. Instead, the fifth-term congressman said the bill should focus on “cost containment.”
Apparently the key to cost containment is to make it so expensive for the consumer that you can’t afford to go to the doctor. I also loved this:
In the end, Ross acknowledged that the House version may not make up the bulk of the final bill. He estimated that 90 percent of the conference committee bill would come from the Senate Finance Committee’s version.
So why do we even have the House of Representatives again?
arguingwithsignposts
Huh? Does he have some kind of crystal ball that we don’t know about? And the FC version isn’t even the only senate version.
Love that comment about the uninsured. What a tool.
IGMFU!!!11!
thomas
we have a House because the undemocratic Senate needs to have a domocratic body that they can poke in the eye with a sharp stick. This is to remind everyone that we are not part of a democracy but a republic – in case you forgot about Florida 2000
cleek
the Senate is an ass.
since when did this become the United States of Blue Dogs ?
SGEW
So Michele Bachmann can have an official place to say crazy ass things?
Notorious P.A.T.
Hey if uninsured people want to spend millions of dollars on lobbyists, they are free to do that.
Demo Woman
I’m not sure whether this was covered before but Obama said this today on Smerconish’s radio show
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
I said it before, I’ll say it again: putting the Blue Dogs in charge of health care reform is like putting Dracula in charge of garlic reform.
jacy
Why do we have a House of Representatives? Because those people are unemployable anywhere else. Useless.
DecidedFenceSitter
So the people feel they have a say in government with a responsive representative?
Delia
I didn’t go to my congressman, Peter DeFazio’s townhall in Eugene the other night, but I listened to it on the radio and he said something very interesting. He said that the insurance business is the only industry in America which is not legally prohibited from colluding on prices amongst the different players. So that in itself explains why prices keep going up and up and why the industry finds it so worthwhile to keep scattering money around to various and sundry politicians. DeFazio said he keeps introducing bills to regulate the health insurance industry in this respect, but of course he just gets laughed at.
thomas
i just went to ‘The Hill’ to read their piece on Blue Cross Dog Ross. The comments are way enlightening. I’ve seen more rational thought at red state (well i might be exagerating but not much)
pcbedamned
Hey, where did that ‘admin’ guy go. I liked his posts better…
(jk JC)
SGEW
@ThatLeftTurnInABQ:
It’s like making John Bolton the U.N. Ambassador, or giving Henry Kissinger a Nobel Peace Prize!
Oh, wait . . .
Legalize
Isn’t this concern moot if the Dems go ahead with reconciliation? Hasn’t the Administration signaled its willingness to bypass Max and the finance committee, thereby forcing the House Blue Mutts to put up or shut up? That’s my understanding of the latest musings about the process of getting this done, anyway.
rikyrah
Rep. Mike Ross (D-Ark.) said on Wednesday that providing healthcare to uninsured Americans is “not what this healthcare reform debate is about.
see….this needs to be on every piece of literature for his PRIMARY opponent in 2010.
if it’s not about the 46 million uninsured, then what the hell is it about
BDeevDad
Screw cost containment, they need cost reduction. We already pay more for less.
beltane
Any plan that does not eliminate medical bankruptcies is just another corporate bailout IMO. And an individual mandate without a public option is taxation without representation at its worst.
This health care debate is proving once and for all that our system is broken beyond repair. The greed of a few insurance company CEOs matters more to our representatives than the physical and economic well-being of 300,000,000 Americans.
beltane
@BDeevDad: We make Ferrari sized payments yet we are driving Yugos. USA!USA!
Hunter Gathers
“So why do we even have the House of Representatives again?”
To throw rocks at the stupid old men of the Senate.
The idiot Blue Dogs keep throwing boomerangs.
NoVa Commie
@BDeevDad:
Yep!
IMO, Obama was negotiating for cost containment (“bend the cost curve”) long enough to ‘grow’ out of it (economically). Not necessarily a bad thing during a severe recession, but since the industry will fight even that, might as well go for actually lowering costs.
Demo Woman
Are any of the 24/7 stations covering Obama’s town hall.
