The biggest problem with the healthcare reform
 

is that Americans don't even know what it is. It is this huge secret document being negotiated behind closed doors with special interests. The average American who pays attention to politics could not tell you much about it.

What results is a feeling of helplessness and frustration. "Those bastards are going to pass this, whatever it is, and we are just going to have to deal with it." Democrats misread the "quiet" as "silent support." Wrong. It's angry frustration that in the case of Scott Brown, led to boiling over rage.

Now we can do something!!! They have unleashed the beast.

One of the pundits last night said that he talked to Republican operatives who found that the polls really started changing when the deals were cut with Nelson and Landrieu. It was clear to independents that deals were not being cut to benefit Americans, but to benefit limited constituencies at the expense of the nation as a whole.

WE DON'T LIKE HOW THE SAUSAGE IS MADE. MOREOVER, WE DON'T LIKE THE SAUSAGE EITHER!!!!!!

Obama, has thus failed on both counts. He promised he would change how politics works--the process. His first mistake was hiring Rahm Emanuel. Chicago backroom sharp-elbows politics. Secondly, Obama chose not to govern as a moderate. He decided to cater to his liberal base. Obama, in his heart of hearts, thinks if the liberal agenda were passed, the middle will come around and see the wisdom of it. In other words, he is a delusional ideologue. Sure there are the also-delusional minions characterized by people like Cali. But some of these democrats are going to bail, due to simple self-preservation.

Double down. Funny. That's like suicide with two bullets instead of one.

The backroom dealing has hurt Obama's image and runs counter to his claim, which many neophytes accepted.

He has also ignored voters concerns for economic maladies.

All it is going to take is one back-room deal with a RINO (Snowe) for Obama to get what he wants. And whoever the traitor is, will get a lot of pieces of silver for it.

Snowe is the most likely traitor to the Republic.

A peculiar aspect of the Obama "hope" was what appeared to be the fervent belief by some of his acolytes such as Cali, that it would change business as usual. I am not surprised a product of the Chicago political syndicate is engaged in backroom deals. I am not surprised Obama is pragmatic in his approach to the military entanglements. But I am surprised intelligent persons appeared to believe that rhetoric. Or maybe I am the naive one and persons such as Cali deceived me into believing they believing the deceitful rhetoric.

Traitor to the Republic? For passing health care reform? Man, you guys are way out there.

FYI- the most likely approach is for the House to adopt the Senate bill in full, while the Senate then passes agreed upon changes to the original Senate bill through reconciliation (which needs only 51 votes), followed by House adoption of the reconciliation bill as well.

Do you mean this obscure and secret document?

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/p...-as-passed.pdf

this is not "likely." It is the wet dream of Chris Matthews, and is not going to happen, because it is not politically tenable.

We shall see.

With many of the moderate and conservative Dems running scared it seems less likely that the Senate version will pass though the pundits have posited this as a potential scenario.

And the name is a misnomer. It's not health care reform. It's health insurance reform and mandates to private insurance.

What part of the package encourages healthy lifestyles?

What part encourages provident living?

What parts of the health care delivery system is being address other than perceived obstacles to access?

It's not health care reform at all.

Some major democrats are talking about scrapping the whole thing and starting over, with those parts that have broad bipartisan support.

Duh.

This means that there is no chicanery that will occur to try and ram (or should I say "Rahm") the current bill (whatever that is) through.

Likely? By that definition, BYU is "likely" to win a National Championship in football this year too.

Getting the House to swallow the Senate bill is no picnic. Bart Stupak said today, "There is no way that bill is going anywhere. . . . I bet it wouldn’t get 100 votes."

Maybe you should shoot him a quick email and tell him how likely it is.

That's the bill as it stands now- reconciliation amends the bill. That's the point.

If you mean the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" approach, don't hold your breath. Besides the widespread (and entirely fair) view that such an maneuver is sour-grapes parliamentary cheating, you'd have to rely on the "we'll fix it later" promise being good enough for those wavering House Democrats.

There are serious doubts that Obama will be able to get them to sign his suicide pact, but who knows, maybe they are as star struck by him as you are. Maybe they don't care if they have a job after November.

Clinton had a saying "the people are always right."

Obama should stick his finger up in the air and see which way the wind is blowing.

It isn't a "we'll fix it later" approach. It would get fixed concurrently. I don't think you are following the process closely.

The Senate passed a bill. The House can now vote on that bill, or, alternatively, they can ask the Senate to modify it. The Senate can modify through reconciliation rather than through a formal amendment so it only takes 51 votes. The Senate can pass reconciliation before the House takes any act at all. The House can adopt the reconciliation bill first, and then adopt the Senate bill. That way, there is no risk at all to the House.

