Back when Republicans had the majority and Trent Lott ran the Senate, Republicans were more than happy to use the reconciliation process to pass their agenda. You see, they acted like a majority party with conviction for their ideology, and they used all tools at their disposal to make it happen.
And boy, did they ever, using reconciliation —
Economic Growth and Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2001 (first Bush tax cuts)
Jobs and Growth Tax Relief Reconciliation Act of 2003 (second Bush tax cuts)
Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 (Medicare, Medicaid, student loans, assistance for needy families)
Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act of 2005 (tax cuts)
College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007 (student aid, loan forgiveness)
In fact, it’s kind of hard to find any health-related bit of legislation that didn’t pass via reconciliation:
The use of expedited reconciliation process to push through more dramatic changes to a health care bill of such size, scope and magnitude is unprecedented,” Sen. Orrin Hatch (R-UT) wrote in a letter to President Obama on Monday, urging him to renounce the possibility of trying to pass a bill using the procedure.
But health care and reconciliation actually have a lengthy history. “In fact, the way in which virtually all of health reform, with very, very limited exceptions, has happened over the past 30 years has been the reconciliation process,” says Sara Rosenbaum, who chairs the Department of Health Policy at George Washington University.
As Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid has noted:
“Since 1981, reconciliation has been used 21 times. The vast majority of those reconciliation efforts have been by Republicans,” he said. “[T]hey should stop crying about reconciliation as if it’s never been done before. It’s done almost every Congress, and they’re the ones that used it more than anyone else.”
He added, “The Contract for America, most of the stuff in the Contract for America was done with reconciliation. Tax cuts, done with reconciliation. Medicare, done with reconciliation. So they better go back and look at history a little bit.”
What’s more, while the filibuster is just a Senate rule, reconciliation is ACTUAL LAW:
Yes, reconciliation is more than just a procedure hidden away in the Senate rules somewhere. It’s a matter of law. Specifically, the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 (2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2)). Yes, that’s right. As a matter of federal law, you can pass a reconciliation bill with just 51 votes. Because 2 U.S.C. § 641(e)(2) specifically limits — by law — debate in the Senate on reconciliation bills to 20 hours. Which means you can’t filibuster it. Which means that it gets an up-or-down vote (remember those?), with no 60 vote threshold required. Plain old majority rules.
By. Law.
In other words, while the Senate could adopt new rules by fiat eliminating or limiting the filibuster (subject to a filibuster, mid-session, but not when organizing the next Senate), eliminating reconciliation would require a new law, passed by the Senate and House and signed by the president.
That’s not stopping Fox News from freaking out about the NUCLEAR OPTION!!! But if reconciliation was a “nuclear” option, we’d be suffering through a serious Bush-induced nuclear winter right now.
It’s not. A smart Democratic Party would’ve used reconciliation last year to make all this happen, or at least as a threat to force compromise from the more recalcitrant Democrats, but we go to Congress with the Democrats we have, not the Democrats we wish we had. And we certainly have crappy ones. Republicans have never had any problem using whatever tools are at their disposal to push their agenda.
It’s only now, as an act of desperation, that Democrats have begun seriously considering reconciliation. And Republicans, suddenly facing a procedural process they can’t obstruct, will do everything they can to muck up the picture and confuse both the media and the public.
But here’s the bottom line: Budget reconciliation is law, and has been used quite a bit, mostly by Republicans, to pass legislation. Crying about “nuclear option” is nothing more than disingenuous partisan hackery.
<
p>1. Didn’t Jeffords defect prior to passage of EGTRRA (so the GOP didn’t have 51 votes on a party basis)?
<
p>2. 2007 means Dems had House and Senate (so the GOP wasn’t even the controlling party in the Senate in 2007).
2. You are correct. The Dems controlled the Senate and this bill passed overwhelmingly with bipartisan support, so it appears to be a bad example.
Think 1) still a bad example without Dems also voting for reconciliation since Jeffords voted against EGTRRA (which prompted the switch) and without detailed research wouldn’t have thought he would have gone along with a reconcilation vote.
<
p>http://english.people.com.cn/e…
Jeffords voted FOR EGTRRA. He voted against Bush’s Budget and he said Education Funding in the budget was what primarily prompted his switch.
