Democrats Bends Over (Health Care)

[ArmorPierce]

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid= ... sMXY&pos=8

Obama, Democrats Signal Readiness to Limit Health Law (Update1)
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A By Laura Litvan and Nicole Gaouette

Jan. 20 (Bloomberg) -- President Barack Obama and House Democratic lawmakers signaled a willingness to scale back legislation overhauling the health-care system, a day after the party suffered a defeat in a Massachusetts Senate race.

The administration will push to revive the U.S. health overhaul after giving lawmakers a couple of days to digest the results of the Republican upset in the Massachusetts election, an administration official said.

“I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements in the package that people agree on,” Obama said in an interview with ABC News set to air today.

House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer voiced support for that suggestion.

“That’s a reasonable alternative,” said Hoyer, a Maryland Democrat. Lawmakers need to concentrate on making insurance affordable for people, helping small businesses provide coverage, and improving the insurance market, he said.

“You could do it in an individual new bill,” he said.

Democrats’ consideration of a pared-down bill is a swift reversal after more than eight months of effort by lawmakers in both the House and Senate to push through landmark legislation likely to cost as much as $900 billion over a decade.

Losing Supermajority

It comes after Republican Scott Brown’s victory yesterday in Massachusetts deprived Democrats of their supermajority of 60 votes in the Senate, imperiling the legislation.

The administration is split on how to move forward, with some advocating giving Congress direction and others favoring a more hands-off approach, said the aide, who requested anonymity.

The elements of the bill Obama would like to see include insurance industry rules, such as the elimination of lifetime caps on insurance plans and a ban on insurers denying people coverage because of pre-existing medical conditions, the aide said. They also include subsidies to help some individuals afford coverage, and cost-containment steps such as empowering a panel to control Medicare spending, the aide said.

The White House hasn’t decided whether to push for a provision requiring all Americans to have insurance, the aide said.

Pass Something

After three other failed attempts at health overhauls in the last century, Obama had declared his 2008 victory a mandate to pursue wholesale changes in health care. That included plans to insure the majority of roughly 47 million Americans who don’t have insurance, rein in costs, and a mandate that individuals have proof of coverage or pay a penalty.

In Tuesday’s election aftermath, the administration is counting on lawmakers to realize they must pass some health legislation because the House and Senate have already voted on separate versions of the bill.

“People are telling us to work together,” said Senator Ben Nelson of Nebraska, the last of the Senate’s Democrats to sign onto his leadership’s health proposal in December.

Representative James Clyburn of South Carolina, the chief Democratic vote-counter in the House, said Democrats should consider an incremental approach.

Not ‘One Fell Swoop’

He suggested Congress could pass a smaller bill then return to the issue over the years with related legislation.

“Medicare wasn’t done in one fell swoop,” Clyburn told reporters. “People weren’t happy with it the first time and they amended it and they amended it and they amended it.”

In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid met with all the chamber’s Democrats this afternoon to discuss options. He said afterward there was no clear consensus on how to proceed yet said lawmakers “won’t rush into anything” on health-care legislation as he signaled an interest in turning to other measures that would promote job-creation.

He said Democratic leaders in the Senate won’t take action on health legislation until Brown has been sworn in to office.

House Democratic leaders met with groups of rank-and-file members to get input on how to proceed.

In a meeting with self-described fiscal conservatives known as Blue Dog Democrats, one option leaders discussed was an incremental approach that includes elements like insurance market reforms, said Representative Baron Hill of Indiana.

The only agreement was that whatever Democrats do, the public must perceive a shift in the scope of the bill, Hill said.

House Education and Labor Committee Chairman George Miller, a California Democrat, said leaders are considering ways to advance legislation that may include budget reconciliation -- which could allow some tax and other revenue-related provisions to move through the Senate with just 51 votes.

“The general sense is that we should go forward,” Miller said.

To contact the reporters on this story: Laura Litvan in Washington at llitvan@bloomberg.net; Nicole Gaouette in Washington at ngaouette@bloomberg.net.

Last Updated: January 20, 2010 18:16 EST

The article I saw earlier but now cannot find on the website stated that Obama was discouraging any attempt to pass the bill before Brown was sworn in. I couldn't post it from work however and looks like it was taken down or updated.

[xammer99]

Here

[The Romulan Republic]

Sad, but predictable. The Democrats' response to any loss is to assume they were too liberal and act more conservative. They won't win over the Right, and they'll just piss off their own base for a few independents, but its hardly any different from the way the Party usually behaves. I'd have been surprised if they didn't do something like this.

On the other hand, I can see where they might be coming from. Filibuster-proof majority gone, they're probably desparate to get anything passed.

