Get Ready for Political Mandate Poison Preview in 2010: Dylan Ratigan

The GOP is sitting quietly in wait praying that the Dems
pass a government mandate to use taxpayer subsidies to
give to private insurance companies -without increasing their choices
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j8R8baHPr 2E&feature=player_embedded

Tags: Election (all tags)

Comments

40 Comments

the senate lieberman bill

feeds right into the independent/tea party narrative

by TarHeel 2009-12-18 06:58AM | 0 recs
Re: Get Ready for Political Mandate Poison Preview

They would do it even if there was a PO.

by jsfox 2009-12-18 07:01AM | 0 recs
Re: Get Ready for Political Mandate Poison Preview

since they are going to call obama a communist any way , why not adopt public policy that might actually lead to benefits to the public?

expanding medicare quickly would do this ..
reconciliation is the only way to get something worth defending.

by TarHeel 2009-12-18 07:03AM | 0 recs
Re: Get Ready for Political Mandate Poison Preview

My question about reconciliation. Since reconciliation can only be used on matters of budget and Federal revenue by definition they are not permanent and so have to be voted and approved again after a set period of time.

So any PO or Medicare buy-in passed through reconciliation would not be permanent and would have to be re-approved. Who is to say that when the R's are back in the drivers seat that they just don't let what ever was done via reconciliation expire.

You know just like the Dems plan to let Bush's tax cuts he passed through reconciliation expire in 2010.

by jsfox 2009-12-18 10:10AM | 0 recs
true

but if you expand medicare it will be too politically popular to kill it.

COBRA and SCHIP are budget reconciliation created and have been renewed for 20-30 years

by TarHeel 2009-12-18 10:27AM | 0 recs
Re: true

but I do not trust republicans

by jsfox 2009-12-18 10:37AM | 0 recs
reconcialiation

would be far better than the crap we will be fed through 60 votes

by TarHeel 2009-12-18 10:42AM | 0 recs
Re: reconcialiation

truth is you are not going to need to worry about it. I am betting HCR is DOA. Between Baucus's early control, Teabaggers, Blue Dogs, Lieberman, Nelson and now Dean Progressives it's over. The Senate will make noises like they are pushing, but there are not 60 votes and there never was and so it will die. And if you think it will be taken up again you live in La La land. The American people want jobs and not HCR and the Senate knows this.

by jsfox 2009-12-18 11:14AM | 0 recs
Re: reconcialiation

This is working out like it did in the 90s. Basically a Dentrist Democrat placating conservative Democrats leads to collapsed efforts for reform. Remember, it was Conservadems delaying the process who linked the memo that lead to the Harry and Louise add in the 90s.  By the time the bill was fully out to the public, it had horrible polling numbers. We are seeing the repeat of that. While the public option remains incredibly high, the numbers for the Senate bill is at 32 percent. That's below even the partisan break down in the country.  How did the conservaDem's do that? This time it is Conservdems delaying the process by making the bill toxic to the American public. It is interesting, if it were not so tragic, to realize how in both cases they end up with the same results by tweaking the messaging against the centrist president. In the first place, making the bill so liberal and overwhelming that the public was afraid of it. in this case, from the opposite ideological scale making is so plutocratic to achieve the same effect because in both cases the centrist misread the times.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 11:25AM | 0 recs
Re: reconcialiation

Maybe, but it also maybe as simple as over learning the Clinton lesson. And handing HCR totally over to the legislature to craft. Next loosing Ted didn't help. I'm thinking Obama want Ted to lead the charge and not Baucus and then was stuck with Baucus a very very bad choice. And from there is went totally down hill.

Unlike others I don't believe Obama sold us out. I think he just got it completely wrong strategically and tactically. Which does not make me feel any better.

by jsfox 2009-12-18 11:34AM | 0 recs
Re: reconcialiation

I don't really care why he is screwing up. THe point is that he is screwing up on many economic fronts. Ultimately it does not matter whether he is headed over a cliff because he intending to run over it or because he accidentally does so. Either way , i f you are in the car with him, it sucks for you.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 11:41AM | 0 recs
Re: reconcialiation

Evidently Obama made a promise to Ted that he would make HCR reform a priority in his first year in return for his endorsement during the primaries.

by vecky 2009-12-18 12:19PM | 0 recs
Re: true

SCHIP had some republican support. Bit hard to argue against pulling HC for children. The Medicare buy-in would be the same.

COBRA doesn't cost the government anything. It's usually prohibitively expensive so few take advantage of it. The stimulus and recent budget bill included subsides for it and the GOP voted against it.