<
p>Either way, it doesn’t change the fact that the Republican leadership, while they controlled the Senate, used Reconciliation when it was to their benefit, which is the point of this diary.
that punishes politicians who so outrageously lie as this. An election 1-6 years later, when the processes they’re talking about are so arcane and obscure to the rank and file American citizen, just isn’t enough.
<
p>Any Republican in the Senate who says reconciliation is the “nuclear option” who was in the Senate when Republicans invented the real nuclear option and threatened Democrats with it should, at the very least, be censured.
<
p>I think the Senate needs a Penalty Box, a Quiet Corner or a “to bed without dinner” rule. I’m sick of Republicans continually lying and getting away with it, over and over again. They can say whatever they want, regardless of whether or not it’s true, and never be held accountable for it — at least so long as the media takes its cues from the Drudge and only reports he-said-she-said, never just the facts.
<
p>In hockey, you get a two minute penalty for obstruction. 🙂
The Senate could vote on a lotta legislation to help American workers during two minutes if they did it with discipline.
<
p>Just kidding…”disciplined Senate Democrats”…hahaha
The naughty Southerners were not allowed back into the Congress until after they ratified the 13th, 14th, and 15th amendments. In the meantime, since that took several years, and also of course during the war but with less effect (in the Confederacy) the loyal Congressional representatives passed laws for the whole country.
If so, there may be a way. Last night Olbermann and Maddow showed clips of Anthony Weiner (D-NY) accusing the GOP of being a wholely-owned subsidiary of the insurance industry. A California Republican interrupted and demanded that Weiner’s “words be taken down”. If I were presiding at the time I would have been tempted to ask if the Republican objected to hearing the truth, but apparantly the censure is automatic on the request of one member. I have no idea if the Senate has a similar rule, but maybe this is a way to do it. I’m not really sure how doable it is outside electioneering and journalism, because while what I just said is tempting I’d hate for it to spiral down to a spitting contest over who is telling the truth on the floor.
I think the legislation you cite actually undercuts your argument or the one from DailyKos. They all directly affect the budget and deficit.
<
p>
<
p>Clearly the Democrats can pass certain elements of Health Insurance Reform using Reconciliation but I think creating a federal mandate is outside that authority.
<
p>If you have a pre-existing condition you are not looking for insurance. You are looking for someone else to pay for your treatment.
<
p>People point to Medicare and say it should be the model for a National HealthCare System but they fail to point out that it is an unfunded liability of $35 trillion dollars. Of course it is popular because someone else is paying for it.
<
p>If there is $500 billion of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare and Medicaid the government should be going after that regardless of HealthCare reform.
<
p>Let’s change the tax code so that insurance is not tied to employment.
<
p>Let’s do Tort reform and reduce costs of defensive medicine.
<
p>Let’s have the federal government work with the states to allow insurance companies compete across state lines and drive down costs and achieve economies of scale.
<
p>Let’s have the federal government work to increase the supply of health care which will lower costs and increase availability.
<
p>Just a few ideas from a member of the supposedly “party of no.”
2. It’s not clear if the public option would fall under reconciliation or not — that’s up to a ruling that hasn’t been made yet.
<
p>All the rest of your talking points
– “looking for someone else to pay for…”
– “National HealthCare System”
– “unfunded liability”
– “waste, fraud, and abuse”
– “Tort reform and reduce costs”
– “drive down costs”
are irrelevant to the matter and not very helpful (if even accurate).
<
p>kthx.
1) The Senate Bill is not the only topic of discussion for today’s Healthcare Summit so you are obfuscating on that point.
<
p>2) I spoke to the point of a federal mandate as falling under reconciliation not the public option.
<
p>3)Your use of the dismissive and pejorative term “talking points” seems to belie your prejudice against any positive alternatives.
<
p>While Republicans are unfairly characterized as the “Party of No” you seem to be content to hold your hands to your ears, humming loudly “No I won’t listen. No I won’t listen because it is a Republican idea.
<
p>It is President Obama who says there is $500 billion in Medicare/Medicaid waste fraud and abuse. That is not a Republican talking point.
