[Newsbot]

Filibuster Cartoons
Title: Healthcare is hard! (click to view)
Date: December 21, 2009
President Obama's  healthcare bill thing cleared a major hurdle this week with the United States Senate voting 60 to 40 in favor. 60 votes was of course the magical solid-unity number the Democrats needed to overcome the filibuster efforts of the Republican minority — a technical factoid which I, as a psuedo-journalist type, am obligated to mention, despite the fact that I barely understand what it means.

Anyway, the 60 votes was secured mostly by compromising the crap out of the substance of the bill, largely at the expense of liberals, who lost the biggest of their big-government proposals, namely expanded Medicare coverage and the creation of a so-called "public option" state-run insurance firm. But there were some conservative concessions too — the Senate bill is a bit more flexible on state funding for abortions, for instance.

More flexible than the House bill, is what I mean. Because the House of Represenatives passed a healthcare reform bill too, and it's way different than the Senate one. So now, if my memory of "School House Rock" serves me, there will be some sort of joint process to hammer out a unified bill for both chambers of the Congress to pass. Which will inevitably entail more compromises. And more unsatisfied politicians and voters.

President Obama really wanted this to be his big first-year-in-office victory. But it's proving very hard! Not that Obama would know, though. He's been remarkably uninvolved in the whole process, and seems to be of the general philosophy that his role as president is merely to sign whatever eventual bill Congress spews forth and take the credit.

Conservatives don't like to admit this, but polls show most Americans do want healthcare reform, and most want it to come in some form of big-governmenty flavor. Obama campaigned on bringing this to them, but he can't seem to pull it off in a competent manner, even with unprecedented crazy big majorities in both chambers of Congress. That's the big defining question to take away from all this — can Obama actually get things done?

[Scape]

At no point did Obama want a public option at this point in time. If he did he would have got the votes for it but as it stands it's too much to bite off and swallow in one go. As it stands the public option is still in the house version of the bill but I expect that to be on the chopping block 1st thing. The fact is the system is not ready for a public option because the private insurance industry will not allow it and they crafted this bill. Money talks and bs walks and the system in the US has taken a major step backwards.

[Proculation]

you want to decrease to cost of healthcare in the USA ?

Hint: deregulate the market and let the insurers compete.

The problem is the regulations between the states that protect the insurers. There's no free market at all.

[Ombrageux]

It is hard when the Democrats are so diverse and the Republicans are so pure. Really, the latter have been hell bent on destroying any Democrat before them since they became a national force in 1994.

[xerxes]

Good cartoon. I'd say the whole battle to get anything resembling health care reform passed in the US has yet again proven Bismarck's famous dictum true:

"Laws are like sausages, no one wants to see either of them getting made."

[Psudo]

JJ, via Newsbot, wrote:

President Obama's  healthcare bill thing cleared a major hurdle this week with the United States Senate voting 60 to 40 in favor. 60 votes was of course the magical solid-unity number the Democrats needed to overcome the filibuster efforts of the Republican minority — a technical factoid which I, as a psuedo-journalist type, am obligated to mention, despite the fact that I barely understand what it means.

Negotiation of a bill in the full Senate starts with the bill's return and recommendation by a committee. At some point thereafter, there is a vote to determine whether debate and amending of the bill is complete which requires at least 60% of Senators to vote Yea. Apparently, the US Senate is very unique among world legislatures for having no time limit or amendment count limit on bills it considers, so debate can really last and last. Usually that 60% is easily attainable, with both Yea and Nay voters agreeing that the time has come to officially get on with it even while they disagree about the bill's content, but the Republicans know this particular bill is going to pass (Democrats easily have the 50%+ needed to pass, and Obama is obviously going to sign), so they attempted to prevent it from ever coming to a vote (a trick called a filibuster, which I'm sure JJ knows). Their particular filibuster tactic was to try to pull together a >40% coalition to continually declare the debate incomplete, ideally until after the 2010 election, which will likely reduce the Democrat majority in the Senate and give them a better chance of defeating the bill when the vote comes to the floor.

But their filibuster trick didn't work. It's less likely to work from here on out because they have to face all the challenges from before plus the new argument "We've already voted to end debate before; why vote against it now and look indecisive?" The only hope left for Republicans is that the House and Senate democrats find some deal-breaking irreconcilable difference in the language of the bill, which the Democrats have obvious partisan reasons NOT to let happen. Thus, the eventual passage of the bill is pretty much certain now.

JJ, via Newsbot, wrote:

So now, if my memory of "School House Rock" serves me, there will be some sort of joint process to hammer out a unified bill for both chambers of the Congress to pass.

Hahaha!

[N_Fiddledog]

Newsbot wrote:

Conservatives don't like to admit this, but polls show most Americans do want healthcare reform, and most want it to come in some form of big-governmenty flavor.

The reason being most polls we read show the exact opposite of what you claim.

There's a graph and a list of polls at the link below. Basically if they are correct, you are incorrect in what you suggest. Most American oppose the healthcare plan.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

There's even been public bitching from the progressives own peeps...



However...looks like Americans are going to get a plan they don't want (for their own varying reasons) whether they want it, or not.

The Democrats are crowing. They're quite pleased with themselves.



On the Right the mad prophetess of the snowy North points southward, and proclaims "See! I was right - Death Panels".

http://www.facebook.com/note.php?note_i ... 587&ref=nf

All joking aside though, she actually was right, if you see her claim as what she says it was; a metaphor for rationing. Not only will there be the kind of rationing she claimed - by independent panel - it will be written into the bill in such a way it can probably never be changed.

[JJ]

N_Fiddledog wrote:

The reason being most polls we read show the exact opposite of what you claim.