"can modify though reconciliation"

Do you understand what the limitations of reconciliation are?

There is a reason why this is the first I have heard someone say this, in all the nincompoop blather I have been reading.

I don't think you are following the process closely either. Here's Kent Conrad:

I don't hear anyone talking seriously about the option you are advocating.

Either way, this is all a complete bastardization of the purpose of reconciliation, but we've already seen the Dems don't play by the rules.

Yes, which is why it is perfect to amend the existing bill (as opposed to using it to pass an entirely new bill).

The second bill is the reconciliation bill. Your link is precisely the method being floated right now. It is being discussed all over the place.

http://congressmatters.com/storyonly...orm-still-pass

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...age=1#comments

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...igh-speed.html

there are limitations to what reconciliation could amend. See Hitler's comment in the video.

Yes, I know. The Byrd rule is fairly complex, but it is certainly workable.

Here's one more specifically about Conrad:

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/7...for-healthcare

What was it you were saying about paying attention? Keep up, Texie. It is a fast-paced world out there.

Apparently too fast-paced for you. That "one more specifically about Conrad" is the exact link I gave you in the post you were just quoting.

I think we may be talking about the same thing, but I'm not sure. I'm trying to be as clear as I can here ... try making a good-faith effort to understand even if my word choice doesn't meet lawyerly standards, just for once, eh?

Here's the process I was referring to:

House passes current Senate bill in its entirety, no changes. Senate subsequently passes a new (2nd) bill via reconciliation to amend the 1st bill, and appease House Dems who object to the 1st. House then passes 2nd bill.

That's what I called the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" or "we'll fix it later" approach. Perhaps using the word "later" is misleading because it implies a lot of time.

Either way, I don't think that option is going to fly. It will look so nakedly partisan, I don't think nervous Dems are going to go along with it. I guarantee you the American public won't. It's tantamount to outright cheating.

Can you honestly flip the R's and the D's and not say you'd feel the same way in reverse?

No, not quite.

Senate already passed its bill. Senate then passes reconciliation bill (with 51 votes). That bill incorporates changes agreed to between House and Senate. House then passes reconciliation bill (so there is no threat they get jilted). House then passes Senate bill. Both go to the President. President first signs Senate bill, then seconds later signs reconciliation bill.

There is nothing "cheating" about the process. Republicans certainly weren't shy about using reconciliation in the past (including for the Bush tax cuts, as you may recall), and it is no more "nakedly partisan" than filibustering every single thing presented by Democrats in the Senatee (what happened to the party who fought for an "up or down vote?").

Ok, so we really are discussing two options. You're advocating a parallel process, while what I'm hearing is a distinct two-separate-bills-one-after-the-other approach. And in fact, that's the "option 2" in one of the links you posted, which funny enough they refer to as "fix it later."

As I said previously, I don't hear anyone suggesting the course that you just described. And I think it would be political suicide. Do you not see how nakedly partisan that would look?

I do believe Obama/Pelosi are that suicidal, especially because neither one of them has a re-election to worry about (Pelosi's not in trouble). But I'll be damned if they can get a majority of skittish House Democrats (or maybe even Senators) to commit suicide with them.

Just saw that you added this, so I'll add a response.

You're distracting from the issue. What the R's did is not going to be relevant to how the public views this particular instance. Polling shows the public hates the health care bill and sent a message via Scott Brown that they want it stopped. They're not going to bend over cheerfully just because you think the R's might've abused reconciliation in the past (which, by the way, is up for debate).

As for the "up or down vote", you know as well as I do that argument was limited to judicial appointees. Legislation can be carved up, rewritten, and compromised on. An individual cannot. Total red herring.

Scroll down a bit more in the link you just posted (where it quotes TNR). This is being discussed quite a bit.

There is nothing "nakedly partisan" about passing health care. Don't forget, the public elected 60 Democratic votes to the US Senate, 258 votes to the House, and elected a Democrat as president for a reason- one of which was to pass health care. There have been a total of 3 congressional elections since the Democrats' resounding victory in 2008- Dems went 2-1 in those elections. If you add in gubernatorial elections to the mix, they have gone 2-3. The public has demanded healthcare reform for a long time and continues to do so. The Dems have the power to do it. They ought to, and I expect they will. The fact that Republicans are nothing more than pure obstructionists now doesn't mean Democrats can't use the process to circumvent Republican obstructionism. Republicans are using the process to shut the government down, Democrats can use the process to get it moving again.

If politics is your objection, Democrats absolutely must pass health care. If you think they are concerned about passing a bill, wait until you see how concerned they are if they don't (which would most certainly end many of their careers- far more careers than if the bill passes).