My fear for the PO via reconciliation is that in 5 years the GOP can just point to it's premiums being higher than some some other plans and kill it. And it's premiums will be higher because 50 Democrats will not vote for a PO tied to medicare rates.

by vecky 2009-12-18 12:16PM | 0 recs
Re: Get Ready for Political Mandate Poison

and they will use attack ads featuring the former DNC chair, among others, saying this is nothing but a giant giveaway to the Insurance Industry.

I don't see how the Dems can pass this in its current form.

by jeopardy 2009-12-18 07:19AM | 0 recs
Re: Get Ready

lol, oh man, love Debbie but she can't figure out what to say to the mandate question, that was horrible.

Obviously, they are no where near ready.  

But the last 30 seconds, when they are talking over each-other was priceless television.

by Jerome Armstrong 2009-12-18 07:49AM | 0 recs
debbie

is really tough and the idea that she can't answer it should make the rest of the house really nervous

by TarHeel 2009-12-18 07:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Get Ready

I can't believe they got Debbie.  This signals that there's little hope of change in the reconciliation process.  I am starting to feel like we're living Invasion of the Body Snatchers with our representatives turning into pod people.  Vote for it; this is the most significant legislation in the past 60 years.  Vote for it...

by orestes 2009-12-18 08:48AM | 0 recs
I would not vote for this

in the house no matter what district I represented

by TarHeel 2009-12-18 08:52AM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

Me neither, but we're sitting at keyboards.  

by orestes 2009-12-18 08:57AM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

The house has voted. The Senate Bill will not get a vote in the House. The reconciled Bill will get a vote in both the House and the Senate, but not until a Bill gets out of the Senate. The next step is getting a Bill out of the Senate, which Harry Reid and others are working to get even as we sit in judgment over their incompetence.

So. recapping:

Bill must get out of Senate.
Bill from House must be Reconciled with Senate Bill
Reconciled Bill mut be voted on in House and Senate.

Turd gets signed into law.

by QTG 2009-12-18 09:42AM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

Do you have a link that says the Senate bill will not get a vote in the House?  A few days ago the WH was pushing for exactly that outcome.

by Steve M 2009-12-18 11:22AM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

Allegedly.

It's been fairly clear for the past few days that there will be a conference report.

by vecky 2009-12-18 12:21PM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

Well, not clear to me, which is why I asked for a link.

I wasn't sure whether QTG knew something I didn't or if he was just providing generalized information about how a typical bill would go through the process.

by Steve M 2009-12-18 01:00PM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

Feeling the pressure from the public about the crappy Senate bill, it was reported earlier today that they will pressure to make the bill like the House bill in conference. Not sure if it will happen or just trying to wait out progressives, but it sounds like they have backed off circumventing the House.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 01:05PM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

The conference process is a black box, but as long as there is going to be a conference, I really don't see the point in further angst over the details of the Senate bill.  Just pass something and then see what we get out of the black box.

by Steve M 2009-12-18 04:41PM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

You have more faith that the conference is not a sham fig leaf to progressive than I do. You also  have more faith that House will not capitulate than I do. I am all for faith, but they have not shown me a reason to have faith in them.

by bruh3 2009-12-18 10:18PM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

Does an agnostic have faith in the nonexistence of God?

I am not prepared to assume that Nancy Pelosi and the House Progressive Caucus are going to play dumb for the duration of a kabuki process just to stick us with the Senate bill.  Maybe we'll get the Senate bill, maybe we'll get something better, but I don't think the outcome is prearranged.

From where I sit, your position seems to be that since we are not assured of getting something better than the Senate bill at the end of the day, we should just shut down the whole process right now.  I don't think we're in any position to be expecting assurances, unfortunately, and I'd rather take my chances with further negotiations than just give up for lord knows how long.

by Steve M 2009-12-19 06:03AM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

I am saying that if you ignore prior behavior your comment makes sense, but once you include that it is a little hard to believe.  

by bruh3 2009-12-19 08:47AM | 0 recs
Re: I would not vote for this

I see signs that we are losing the battle on some fronts.  I do not see signs that it is all prearranged.

by Steve M 2009-12-19 09:04AM | 0 recs
Conference Committee

http://www.c-span.org/guide/congress/glo ssary/confcomm.htm

Not trying to be patronizing, but this is pretty basic civics.

by QTG 2009-12-18 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: Conference Committee

Tell me, is it fun to go through life assuming that everyone except you is a stone-cold idiot?  Seems like you wouldn't make a lot of friends along the way.

It seems like you completely missed the news that the White House was asking the House to simply vote on the Senate bill and pass it, in order to avoid the conference committee process and get a bill to the President's desk right away.