<
p>It is the Non-Partisan CBO that estimates that Medicare has a $37 trillion unfunded liability. That is not a Republican talking point.
<
p>You are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Your post was full of great ideas and points which should be discussed and addressed. But that is not what’s wanted here… they just “want what they want”. Who gives a flying hoot whether they call it the nuclear option or reconciliation? Do you think most Americans know the difference anyway? IS there is “Websters” citation for what the “nuclear option” even is? NO!
<
p>Brad brought some good points up and pragmatic points. stomv tried to diminish your input and “shut you down”! Unfortunately, this mimics the journey of the healthcare debate in Congress. There are plenty of Republicans with ideas but they have been “shut out”.
<
p>People talk about the “panacea” of the public option but in fact I think it will be a disaster! Your point about “Medicare for all” is a great one. Medicare is on the road to a financial explosion like we have never seen before and yet it is trumpeted by the left as the Holy Grail! IT SUCKS!! Many things in life can be great… depending if you are on the giving or receiving end (Monica Lewinsky comes to mind). Medicare is a third rail due to the enormous voting power of the recipients. Is it popular due to the “entitlement” aspect and not because it is a great “model”, in fact it’s a terrible Model.
<
p>Get some “commercial” competition for insurance companies in all states. Make them compete like car insurance companies do. Let us chose at our workplace which company we want to purchase insurance from. OPen up clinics at all hospitals. Start a pool for higher risk “preexisting conditions”.
<
p>Don’t go away Brad, just dig in your heels and stay on point.
Lovely – not only do you disrupt discussion, you actively encourage others to join you.
<
p>A true troll’s troll.
<
p>You’re not being insured against the potentiality of illness. No insurer can prevent illness or proactively cure you. You’re being insured against deleterious effects of an illness or condition: people with pre-existing conditions can, with proper medical care, continue to contribute to society.
<
p>Furthermore, everybody (…yes, everybody..) is indeed looking for someone else to pay for your treatment. Everybody: Even you Why? Cause you couldn’t afford it otherwise. Go ask your doctor what he would charge you without insurance… Even if you’re perfectly healthy, health care is too expensive. There’s a cost associated with finding out you are perfectly healthy and neither you nor I nor indeed anybody could bear that cost without subsidies. I recently changed doctors and, due to a clerical snafu involving a gap between the coverage, was presented with the full bill for cleaning my ears. Yes. Cleaning my ears: a five minute procedure to unblock my ears cost nearly 400 dollars. Four. Hundred. Dollars. That’s a visit with a nurse practitioner (I didn’t even see the doctor!) and doesn’t include the 40 dollar (co-pay) for anti-infection medicine. If I paid full price for the medicine I daresay the total would be well over 500 dollars.
<
p>So let us not get all clever about who’s paying for what: we’re all just shelling out for each other and that’s a good thing. Let’s just make it official and implement the public option… coincidentally removing parasitical profiteers in the process. I daresay that’ll lower costs some.
So let us not get all clever about who’s paying for what: we’re all just shelling out for each other and that’s a good thing.
You make a great point that the insurance companies are not the problem here. The problem is the costs of healthcare! How would the “public option” help with your gross earwax problem? It won’t!
By increasing competition which reduces the insurance companies’ ability to increase premiums, which forces them to turn around to their suppliers (the doctors and hospitals) and make them look for cost savings. Like Harvard Vanguard and BI Deaconess.
<
p>Changing from (back to HVMA) fee-for-service, which rewards utilization and drives up costs, to global payment systems for a population of patients. That, by the way, was the idea behind the original health maintenance organizations (like Kaiser, Group Health, and the late Harvard Community Health Plan) which did have lower costs and better health.
<
p>By creating a large pool of people which gives the public entity greater negotiating power with the providers, as Medicare and Medicaid have now.
<
p>That large pool of people also spreads risk over a greater number of people (actuary science) which reduces the economic effect of pre-existing and catastrophic conditions. Maybe then we can rationally deal with some of their underlying causes instead of bouncing people around the system, or dumping them into our expensive emergency rooms.
