United States Healthcare Reform

[JeffL]

Originally Posted by Lorini

If I recall correctly, line item veto can only be used on the federal budget.

Yep. Presidents have been asking for that for a long time, i.e. on bills. Could help when Senators attach all kinds of crap to bills like troop funding bills, etc. Though Presidents are such politicians I doubt they'd ever use it.

[Eduardo X]

Originally Posted by JeffL

Yep. Presidents have been asking for that for a long time, i.e. on bills. Could help when Senators attach all kinds of crap to bills like troop funding bills, etc. Though Presidents are such politicians I doubt they'd ever use it.

Actually, the line-item veto sounds undemocratic. I like it this way.

[Damien Falgoust]

The line item veto at the federal level was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.

[Eduardo X]

Thank you, qt3 civics lesson!

[Jon_Danger]

Originally Posted by Brettmcd

Any public option, which the house plan does have, will destroy private insurance in the long run and lead to a single payer system, which is the ultimate goal of Obama and the current leadership of the democratic party. They just know they cant get it all at one time so they will go bit by bit.

OOOH!!!

Since you are a genie and can predict the future, can you tell me if the Packers are going to make the playoffs this year?

These statements are just ridiculous. First of all, what would the motive be for "destroying" private insurance? The democrats stand to gain nothing from destroying private insurers. (Which will be impossible by the way, rich people will always pay for something) Hell, if private insurers were to be destroyed, they would have a black mark on their record. They would be going back on their word, and proven wrong. The conservatives would have a field day. If anything, they are taking a HUGE calculated risk here that they are almost certain will work.

It is win-win really. If the bill does destroy the private healthcare industry.... republicans can blame the democrats, and if they don't destroy the private healthcare industry, the republicans will be happy right? No loss of free-market healthcare right?

Oh wait... no... the GOP is just using the issue of healthcare to try to take down the democratic majority in the house. It is genius really, they are trying to make the healthcare situation lose-lose for the dems, so that come election time they can step back and say... "Who was right? Us or them?" They know this will be a big win for the dems if it works out, so they continue to chip away at the bill, add ammendments and keep it bloated, and continue a mud slinging campaign of lies to their constituents.

[rrmorton]

Originally Posted by Mookee

Heh. That's a good way to look at it. This fool has now poisoned like 4 forums I enjoy reading and it always goes down the same way. It'll probably be the funniest here, though.

You make a good point. It's good to have the option to put Brett on ignore but for now I think I'll make a bowl of popcorn and do just the opposite. :D

[Brandon Clements]

Originally Posted by Damien Falgoust

The line item veto at the federal level was deemed unconstitutional by the Supreme Court in 1998.

A reasonably good overview (though I'd really recommend checking some other sources) for this is here. Something I don't remember being reported widely at the time is that the House approved a line item veto that theoritically would have passed constitutional muster in 2006, but it died in the Senate.

[malchior]

Originally Posted by rrmorton

You make a good point. It's good to have the option to put Brett on ignore but for now I think I'll make a bowl of popcorn and do just the opposite. :D

Seems like a good strategy, even though with the passing of the bill I expect we won't see him until after the mourning period. Having to plan a funeral for the Republic is tough enough without a bunch of jackasses taunting you.

[Jason McCullough]

Didn't Clinton pretty much never use the line-item while it was legal?

[bago]

Originally Posted by Brettmcd

Then you have far more faith in the idiots we elect to office then is healthy for any person to have. Our current governmental programs have massive problems that still havent been dealt with in any real way.

So then you agree that we should dismantle the goverment program that is currently taking up most of our budget, such as the military? I mean they can't keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and can't even protect against mass shooters inside of their own bases in the US, as the recent Ft Hood tragedy showed.

[Brettmcd]

Originally Posted by Jason McCullough

Didn't Clinton pretty much never use the line-item while it was legal?

According to wikipedia it was used 82 times over 11 bills while Clinton had the power to use it.

Personally I am completely in favor of the president having the line item veto and would love to see the constitution amended so it could be used. Politically its can be a win win for politicians, the local politician can still say he tried to get stuff for the district, but the president stopped it from happening, and the president can say to the country look at this wasteful spending I am cutting.

[Brettmcd]

Originally Posted by bago

So then you agree that we should dismantle the goverment program that is currently taking up most of our budget, such as the military? I mean they can't keep the peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and can't even protect against mass shooters inside of their own bases in the US, as the recent Ft Hood tragedy showed.

Of course there are things that can be fixed in the military, but at least it has going for it that it is an actual constitutional use of federal monies. Health care and other welfare programs cannot make that same argument as they should be state issues to deal with.