It sounds like you are using the word "cheating" not in terms of what Democrats are doing, but in terms of how it will be perceived? See above for my comments on the politics of passing healthcare reform. There isn't anything debatable about Republican use of reconciliation. They have used it to avoid filibusters in the past. I don't imagine it gave you heartburn back then.

Republicans have also complained about no "up or down vote" in multiple instances involving bills (rather than judicial nominees). Your claim is simply not true. A quick google search reveals the following (some of the links in the blog below don't work, but you can do a google search for Frist's quotes and find those very quickly too):

http://www.ourrepublicblog.com/2006/...eatens-to.html

You're conflating all kinds of facts to form a very contorted picture.

It's not about whether the public wants health care (they say they do), but whether they want this version. Take a look at this Daily Kos chart:

http://cdn.nationalreview.com/dest/2...aa24962a8f.jpg

Citing a bunch of irrelevant non-nationalized races is just watering down the evidence. Voters sent a pretty clear message in NJ/VA and the Dems didn't listen, so they sent a stronger one in MA. It appears some of them are sitting up and taking notice, even if you (and the Dem leadership) isn't.

And of course it's nakedly partisan. Or would you care to name a single non-Democrat who's going to vote for this mess? And yes, I'm using the term "cheating" in the sense of how it would be perceived.

I'm not sure which would be worse for them politically, passing nothing, or passing this hugely unpopular monstrosity. Certainly, it doesn't leave them with many options.

I don't want to splinter this thread with essentially a brand new topic. We can kick off another to debate alleged Republican reconciliation/filibuster abuse, if you wish. But as it pertains to health care, Republican behavior in the past is going to be completely irrelevant, and it sounds like Dems are slowly wizening up to that.

If the Dems end up using your model to pass health care (2 bills at the exact same time), I'll change my avatar to a pro-Obama picture of your choice for a week.

So even after all the lies and demagoguery, still over 40% wants this version? Not bad. Not bad at all.

So we shouldn't cite irrelevant non-nationalized races? I think that's what your next sentence just did.

So when Dems all vote for health care, which they were elected to Congress to do, that is "nakedly partisan," but when 100% of Republicans oppose it...


Hard to argue it is a "hugely unpopular monstrosity" when the poll you cited shows over 40% support it. Passing nothing is a disaster. Passing this is progress.

You're on.

*shrug* Maybe, maybe not. But it's not enough to pass it.

Obviously it's subjective, but I can think of 4 races since Nov '08 that were effectively nationalized, by which I mean a large number of votes were based on national issues, not just local. They are: NJ, VA, MA, and NY-23.

I think those are easy cases to make. If you'd like to make a case that some of those other races you mentioned were also nationalized, feel free to try.

To me, partisan essentially means "breaks on party lines." It doesn't matter if it's R's or D's, if only one party votes for it, it's partisan. Generally it's pejorative, but it doesn't have to be. In this case, I think it definitely is.

VA and NJ exit polls showed support for Obama and health care reform. Those races were expressly local, certainly not national. There have been three "national" races by definition- CA House, NY House and MA Senate. Dems went 2-1 in those three. As far as relevance to health care goes, none of them were decided because of health care or Obama (other than arguably CA House, but it was going pro-Dem anyways).

Of course, you also had Specter switch parties based on his feedback in PA.

Abandoning health care would be a collosal mistake, particularly if it is based on what people incorrectly think was being sent as a message. Which is why they won't abandon it.

By your definition, there have actually been six "national" elections since 2009, not three, and Dems were victors in almost all of them. So, if you want to pretend that matters, go ahead and say you're 5-1. It's a totally irrelevant statistic without studying what drove each of those elections.

I think there's strong evidence that the 4 races I mentioned were deeply influenced by Obama's policies in general, and health care in particular. And Dems lost all but one.

That's why the momentum is where it is. That's why Pelosi can't get her votes.

Specter made a stunning miscalculation. I guarantee you he wishes he had that one back, though he'll never say it in public.

Dem's won't abandon the words "health care reform" but they are almost certain to abandon this wretched bill.

Looks like I forgot about two- your link shows there have been 5, not 6 (unless you are guaranteeing a Dem victory in April). As for "studying what drove each of those elections," exit polling data is widely available for the NJ and VA races, and it shows pretty clearly that they were not driven by national politics. No exit polling was conducted for MA, so if we can't study what drove that election, it sounds like we are in agreement that it is irrelevant to the present discussion.


Which evidence? Certainly not exit polling. Is there other evidence?




I doubt it. Specter would definitely lose in PA on the Republican ticket. He is now only possibly going to lose on the Dem ticket. As for this bill, we shall see.