<
p>That large pool of people also gives you the opportunity to implement evidence based preventive and pre-emptive medicine on a large segment of the population; like screenings, smoking cessation, diet and exercise, etc . Then we might get at the lifestyle issues that create the biggest cost difference between us and the rest of the industrialized world, the part of the world that has public options and better health.
<
p>No executive bonuses or lobbyist fees.
<
p>
Splain to me how Petr’s $400 ear wax cleaning gets any cheaper by having a public option. Five people need their ears cleaned. One on BCBS, Harvard, Fallon, Gaurdian and the Public Option. Go…
He just explained it, dude. And yet you say “Splain to me…” I guess I shouldn’t be surprised … but I am.
… expecting any different?
according to International Journal of Health Services 2005
Medicare overhead 3.1%
Non-profit Blues overhead 16.3%
Commercial carriers overhead 19.9%
Investor owned Blues overhead 26.5%
I’ll send you all 5 of my ear wax patients to you if you can do it for $350 instead of Mr. Deconesses’ $400. Deal?
<
p>By the way hows about we all talk about finding a way to get rid of this goddamn ear wax problem once and for all. Save us all a lot of hassle and cash.
<
p>Anudder thing. Sense we’s all on the same computer system and all. Hows about my people book the appointment, better yet whys don we just say every Tuesday – say 10am – it’s ear wax clinic and everybody gets ears checked. Don’t bother with any paperwork and all those gd billing calls either: we’ll take care of dat too.
<
p>Clear enough?
<
p>You could see things better if you had two navels. Then you could look out both eyes.
Why aren’t we all behind this public option thingee? It sounds like it will cut the crap out of medical costs and any insurance company overhead. Where is it working today like that? What state can be held up as the best example?
<
p>How about if Mr Brigham and Women’s says they get $400/patient ($200/ear) and they are quite happy with that arrangement?
<
p>OR read this article (one of many) which talks about Doctors not taking Medicare patients due to the lower payments.
<
p>OR… have you seen many Doctors or hospitals out there looking for patients? Try finding a Doctor who’s taking new patients. There’s such a shortage of them that bargaining for lower fees sounds a lot easier than it is.
<
p>So, ya, I know I’m a fucking moron compared to you brain children but I don’t see the Public option saving much money and if it did we would all be rallying around it singing kumbaya… but we ain’t!
<
p>If I was a betting man… and I am. I would love to have a wager with you or any BMGer that the public option would be a huge disaster and cause more deficit spending AND provide inferior coverage. I’d bet my book sales on it!
… with Medicare. Doctors not accepting the medicare money is not one of them.
<
p>I’d be willing to read ‘this’ article, but you again have avoided providing links. In the meantime:
<
p>
Here
to find out how many family-practice doctors in my zipcode take Medicare. The answer is interesting: ALL OF THEM take Medicare.
But it looks like some parts of the country are not as lucky… (same link as above)
<
p>
Let’s back up here and look beyond your ear canal and mine. We have a significant number of people in this country without health insurance. Your attitude is: So what? Not my problem!
<
p>But it is your problem. And mine. They either don’t get the care they need, which is a public health issue. Or, they get that care in the most expensive healthcare treatment facilities outside a war zone: American hospital emergency rooms. Either way you and I pay for it, either in higher taxes to deal with the public health issues or higher insurance premiums (which in our employer based system means higher costs for goods and services). There is no free healthcare.
<
p>So how do we insurer these people. We could create a mandatory single payor system like the rest of the world, which is healthier than we are at a lower total national cost. We could mandate and subsidize as we do here, and I believe the Hawai’i system (don’t know anything about HI). We could just mandate, like with auto insurance.
<
p>We could create a public option (remember that word option). A government entity that provides a health insurance policy at some low cost. If it gets the bulk of the currently uninsured, combined with the current medicare/medicaid population, what does it have? Market share; and market share is market clout. You know what happens in a free market, right John? In a buyer’s market prices go down.
<
p>That’s why providers won’t like it: they use their market clout. They may duck, dodge, and weave to avoid medicare now; they may not be looking for new patients now; but what happens when 30-50 million NEWLY insured patients hit the market? And they’re combined with however many people we have in medicare/medicaid?