[Joe M.]

Yes, promoting the general welfare isn't in the Constitution or anything.

[magnet]

That was a typo. They meant "promote the welfare of Generals."

[triggercut]

Originally Posted by rrmorton

You make a good point. It's good to have the option to put Brett on ignore but for now I think I'll make a bowl of popcorn and do just the opposite. :D

Yep, this promises to be entertaining.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Anders Hallin

Really? Pretty much every poll I've seen support reform, with a majority backing a public option.

Dig deeper into the numbers. A majority support reform as long as they don't lose the healthcare they have. One of the big reasons Clinton got his ass kicked on this in '93 is that people were convinced they'd lose their health insurance.

Also I'm convinced the public option number is soft, since most people don't have a clue about what it is. "Do you support a public option for healthcare" gets a yes because "Options are good!" In general you should probably discount public polling on technical policy questions.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by JeffL

While I'm pushing hard for health care reform (and not yet convinced that this huge bill is it) I'm puzzled by all the attacks on "you don't know how much is being footed by the employer!" How is this bill going to fix that? It's going to cost employers as much or more as it does now, best I can tell - I really am not seeing a lot that convinces me it is truly going to lower health care costs to employers or government.

Also, the fact that it barely passed in the House, with almost 40 Dems voting against it, does not bode well for the Senate.

1) It's not going to reduce costs. Oh well, we'll have to settle for 22,000 people per year not dying because they can't get healthcare.

2) Pelosi and Hoyer never seemed nervous about it passing; which means they probably had a bunch more than 220 votes but they let folks go to make their districts happy. Happens all the time, and not something you should draw any conclusions from.

3) The Senate will pass healthcare reform, guaranteed. It's just a question of what's in the bill Reid brings to the floor. He's not going to bring a bill to the floor without being absolutely certain it gets through a filibuster.

[triggercut]

On Jeffd's point #2, that's absolutely true, and it makes me wonder if JeffL watches Democratic-controlled congresses much. That's how it works: 218 and they're good.

[Kraaze]

Originally Posted by Brettmcd

Of course there are things that can be fixed in the military, but at least it has going for it that it is an actual constitutional use of federal monies. Health care and other welfare programs cannot make that same argument as they should be state issues to deal with.

The constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. Let's make a logical consistency check here, are you one of the nutzoids who believes the federal government should consist of nothing more than the military and the janitorial staff at the capitol building?

[JeffL]

Originally Posted by jeffd

1) It's not going to reduce costs. Oh well, we'll have to settle for 22,000 people per year not dying because they can't get healthcare.

2) Pelosi and Hoyer never seemed nervous about it passing; which means they probably had a bunch more than 220 votes but they let folks go to make their districts happy. Happens all the time, and not something you should draw any conclusions from.

3) The Senate will pass healthcare reform, guaranteed. It's just a question of what's in the bill Reid brings to the floor. He's not going to bring a bill to the floor without being absolutely certain it gets through a filibuster.

1. That didn't address my point at all - I was expressing my confusion at people constantly telling people they will be better off with the healthcare reform because "you obviously don't understand how much your employer is paying" as if this bill will make that any better at all. I've been a supporting of reform for a long time - my only issue with the current bills is that I'm not sure they actually address the issues in an effective manner, and as long as the bill is I don't think anyone really knows the details of what's in there.

2. Following this closely, there were numerous delays in getting a vote and it was closer than most would have liked.

3. When do you expect a bill to be passed? My concern is that it is going to be a watered down ineffective bill passed just so the Senate can say they "passed healthcare reform."

[JeffL]

Originally Posted by triggercut

On Jeffd's point #2, that's absolutely true, and it makes me wonder if JeffL watches Democratic-controlled congresses much. That's how it works: 218 and they're good.

Been a political junkie for about 35 years. Know how it works. And have been following the posturing and arguing within the Democrats on this one very closely. As I commented above, my personal concern is over what will actually get passed in the Senate. I would rather them take longer and pass something with some real meat and effectiveness than water it down even more just to say they passed healthcare reform.

[Brettmcd]

Originally Posted by Kraaze

The constitution doesn't say anything about it one way or another. Let's make a logical consistency check here, are you one of the nutzoids who believes the federal government should consist of nothing more than the military and the janitorial staff at the capitol building?

No, but you hit on the key point, if the constitution doesnt say anything about it then the 10th amendment comes in to play and its a state issue to deal with.