There's a graph and a list of polls at the link below. Basically if they are correct, you are incorrect in what you suggest. Most American oppose the healthcare plan.

http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php

There's even been public bitching from the progressives own peeps...

Uh, no, all your evidence exactly substantiates what I said. The more compromises this bill has absorbed the lower public opinion of it has fallen. The final bill is not very progressive or big governmenty at all, which obviously explains why progressive Americans hate it, and why Obama looks like such a giant hypocrite for applauding it.

If you poll on issues of substance, asking Americans what they want from the bill, you see a lot of support for the more liberal Democratic proposals, most of which have been jettisoned during all the back-and-forth of the last few months.

[N_Fiddledog]

So we're agreed then. Most Americans don't want this particular health care plan.

I offered support for that.

I await your support for the idea most Americans - Conservatives, and Independents, as well as Liberals - prefer a more government controlled, socialized health care plan.

There may have been polls suggesting that in the beginning. Other than say CNN - and have any of those ever been correct about anything - I haven't seen anything like that lately; at least not since all the issues have been hashed out in public forums.

Edit

On particular questions, yes, some of those can be formulated in some polls to give the impression some might lean in your direction.

For example; If you ask, "Should Insurance companies be regulated to guard against abuse", yeah, you'll get a majority which appears to agree with you.

If you poll a reasonable mix of Conservatives, Liberals, and Independents, specifically on the single payer question in a way which makes sure participants know what single payer actually is, I want to see the results of that poll.

[BartSimpson]

Obama, IMHO, gave up on the Teddy Kennedy fantasy of European-style socialist healthcare because the country is now some $11 trillion in debt and in the last two years the government spent some 90% of GDP and now the plan is to add another trillion in annual healthcare costs? Where in hell will the money come from to pay for this? We're in a depression and things are set to get worse next year, not better. So government revenues will go down yet again. If taxes are raised to pay for healthcare then the Reagan-effect kicks in and revenues will go down even further.

Seriously, healthcare was why the Democrats lost the Congress in 1994 and it will be why they will lose it in 2010. And that's also why the Republicans are letting the Dems have their way; because it is a smart political move. Obama is backing off from the debacle in the hopes that he can avoid being a one-term President, same as Bill Clinton did before him. If Obama presses on healthcare and marries himself to it then he can count on the voters to remember that come 2012.

[Thanos]

Actually, by 2012, American conservatives populist radicals will find out that Obama's played them the same way that the Roadrunner plays the Coyote. And it's a humourously ironic indicator of right-wing anti-intellectualism turning around and biting it's most fervent practitioners on their tea-bagging/black helicopter asses in that they're now officially too stupid to ever figure it out.

Obama: plays the long game and talks to people like they're adults. How completely refreshing in comparison to anything "conservatives" have bothered to offer up for over a decade.

[BartSimpson]

Thanos wrote:

Actually, by 2012, American conservatives populist radicals will find out that Obama's played them the same way that the Roadrunner plays the Coyote. And it's a humourously ironic indicator of right-wing anti-intellectualism turning around and biting it's most fervent practitioners on their tea-bagging/black helicopter asses in that they're now officially too stupid to ever figure it out.

Obama: plays the long game and talks to people like they're adults. How completely refreshing in comparison to anything "conservatives" have bothered to offer up for over a decade.

Heard this before, too.

[Thanos]

Andrew and his readers nail it as usual.

Best quote:

Quote:

It was their choice, but Obama gave them the rope. And the higher they get on the fumes of tea-party revolt instead of crafting actual policies to address actual problems, the worse it will get for them. Sure, they may win a few seats and galvanize their base next fall. But for what? A protest is not a party and a cable propaganda outlet is not a government.

And, ad infinitum for the hard-of-thinking:

Quote:

The middle of the road is all the usable surface. The extremes of left and right are in the gutters. - Dwight David Eisenhower

PS: Have fun at next year's CPAC. It oughta be a real hoot with the John Birchers back in charge of the "movement".

[N_Fiddledog]

Quote:

Dems' 2010 Strategy: GOP Will "Repeal" Obamacare

TPM reports:

'With Democratic senators united on the health care bill today, their campaign arm has settled on an attack plan for 2010: Republicans would "repeal" it if they win control.

The Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee, aggressively challenging incumbent GOP senators and vying for open seats, will paint the Republicans as only interested in obstructing.'

So, the Democrats' attack plan is to tell voters that the GOP will repeal the budget-busting, tax-hiking, Medicare-cutting, abortion-funding, big insurance and big pharma giveaway that only has the support of 35% of voters. Brilliant!

Conservatives have been saying that if Obamacare passes Republicans should run on the platform of repealing this monstrosity. The Democrats really think it's a smart attack plan to send the same message?

http://weeklystandard.com/Content/Publi ... 6rcjdd.asp

[Lemmy]

Proculation wrote:

you want to decrease to cost of healthcare in the USA ?

Hint: deregulate the market and let the insurers compete.

The problem is the regulations between the states that protect the insurers. There's no free market at all.

How far are you willing to go in deregulation? How about deregulating the practise of medicine too? Let the market sort out who the qualified and unqualified doctors are. Friedman wrote his PhD disseration on deregulating the AMA.




There are reasons for regulating markets. Regulation, when done correctly, adds efficiency. It's a sad Republican myth that regulation is a leftist evil. Law enforcement, for example, is regulatory. The best course of action is to cut the insurance companies out of the system altogether. The free-market we want is between the healthcare providers and the healthcare recipients. The existence of insurance companies in the system is a deadweight loss, a black-hole, a tapeworm in the bowels.