<
p>And what does this new kid on the block do to the other insurers? Is the insurance market more or less competitive? What happens in a free market when competition goes up? Prices go down. Yes? No? Or do I have my free market economics wrong?
<
p>You don’t think the insurers won’t want to make a run at that 30-50 million new customers?
<
p>The public option addresses the issue of covering (nearly) everyone using free market principles. And it’s an option: you don’t have to buy it and your doctor doesn’t have to accept it. Free market.
<
p>Plus, and yes this is simple, having a very large pool of people enables changes in the healthcare system; and that is where we will see more cost savings. More market clout.
<
p>It’s an option, a choice on a menu of solutions that enables (nearly) everyone to have health insurance. Some public option consumers, some government subsidized private insurer consumers, some company subsidized private insurer consumers, some wealthy enough to pay full freight for private insurance.
<
p>So why haven’t we done this? You tell me; you’re the ones saying no for 60 years.
<
p>If you think the uninsured are not your problem, fine, think that way. But you’re wrong.
<
p>
The public option is an explicit removal of the profit motive from the health care industry. The profit motive leads to excess administrative overhead…. and specifically to administrative overhead directed at care denial. This administrative overhead is the second largest single cost associated with health care in the US Those who have had their care denied have two options: die or follow up with the most expensive care there is: ER and outpatient care at the moment of greatest exigency. This is the largest single cost associated with health care: expensive outpatient care in the eleventh hour for the uninsured. Let me put it to you this way: we pay a premium to push people outta insurance and into maximum cruelty and suffering and, at the last moment, pay an entire other premium to save their lives. Gross inefficiency meets monstrous cruelty.
<
p>
<
p>My ear cleaning was 400 dollars because too many uninsured refused to simply die and went to the ER at the eleventh hour, when there medical issues were most acute and the care most costly. They were not able to pay for their ER care… so the costs were spread around to, amongst others, me and my ears. So the 400 dollars wasn’t just for my ear care… but for amortization of acute care burdens. Your care is the same way. So, in effect, we’re actually in the public option now: we’re all paying for it. It’s just that we’re using private actors (health insurers) to do it in the most inefficient and cruel manner possible. Let’s just go ahead and make it easier, official, compassionate and explicit: the public pays for and administers the public option.
Who is going tot he ER for earwax removal when 97% can just call a doctor?
<
p>Believe me, I WOULD SUPPORT THE PUBLIC OPTION if I thought it would save money and not decrease the medical care we get. I have almost zero confidence in out government doing ANYTHING right and healthcare is far too important to rely on “hope” for.
<
p>PS While I’m a singular voice here on BMG about the PO, a glance at the rest of the country shows there are many people just like me (and just as stupid I’m sure).
… just uninformed:
<
p>
<
p>Inform them of whats actually in the bill (death panels?!?) and they will come.
<
p>Surely there are people ‘just like you’ that will never believe any structural improvement that comes from government in general or Democrats in particular, but I think most other people aren’t as willfully ignorant.
Matter of fact, the only thing we might agree on is how much we disagree… But I will be honest and say if a good bill comes along then we should support it. I haven’t seen a good bill come up from the Dems. Today’s “Summit” was an example of how the floor debate should be between the Dems and Reps on healthcare but it has been absent. The can spin anyway they want but the Republicans have not been included in this historic level bill as much as they should.
<
p>There is no need of talks about death panels nor is there so many sob stories about some gu in Kansas who put off brain surgery because he didn’t have insurance. Hospitals are required by law to treat anyone who is sick.
If you weren’t here, we’d have better conservatives because we wouldn’t be jumping down every conservative’s throat who posts here. Your presence makes people less patient.
<
p>Please find another hobby.
In particular: Let’s change the tax code so that insurance is not tied to employment. Let’s do Tort reform and reduce costs of defensive medicine. Let’s have the federal government work with the states to allow insurance companies compete across state lines and drive down costs and achieve economies of scale. Let’s have the federal government work to increase the supply of health care which will lower costs and increase availability.
<
p>As to reconciliation, however, I think anyone can pass whatever legislation they want with it, because everything affects the budget. Even declaring Groundhog Day a national holiday, for example, would have a financial consequence.