He just once again gave credit to Grassley, Enzi and Snowe for working hard in the Senate Finance committee. He did add that he does not know what their intentions are and that his job is to get health care reform for the American public.
PeakVT
@Legalize: Here’s another take (apologies for the re-linkage, but it’s a good post).
El Cid
It is good for you when your betters grow wealthier, since this favors them in the eyes of God. You should take spiritual joy both from the insurers’ good fortune as well as the hardships endured by the majority, since it is only that sweet pain which teaches us lower mortals the humility to bow before our punishing God.
Napoleon
New poll says 77% support a choice of the public option.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/20/new-poll-77-percent-suppo_n_264375.html
buggy ding dong
Could someone please explain to me how, for six years under Bush/DeLay, the Republican House could pass the most vile piece of shit, the Senate Republicans would pass a slightly less vile piece of shit thanks to some token concessions to the usual suspect Ds, take the two vile pieces of shit to conference, remove the token concessions and then pass the House version out of conference, get the bare majority in the Senate to pass the vile piece of shit and then get it to the president’s desk in virtually the same form as passed the House?
And that was without 60 votes in the Senate.
Seriously, please. How is that we could get bad bill after bad bill shoved down our throats over and over again yet, with a larger majority in both houses, we can’t do the same fucking thing to them?
What am I missing here? Don’t conference committee reports only need 50 to pass? If not, what the fuck were we doing for 6 years?
Dogbert's Tech Support
In France, if the government tried to take away universal health care, you’d see farmers blocking the highways with tractors to stop it. Her in the World’s Greatest County™, when the government tries to provide everyone with decent health care, people show up with guns to prevent it.
Good thing I have insurance, because banging my head against the wall is giving me a migraine.
Zifnab
Reminds me of Congress in general under the Bush Admin. “Shit, don’t stick us with the responsibility for this mess. Just drop it in the White House’s lap.”
Almost sounds like Rep Ross doesn’t want the bulk of the House bill to pass as it stands. Hmmm…
Dogbert's Tech Support
In France, if the government tried to take away universal health care, you’d see farmers blocking the highways with tractors to stop it. Her in the World’s Greatest Country™, when the government tries to provide everyone with decent health care, people show up with guns to prevent it.
Good thing I have insurance, because banging my head against the wall is giving me a migraine.
ThatLeftTurnInABQ
@Demo Woman:
Obama thinks he is serving out the 3rd term that Abraham Lincoln never got to have. The one where Reconstruction went just peachy keen because all those poor misunderstood ex-Confederates just needed somebody to show them some love and respect.
That, and what beltane said at #17, also. Our system is hopelessly stuck in the 1890s, but without the bomb throwing anarchists and the threat of red revolution from below to get the bought-and-paid-for corporate whores in the Senate moving. And to top it off, we voted for Teddy Roosevelt and got McKinley instead, rather than the other way around.
buggy ding dong
@Demo Woman: Just fucking shoot me now. We’ve long since proved the case that they are not working for any compromise, so stop selling it.
The more we talk up those few good Republicans, the harder it is to convince the majority of people who aren’t really paying attention that this “negotiation” is all a sham.
Dreggas
@buggy ding dong:
we’re democrats that’s why.
The Moar You Know
@El Cid: I am therefore so full of humility that it’s bleeding out of my eyeballs.
Or maybe that’s the Ebola instead. No matter. I am glad that the insurers are doing so well. Perhaps one of them will see me and throw a quarter at my head as they drive to one of their posh parties. Oh that I could be so lucky!
Legalize
“Almost sounds like Rep Ross doesn’t want the bulk of the House bill to pass as it stands. Hmmm…”
That’s my reading. It’s like Jim DeMint saying that the Dems will face negative political consequences for going alone. Hello, this means that the GOPers are scared shitless of the political consequences THEY will face if the Dems go alone and pass a good bill. If the Dems go alone and work on passing something with a public option in the senate, this removes the “concerns” of dickwads like Ross that the Senate can’t pass anything, so why should House Dems stick their necks out.