Now that you know that, perhaps the context of my question is clearer.

by Steve M 2009-12-18 04:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Conference Committee

You could have stated it clearly, but I would be quite surprised if Pelosi would acquiesce to such a request under the circumstances. We'll see how it shapes up, provided the stone cold idiots don't scuttle the Senate Bill in advance, just to teach the President a lesson.

by QTG 2009-12-18 04:43PM | 0 recs
u get my point
in the house I can imagine liberals challenged from the left if they vote for it,
and conservadems challenged from the right
by TarHeel 2009-12-18 08:59AM | 0 recs
Nelson not supporting it. Making more demands

The White House and Harry Reid are preparing to give Ben Nelson anything he wants in exchange for his vote. It appears that this anything could be a gutting of the single best remaining piece of reform, Medicaid expansion:

   Earlier Thursday, in an interview with a Nebraska radio station, Nelson said even if the abortion issue were resolved, he still could not support the $848 billion package,

complaining that the plan to cover more than 30 million additional Americans calls for dramatically expanding Medicaid, which is partially funded by the states.

The Medicaid expansion would "create an underfunded federal mandate for the state of Nebraska," Nelson said, arguing that states should be permitted to "opt out" of that idea and find other ways to offer coverage to their poorest residents.

Expanding Medicaid is the most cost effective way to increase insurance coverage. It is responsible for covering roughly half of the 30 million Americans who would gain "coverage" under the Senate bill. While Medicaid is not perfect, it is real health coverage.

It is not like the junk 60%-actuarial-value "bronze" level insurance or "catastrophic" insurance that millions of the new "covered" will buy. The quality of those plans is so low, they are basically insurance in name only.

Expanding Medicaid to everyone below 133% (150% in the House bill) of the federal poverty line is the single most important provision remaining in the Senate bill.

If it is seriously crippled, it would be a tragedy that should make every single Democratic senator question what is possibly left in the bill worth passing.

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/12 18/ben-nelson-wants-to-cripple-the-best -remaining-part-of-reform-medicaid-expan sion#comments

If using reconciliation is the only way to protect the Medicaid expansion, the decision to use it should be a no-brainer for every real Democrat.

by jeopardy 2009-12-18 12:43PM | 0 recs
update:

"Update - Jed Lewison at Dailykos has more on Ben Nelson's list of incredibly bad demands."

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/18 816105-Ben-Nelson:-Bill-covers-too-man y-uninsured-people,-must-be-scaled-back

by jeopardy 2009-12-18 12:44PM | 0 recs
Re: update:

Nelson's key points:

  1. Asked if he would vote for cloture even if his initiative to restrict abortion were adopted, Nelson flatly said "no."

  2. Nelson not only said a vote before Christmas was not feasible, he joked about it taking until next Christmas.

  3. Nelson said unless the bill's Medicaid expansion provisions were made optional he would oppose cloture.

  4. Nelson said the bill's revenue provisions were unacceptable because the economy was bad.

  5. Nelson said because the subsidies which provide the bill's coverage expansion couldn't be paid for without additional revenue, they needed to be "scaled-back"

  6. Nelson also that unless cost control were addressed first, coverage couldn't be expanded.

In sum: unless Ben Nelson is bluffing, the only way he will vote for cloture is if abortion is restricted, the subsidies are whacked, the revenue provisions are nuked, and its Medicaid expansion is gutted. Oh, and he doesn't think there's any chance of it happening by Christmas.

So now that Ben Nelson has named his price (not that he can't move the goalposts again), Democratic leadership must choose one of three scenarios: (a) cave in to Nelson's demands Lieberman-style, thereby eliminating any pretense of this being a good bill; (b) call Nelson's bluff and schedule a cloture vote without satisfying his demands; or (c) abandoning negotiations with Nelson and choosing instead to pursue reconciliation.

The one thing they can't do is blame kos or Howard Dean or progressives for killing health reform. If health reform dies, it will be at the hands of the Joe Liebermans and Ben Nelsons of the world -- and the people who negotiated with them.

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2009/12/18 816105-Ben-Nelson:-Bill-covers-too-man y-uninsured-people,-must-be-scaled-back

by jeopardy 2009-12-18 12:46PM | 0 recs
Re: update:

Nelson is an idiot. He simply wants to gut the bill.

The Medicaid expansion is voluntary - sort of. If states can find some other way to insurance those folk without adding to the federal deficit they can do so. 93% of the cost of the medicaid expansion is being picked up by the fed, so really it's only the administrative costs that NE will have to deal with.

by vecky 2009-12-18 01:13PM | 0 recs
Re: update:

I agree that Nelson simply wants to gut the bill. So does leiberman and 40 GOP Senators.

see? we can agree on some things :)

by jeopardy 2009-12-18 01:17PM | 0 recs
Re: update:

Yes :)

by vecky 2009-12-18 02:16PM | 0 recs
Re: update:

WHy does he call himself a Democrat?

by orestes 2009-12-18 05:56PM | 0 recs

Diaries

Advertise Blogads