<
p>More to the point, our Constitution says the Senate needs just 50 votes plus the VP to pass legislation: anything else is a tricky rule that frustrates the basic objective of our founding charter. And as David’s post points out, the Republicans agree given the wide variety of legislation they have passed through reconciliation.
<
p>Fundamentally, however, the Republicans will oppose anything the Democrats propose because their top priority is to destroy them, rather than work together to govern the country, as evidenced by their behavior (for example, putting a hold on all appointments; shouting out “You Lie!” in the middle of a presidential address, etc.). If the Democrats needed them to rule (for example, because the Republicans controlled one of the houses of Congress) then there would be a good argument for trying to reach compromises. Given the extent of the current Democratic majorities, however, failure to lead is unforgivable (and will probably be punished harshly at the polls).
First of all I would like to say that I am delighted that my first time commenting here generated a spirited and generally respectful debate. When I requested an account I disclosed that I was a Republican Candidate for State Representative in Massachusetts. I think I even used one of my campaign e-mail accounts when contacting the BMG administrator. I also use my real name as my user name as I would never want to be accused of being a troll. Agree with me or disagree with me but I am not going to hide behind a pseudonym.
<
p>There are too many good (and bad) points made here to answer them individually. My apologies for not being able to do so.
<
p>1) As the original post in this thread was regarding the appropriateness of using reconciliation for passing Healthcare Reform I can say I remain unconvinced. Clearly certain aspects of HCR can be passed under it but creating either a personal or business mandate for requiring coverage has 10th Amendment implications which cannot be swept away by the Commerce Clause.
<
p>2) People buy insurance, or at least should, to insure themselves against what they can’t afford. Purchasing health insurance doesn’t preclude illness anymore than buying auto insurance precludes an accident or the purchase of Life Insurance guarantees immortality. If I can afford $10,000 a year in healthcare costs why shouldn’t I be able to buy that policy? Why should Warren Buffet or George Soros me forced to buy health insurance at all? They don’t need it.
<
p>3) If you are going to argue that I should have to buy a more expensive policy than I need to pay for someone else’s health care or that Buffett, Soros, Gates should be forced to buy a product they do not need in order to pay for other people’s heath care then you are talking about mandated wealth redistribution and are starting to get to the fundamental problem that many Republican’s have with the current proposals.
<
p>Well this post is already too long so I will leave it at that.
Every tax is wealth redistribution. We understand that the default position for Republicans is that wealth redistribution is always bad. We find that position to be the epitome of selfishness, and say that if there were no wealth redistribution through taxes, we would all live in a feudal society.
<
p>You cannot provide any government services at all without some taxation. Either get used to paying taxes, or buy your own country. Advocating turning this one into a paradise for the wealthy is never going to be an acceptable position for the Blue people on this board.
<
p>–If you have a pre-existing condition you are admitting you cannot reasonably expect to be able to pay for your treatment. If you were uninsured (read: not fortunate enough to work for an employer that provides insurance) and I told you today that you needed a heart transplant, how long do you think your personal resources would last? Unless you are wealthy, I’ll tell you: maybe six months, assuming you’ve got a good cushion of savings like the financial planner told you you ought. If you, like most people, are living paycheck to paycheck, you might last a week; transplants are pricey. So yeah, you’re looking for someone else to pay for your treatment, because there is no way that a regular Joe can afford it, and there never will be.
<
p>–Medicare is an unfunded liability because people like you have consistently blocked any increase in either taxes or the retirement age to make it [more] solvent. That said, my side hasn’t done much better, so that’s a wash.
<
p>–Let us suppose we eliminate all of that waste, fraud, and abuse. Let’s even suppose we can do it cheap. We’ve now saved $500 billion, once. We’re not going to save 600 billion next year, and 700 billion the year after; we’ve saved one pot of money. Meanwhile, prices for health care will continue to rise, and that 500 billion will be gone like vapor. I’m not any fonder of waste, fraud and abuse than you are, but the idea that by finding it we can save Medicare is a canard. So sure, make enforcement a higher priority, but let’s not fool ourselves into thinking that will do the trick.