If this was all one big sell-out, and Rahm might have tried for it to be so at the beginning and tried to convince the president that such would still accomplish his goals, then I don’t think we’d be seeing the president’s apparent pursuit of reconciliation. And I also think that Biden’s (quiet) apparent new involvement speaks to the direction in which the president wants to. It’s no longer about the Blue Mutts. The only balancing act being played is between “the left” and folks like the senators from Maine who might still be bargaining in good faith. In my opinion, it’s worth holding on a little longer if those two come along.
The Blue Dogs and GOPers have shot their wads. What else is there for them to say or do? Keep lying? Ok, but that’s kind of run its course. If the Dems deliver a decent bill that proves NOT to contain the boogeymen we’ve heard so much about, none of the lies will matter in 2010, 2012 and beyond. That’s why the DeMints and Rosses of the world are so concerned about what actually comes up for a yes or no vote – they know they’re fucking wrong.
Notorious P.A.T.
@El Cid:
Amen!
Punchy
Hate to say the obvious, but y’all cant be hating on Ross. He reps goddamn fucking Arkansas, where they sleep with farm animals yet bash on gays. Not his fault his peeps are douchebags.
He’s got to keep a job, so he’s gunna hafta feign the insane.
thomas
how shallow is that gene pool in Arkansas? One of the poorest states in the union, probably with a disproportionate level of uninsured and their heads are so far up their rectums that they’re impervious to reality. no wonder they elect idiots.
Cain
@Delia:
Delia,
De Fazio is the shit. I suspect that even Ron Wyden is on the fence because it doesn’t go far enough. Although I’d be interested to know why he’s on the fence.
cain
thomas
yeah i know about WJC
NonyNony
@buggy ding dong:
First of all, you need to make sure you’re using the correct definitions of “us” and “them”.
One thing that all Democratic voters need to understand is that not all Democratic politicians are on your side. A good-sized chunk of the Democratic politicians in this country would be Republicans if it weren’t for a few quirks of our electoral system (and, more recently, if the Republicans hadn’t trashed their brand with a virulent form of insanity that makes them less popular than herpes).
When Republicans have a bare majority in Congress, they actually have a very large ideological majority in Congress because of their common travellers who have Ds next to their names. When Democrats have a bare majority in Congress they actually have a minority for the same reason. Even an overwhelming majority Democratic Congress will probably be a bare majority for anyone with a non-conservative agenda item. Right now in the House Pelosi seems to have a bare majority liberal group. Meanwhile Reid is dealing with a majority conservative group in the Senate. The conservatives can’t stop Pelosi in the House, but they sure can monkeywrench the works in the Senate really damn easily. And so that’s what they do.
This is also why adding more Dems only helps so much – keeping the Republicans out of the leadership is important because their party is apparently genetically incapable of leadership. But beyond that, adding another Dem from a marginal Republican district only gives the illusion of a larger majority – the larger majority really isn’t there because ideologically, they’re much more comfortable with Republican politics.
(And that doesn’t even begin to get into the corruption that happens with the big corporate donors and lobbyists and PACs and all the other legalized bribery that causes even ostensibly left-leaning politicians to have more sympathy for corporations than individuals, and therefore act more conservative in their voting records than one might expect).
SGEW
@Punchy: @thomas:
Y’all hated Bill Clinton that much?
Mark S.
The new trope from Republicans is that health care should only be passed if there are 80 votes for it.
buggy ding dong
@NonyNony: The point is, if we only need 51 for a conference committee report, why the fucking dance. Get the best possible bill out of the House, get anything out of the Senate that appeases Conrad and Nelson (which will be enough for the other 58 Ds, and probably Snowe and Collins (possibly Voinovich,too) and then substitute the House bill.
We have been told repeatedly that we have 54 votes for a strong public option among the Ds.
Or does a conference committee report also require 60? I am yet to see a definitive statement on it.