No, I meant just what I said: six. I was including the MA Senate race.

I don't have the data at my fingertips as to why I think NJ and VA revolved around national issues. But I'll do a little digging and get back to you. Are you going to defend your assertion that CA-10 was a national election, or are you conceding that it was not?

On another note: since you don't think NJ, VA, or MA were nationalized, on what do you blame that fact that Pelosi suddenly can't get her votes?

I could dicker with that, but maybe you're right. No matter how you slice it, Specter is in big trouble. That's what happens when you have no principles.

Curse him, may he die an ignominious political death a la Dan Quagle.

Ah.

Sure- CA was a congressional election (by definition a "national" election as it is for an elected office in the US Congress). Did it revolve heavily on "national" issues? Beats me- I haven't seen any exit polling and doubt any was conducted, but that also happens to be the case in Massachusetts. People who want to claim the MA election was a "message" election are making it up with no facts to support them.

Who says she can't? To the extent she won't be able to in the future (and I think she will), I would blame cowardice and stupidity.


On that we can agree. Specter makes America worse.

Not exactly. Exit polls aren't the only thing that indicate the electorate's mood. Issue polling during the run-up to the election, and what the candidate actually campaigns on are key indicators as to why people vote the way they do. If you're limiting yourself to exit polls only to gauge the electorate, it's no wonder you've been so off.

Um, lots of people are saying she can't right now, including her. "Cowardice and stupidity" is a vague weasel answer. Let's hear something concrete. How come Pelosi had her votes before, and now suddenly she doesn't?

I say MA was a nationalized referendum on Obama and on health care, and once the Dems saw the results, they decided keeping their jobs in November was more important to them than loyalty to Pelosi. They don't want to go home and face constituents, angry at having been ignored, or to hand a fat election issue to their opponents. If you disagree, fine, but let's hear some real political analysis.

In that case, NJ and VA were definitely not "national" races.



Um, no. Pelosi has not said that. You should read the rest of her quote. The biggest trouble faced by Pelosi isn't the House, it is the Senate. She has said all along the Senate bill isn't acceptable to the House. The Senate is now in the position of having a hard time amending their bill through regular legislative processes, and Pelosi can't live with what is on the table. So the Senate bill needs to be changed. It hasn't changed yet, so she doesn't have the votes yet. Reconciliation provides the avenue for changing the Senate bill and fixing Pelosi's problem. As for statements from some House members, their problem is cowardice and stupidity. They are overreacting to the punditry's noise that MA was a referendum on Obama and health care, despite the fact there is zero evidence in support of that contention.

You can say that, but there is no evidence to support your argument. Provide some evidence, not just a flat statement.

As for evidence supporting my contention that she lose because she was a lousy candidate:

She started up 30 points. If this was a referendum on Obama or healthcare, there is no possible chance public opinion changed to the tune of 35 points in one month, particularly since polls in MA indicated support overall for the health care bill. She wouldn't have ever had a 30 point lead to start with if this was truly a reaction to Obama or health care.

She went on vacation during the primary and took voters for granted. They didn't appreciate it.

She said multiple stupid things regarding the Red Sox and, while that shouldn't be the basis for anyone's vote, it got her a lot of negative publicity.

Obama still polls very favorably in MA.

I disagree. Been a busy day, but I'll try to get you some data as to why later.

Yeah, the House has trouble with the Senate, and the Senate has trouble with the House. We call that bicameral legislation. We also have a method for resolving those problems called conference committees. Unforunately Pelosi decided it would be better to cut backroom deals than work out in the open, so I don't feel a lot of sympathy there.

The only person to blame for House Democrat intransigence is the House leadership. Stop trying to blame others for her woes.

So they're reflexively reactionary idiots who make decisions on what gets said on Fox News rather than the facts? And these are the people you want rewriting the health care system?

That's all mostly true, and I'm not going to disagree that Coakley was a terrible candidate, as was Creigh Deeds. But if you think that's all that was in this race, you're misreading it badly.

Not that I mind, necessarily. Obama says "this is a fight I want to have" ... I say "bring it on." The harder he pushes left, the more the Dems will lose critical elections.

A classic montage video, courtesy of the left-leaning TalkingPointsMemo. They preface it with this commentary:

You may want to refresh your memory as to why there was no conference committee (it had nothing to do with Pelosi). Republican Senators were placing holds on conference committee appointments making it impossible for the committee to ever form. Weren't you saying something about "naked partisanship" earlier?



Some most certainly are, yes. As to whether I want them rewriting the health care system, is there another option I am unaware of?



So you say, again without any evidence.

Here's another link proposing what I described for health care, by the way:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/20...eeks-on-Reform