<
p>–Changing the tax code is not the only thing we’d have to do to untangle employment and health insurance. But it’s a start. What else are you willing to do? Are you willing to require community rating (instead of individual rating) so health insurance remains affordable , even for people with pre-existing conditions? Are you willing to require that everyone have insurance? (Insurance is fundamentally a cost sharing mechanic; I get sick, and everyone else helps me pay for treatment; in return, when you get sick, I help you.) If some people can opt out when they’re well and only opt in when they become sick, only sick people will have insurance, and no one else will be paying in. If you’ve heard the term moral hazard, that’s what it is, and it makes insurance unsustainable unless it’s controlled. In order for everyone to benefit, everyone has to pay in.
<
p>–I actually think tort reform is a good idea, unlike many of my compatriots. But it needs to be accompanied by serious quality measures on the part of health care, because right now, we have near-zero interest in quality, because the price and cost incentives don’t make us have one. If you require 4 days of hospital care for a problem which only requires 2, the hospital still gets paid for the extra days. Why is that? If the hospital doesn’t implement quality measures and you get a complication after surgery, the hospital (and the doctor) get paid to treat your complication. How does that help, exactly? It’s an area crying out for regulation, but your party is anti-regulation. Help?
<
p>–Ah, cross state insurance. That’s another idea that won’t work. If you buy insurance from Utah (where it’s remarkably cheap), one of two things is happening: either you’re getting crap insurance that MA won’t allow to be sold here because it’s crap, or you’re getting insurance which will pay Utah prices (low) to Massachusetts doctors (who are expensive). Now you either need to pay the difference, or demand that the government regulate prices. Which option do you like?
<
p>–Increasing the supply of physicians and physicians extenders is actually also a good idea, but it takes a long time. Sure, let’s do it, but we need to implement other measures now. Also-how you planning to get those increases? Probably you’re going to have to pay people to go into medicine (by paying for their training). What will that cost, and are you willing to fund it by raising taxes?
Those are health-care related ideas — some good, some questionable — but they do not add up to comprehensive reform of a broken health care system.
<
p>Also, do you seriously believe that if all of the ideas you mentioned were incorporated into the Democrats’ bill that Republicans would vote for it? I seriously doubt it — because they have more to lose politically if health care reform passes than if they get a few elements into it. Republicans are not interested in comprehensive reform, which is why they will vote against the final bill no matter what additional “Republican ideas” are put into it.
<
p>That’s why they are the “Party of No.”
And it is why, sadly, even good ideas, which most agree some are on this list, are getting kicked to the curb because they don’t suit the powerful vested interests on the Democratic side.
<
p>Given this reality, however, my conclusion is that it is extremely irresponsible of Obama and the Democrats not to lead given their majority — by which I mean pass their program as they would like it to be, with 50 votes plus Biden.
<
p>And they will be punished for their failure in all likelihood.
Although malpractice insurance premiums have increased dramatically, malpractice suits have not. Tort reform only protects insurance companies from paying their obligations; it does not hold down health costs and hurts patients.
<
p>If business no longer negotiates group rates on behalf of their employees, individuals will have no bargaining power and their insurance will increase dramatically. Another give away to the insurance companies at the expense of you and me.
<
p>Allowing insurance companies to compete across state lines is spin. States currently have laws that regulate insurance companies, what and who they must cover etc.. Such a law would in fact give carte blanche to insurance companies and limit States rights to regulate and protect their citizens. The result is higher premiums and less coverage.
<
p>Do Republicans really feel the health care crisis is about the insurance companies are not making enough money, instead of thousands of Americans without health care who are dying every year?
<
p>
All indications are that they do.
That Biblical 666 even!
Legislation with lofty goal setting trendy titles, each one driving America further into the ground.
<
p>Go ahead, make the permanently unemployed buy something and see what happens.
Do the Democrats respond to this bit of verbal street theater, or do they just splutter?
<
p>The thugs aren’t going to stop using a rhetorical device that works. So what if we say its stupid or dishonest? They’ll stop when and if it stops doing magic for them, not before.
…theirs is the only message heard. We’ve made that mistake too often.