NonyNony
@buggy ding dong:
Because Reid is a fairly weak leader who is trying his damnedest not to piss off a handful of his friends, mostly. Reid is one of those conservative Senators – so even if he personally does want this to be a good reform with a healthy public option (and I’ve seen no reason to believe that he actually does), he doesn’t want to step on the toes of people he considers his friends.
We’ll see what happens in the end. It may well play out exactly that way – since the Republicans yanked away ALL of the cover that their conservative Dem pals had by being petulant children over this and admitting publicly that it doesn’t matter what the Dems do, they’re not voting for it. As long as the GOPer leadership in the Senate is on tape saying crap like that, the conservative Dems have lost their cover and they’re starting to realize it. No more “well it’s a terrible bill but Republicans voted for it too” – nope. Whatever bill comes out will be owned by Democrats only. No cover for anyone – especially for the Blue Dogs who are, ironically, the most vulnerable folks to get replaced by someone the next time they come up for an election.
PeakVT
@buggy ding dong: A House Senate conference committee can be filibustered but not amended – unless it’s a budget bill that’s operating under the reconciliation rule, in which case it can be passed with a simple majority. Right now the bill is operating as a normal bill, but it could be attached to a budget bill as a way to bypass the filibuster.
The 54 number is for House Progressives, which is a block large enough to block passage of a bill without a strong public option. In the Senate, 45 members have committed to a public option, and various blogs are working to get another 5.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
If the Republicans hadn’t front-loaded the crazy like they have, they could have dragged their feet and moaned and obstructed their way to blocking anything in this session, but they prematurely ejaculated these morans all over the town halls and admitted in so many words that they won’t vote for anything Obama proposes even if he lets them write it in his blood.
The White House is now, more in sorrow than in anger, indicating that they’ll go their own way without their input. I think there’s a reasonable chance that a final bill incorporating the public option will pass through reconciliation, or else just for once, forcing the GOP to actually filibuster instead of just shutting down the process by threatening it. Now is the time to do away with this supermajority requirement in a body where the red states already have twice their fair share of representation.
If I’m wrong, and a proper bill doesn’t make it out of congress, what’s to prevent Obama from simply lowering the age requirement for Medicare and/or raising the income ceiling for Medicaid, by Executive Order? Bush essentially ruled by Executive Order and the Congress rolled over and played dead. Of course if Obama did it, the GOP howler monkeys would have a conniption, but who the hell cares? After the public experiences 2 or 3 years being covered by Medicare/Medicaid, nobody’s going to get elected in 2012 on a platform of taking it away.
drillfork
@jacy:
Training ground for Future Lobbyists?…
drillfork
@rikyrah:
if it’s not about the 46 million uninsured, then what the hell is it about
It’s about the Democrats becoming the go-to party for the insurance companies and Big PHarma…
Kirk Spencer
@The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge: Yes.
Obama in his Smerconish interview today mentioned the problem spot of being over 50 and under 65. That age also happens to have a slightly higher rate of resistance to health care reform than average. It would be beautiful jiujitsu: make the change, watch all the opposers get theirs, then in a year or two remind them that since it’s just by executive order the next president could take it away – unless they persuade their congresscritters to support keeping it by making it law.
jenniebee
Something that doesn’t get a whole lot of press is that there are two big objectives that we need reform to achieve. The first is universal coverage, and the second is cost containment. Unfortunately, the Blue Dogs appear to have skewered the cost containment element (single payer or public option) in the name of fiscal responsibility and the result is taxpayer-funded universal coverage through credits paid to the private sector. It is, in short, a huge giveaway to the same private insurance companies whose business model created the costs problem in the first place. Currently, business and individuals’ inability to pay any more than they already do has been the only thing keeping premiums from rising any faster than they already are. This bill proposes to remove that check by subsidizing those premiums. It’s feeding the beast, nothing more.
The Very Reverend Battleaxe of Knowledge
@Kirk Spencer:
It’s a wild speculation, but although he certainly had many motivations, I think this is what Obama decided to run for President to do. I think he will regard his presidency as a failure if it doesn’t get done. I think it’s possible he would be willing to go for broke on this issue.