[triggercut]

Originally Posted by JeffL

2. Following this closely, there were numerous delays in getting a vote and it was closer than most would have liked.

As reported by TPM and Politico and HuffPo last night, Pelosi had lined up 228 possible votes, which along with Cao gave them 229 to play with. A fine point? sure. But by the end of the President's call the House leadership knew they had the votes they needed and simply lined things up in the most agreeable manner. In their analysis, they probably didn't see much difference between 229 and 220 on the final tally.

[Kraaze]

Originally Posted by Brettmcd

No, but you hit on the key point, if the constitution doesnt say anything about it then the 10th amendment comes in to play and its a state issue to deal with.

No, you hit on a nutty point. The constitution doesn't say anything about a ton of stuff, that doesn't mean that the federal government should stay out. If you really believe that the fed government should stay completely out of anything the constitution doesn't specifically instruct it to do, then you are in fact on of the nutzoids I referenced.

[Cubit]

Interesting that Kucinich voted against the bill for the opposite reasons that the Republicans did.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Docum...umentID=153995

I mean, I agree with a lot that he says, but there is a point where you just gotta pick your battles even though the final bill doesn't go as far as you would like.

[Brettmcd]

Originally Posted by Kraaze

No, you hit on a nutty point. The constitution doesn't say anything about a ton of stuff, that doesn't mean that the federal government should stay out. If you really believe that the fed government should stay completely out of anything the constitution doesn't specifically instruct it to do, then you are in fact on of the nutzoids I referenced.

I am curious then, when do you think the 10th amendment ever applies if it doesnt apply to things not specifically given to the feds?

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by JeffL

1. That didn't address my point at all - I was expressing my confusion at people constantly telling people they will be better off with the healthcare reform because "you obviously don't understand how much your employer is paying" as if this bill will make that any better at all. I've been a supporting of reform for a long time - my only issue with the current bills is that I'm not sure they actually address the issues in an effective manner, and as long as the bill is I don't think anyone really knows the details of what's in there.

2. Following this closely, there were numerous delays in getting a vote and it was closer than most would have liked.

3. When do you expect a bill to be passed? My concern is that it is going to be a watered down ineffective bill passed just so the Senate can say they "passed healthcare reform."

1) OK, I see what you're saying. Yeah, there's nothing in there that helps de-obfuscate how much of your compensation is actually in the form of healthcare. That sucks.

What issues do you think the current bills don't address? They end the most evil practices of the health insurance industry. The guarantee healthcare to 95% of the citizens of this country. It's not everything (long term cost control is nonexistent) but that's hardly nothing.

2) I had C-SPAN going all day too. The delays were just the usual parliamentarian crap - nothing serious. The bottom line is that Pelosi and Hoyer were totally confident for a reason - they had the votes, they always had the votes. The same will happen in the Senate.

3) I'd guess the Senate gets something passed by mid December at the latest. Reid's going to do his math, figure out what he needs to back off from to get to sixty, and bring that to the floor. Then we'll get a couple of weeks of amendments, a day or two for cloture votes, and boom we have a final bill. I'd like to say the President can sign it before the New Year, but I'm less confident about that.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by Cubit

Interesting that Kucinich voted against the bill for the opposite reasons that the Republicans did.

http://kucinich.house.gov/News/Docum...umentID=153995

I mean, I agree with a lot that he says, but there is a point where you just gotta pick your battles even though the final bill doesn't go as far as you would like.

Again - Pelosi had 218. You can bet your ass that if she had 217 Kucinich would have done the right thing.

[jeffd]

Originally Posted by JeffL

Been a political junkie for about 35 years. Know how it works. And have been following the posturing and arguing within the Democrats on this one very closely. As I commented above, my personal concern is over what will actually get passed in the Senate. I would rather them take longer and pass something with some real meat and effectiveness than water it down even more just to say they passed healthcare reform.

What do you think would be accomplished by taking longer? How much longer do you think they should take? Is there some timeline Reid should target? Or should they just play this out indefinitely?

Additionally - were the Senate to take longer what do you think they'd be able to get into the bill, versus what they'd get under a bill in which Reid proceeds as quickly as possible?

Assuming that the Senate adds these things into the bill, which of the following Senators do you think would be more likely to vote for cloture, based on this new, better bill?
- Joe Lieberman
- Blanche Lincoln
- Evan Bayh
- Mary Landrieu
- Ben Nelson
- Olympia Snowe

[Cubit]

Originally Posted by jeffd

Again - Pelosi had 218. You can bet your ass that if she had 217 Kucinich would have done the right thing.

Yeah, you are probably right about that.