First he has to show that it was the absolute last resort, and the Republicans are really playing into his hands if that is the case. They could have subtly obstructed the whole process for four years until the electorate voted Obama out in frustration in 2012, but subtlety is not their long suit any more.
lamh31
Personally, I’ve reached the point, where I’m not gonna fight this healthcare fight over the innertubes anymore. I’m gonna keeping advocating in my own personal way, but I’m done with the subject on the blogosphere. First because it’s not the only issue out there, it is the most prominent and it is important, but it’s not the only issue we need to hear about too. (i.e. Tom Ridge confirming that he was asked to raise the terror warning right before the 2004 election…ain’t that some shit).
Secondly, here’s my problem: 1) It’s hard to have real discussion or debate, when one side is outright lying and dishonest about the facts of the debate (I’m talking Repubs), 2) There is no final bill written and yet, everybody assumes they KNOW what will be in it already. And when you have 2 different assumptions about what is true, and if your on the same side, then neither of you have any idea if either assumptions actually factual, then it just leads to in-fighing, where you are arguing about things that may or may not happen in the future, then it becomes an exercise in futility. Neither of us really hears the other, and noting gets settled until the future happens. 3) Those who know, aren’t really talking, and yet, there are all these anon sources willing to discuss a bill that hasn’t been written yet. Personally, I hate anon sources (like the “anonymous” aide who made the “left of the left” comment), much the way, I kinda don’t like how anon blogging can be. I’m a believer that it does not really allow you to be “more truthful” if your anon. I actually think it just gives you cover to say anything you want, and shape conventional wisdom, without consequences, I’m not talking about “snitches” or legal informants and such, who are in fear of their lives). I’m of the school of thought, that if you truly believe that the info is factual, and you’re not putting yourself or your family or your love ones in any danger, then you need to put your name to it! Also, all anon sourcing does is allow you or I to attrribute what’s being sourced to whoever we want (usually in most cases wrongly).
So whenever I see something that is “anonymously” sourced, then I just take it with a grain of salt, until they can be proven better, i.e. the Bush 2004, terror alert thing from Tom Ridge today, finally truth from a non-anonymous soure, and not just our gut. Although, we should feel vidicated though.
NobodySpecial
Ross is talking out his ass.
Four of the (potential) five bills floating around out there have a public option. In reconciliation, it gets in and stays in.
I am AlGore's sweaty backfat
Reconciliation?
Go for it!
The biggest meme among the numerous town halls was “Read the bill!”.
Reconciliation allows a single Repub to prevent “unanimous consent” in the Senate.
First, we get the three months while the bill is actually read (and debated) in it’s entirety in the Senate Floor.
Second, no other legislation can be considered while the bill is “open” on the floor… (Goodbye, Crap and Tax!)
Third, “The World’s Greatest Deliberative Body” is where policy goes to die…
Conrads Ghost
Ross is spinning so hard I’m surprised his head’s still attached. Ninety percent will come from Senate finance? Really? Why doesn’t he just pull a gun and point it at the camera? He’s f***ing desperate – he’s been kicked to the curb by the progressive caucus and Pelosi, and he’s pulling this mob boss crap to try and hold onto his fifteen minutes. When this bill passes with a strong public option, which it will, the Blue Dicks will be on their way out as a power bloc. Pelosi (via the progressive caucus) has laid it out – there will be a public option in the final bill, along with some nod to coops. Obama now has the bottom up mandate he needs to push this thing through; as September approaches this thing will gel.
And as noted here and elsewhere, this bill will be the body blow to modern conservatism that sends it to the mat. Two term president, massive shift to the left in age and ethnicity demographics, a thriving, emergent, and growing media infrastructure – and when voters in Obama’s 50 to 65 “can’t get insurance” age group get….affordable, comprehensive, and fair health insurance – no wonder the pigs are squealing so damn loud. As for myself, myself and everyone I can round up are going to every open meeting my Rep’s (Doggett) having this August, plus I’m putting in time at the Austin OFA office. The tide is turning, strongly, and we’re gonna put this one to bed. Period.