[Vympel]

They're coming from a position of fucking pussies and/or duplicitious fucks that like to hide behind the laughably false idea that you need 60 votes to pass anyhting in the Senate because its convenient for them to do so.

[ArmorPierce]

Thank you for that post xammer99, it's exactly about what I intended to post but couldn't find.

Does anyone else think that Obama is merely using this as a convenient excuse to back out of any major Health care reform? 'Oh we lost our super-majority, GOP killed it, sorry guys, we had no choice!'

FURTHER COMPROMOISE?! What else is there left to compromise?! They already made compromise over compromise that has removed any major part of the bill.

[xammer99]

Off the top of my head:

If they added in Tort Reform & Making it a national market place for health insurance, you'll get more than enough republicans signing on to pass the thing, even with a Public Option.

Edit: Oh and you're welcome =)

[Darksider]

So with health care reform basically dead, What are Obama's chances of getting a second term? They can't be very good.

Also, how long will it take for the bloated, inefficient U.S. healthcare system to collapse completely so we're forced to reform it? 'Cause at this point that's the only way it's getting done.

[The Romulan Republic]

So with health care reform basically dead, What are Obama's chances of getting a second term? They can't be very good.

Probably depends on how well the wars and economy are going in three years.

[MarshalPurnell]

Perhaps they could rebadge the effort "insurance reform" and still accomplish some worthwhile things with enough Republican votes to give them the cover they need. Eliminating the issue of pre-existing conditions not being covered, banning lifetime payout caps, reforming procedures that determine operation approvals, mandating coverage of more frequent preventive care checkups, providing for streamlined common forms, creating a national electronic health records database, and so on would be very popular without the baggage of trying to address health care in general. One could certainly throw in limits on malpractice awards to strip the Republicans of a major argument (and it's not necessarily a bad idea) and earn it more support by appearing centrist. In fact one could really sweat the insurance companies as payback for sabotaging real reform while coming out of it more popular than ever.

Of course it dodges the problem of rising health care costs, but right now that simply isn't a real priority for consumers. You can pass some of the costs on to the insurance corporations with the right reforms. Any serious overhaul is simply going to have to wait until it becomes a real crisis, though. People who have insurance are generally happy with it and those that do not are either young and playing the odds, or desperately poor and therefore of no consequence to the American body-politic - though one could perhaps sneak in a Medicaid expansion under this strategy.

[Patrick Degan]

So with health care reform basically dead, What are Obama's chances of getting a second term? They can't be very good.

Health care reform, or its failure to pass, will not break Obama. If the economy and the war are doing reasonably well and the Republicans put up another tired old man or a loony in 2012, he's in for four more years.

Also, how long will it take for the bloated, inefficient U.S. healthcare system to collapse completely so we're forced to reform it? 'Cause at this point that's the only way it's getting done.

It can actually go on for at least a decade or two, consuming an increasing percentage of GDP before it reaches crisis point. There's going to be a lot more pain in the offing, especially as we seem to still be within Gilded Age II.

[CaptainChewbacca]

Off the top of my head:

If they added in Tort Reform & Making it a national market place for health insurance, you'll get more than enough republicans signing on to pass the thing, even with a Public Option.

Tort reform is the one thing I wanted most out of all of this.

[aerius]

Tort reform is the one thing I wanted most out of all of this.

Somehow, I doubt you'll ever get tort reform in a country which has the highest per capita lawyer numbers in the world. Unless by reform you mean find a way to make work for even more lawyers.

Personally I think the bill's getting to the point where it's so fucked up that it might as well be killed. I doubt it matters whether they pass it or not, either way enough people are going to get dicked over to make the midterm elections real interesting.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So with health care reform basically dead, What are Obama's chances of getting a second term? They can't be very good.

Also, how long will it take for the bloated, inefficient U.S. healthcare system to collapse completely so we're forced to reform it? 'Cause at this point that's the only way it's getting done.

I would rather vote third party or sit the federal election out in protest than vote for him again at this point.

[Col. Crackpot]

Off the top of my head:

If they added in Tort Reform & Making it a national market place for health insurance, you'll get more than enough republicans signing on to pass the thing, even with a Public Option.

Tort reform is the one thing I wanted most out of all of this.

From a congress run by lawyers?

[The Romulan Republic]

I would rather vote third party or sit the federal election out in protest than vote for him again at this point.

While I can understand opposing Obama's reelection, I hope you understand that by far the likeliest outcome of this attitude on a large scale is another Republican Administration, which means we probably get another Bush as a best case scenario.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I would rather vote third party or sit the federal election out in protest than vote for him again at this point.

While I can understand opposing Obama's reelection, I hope you understand that by far the likeliest outcome of this attitude on a large scale is another Republican Administration, which means we probably get another Bush as a best case scenario.

What do I gain? Indefinite war(Check), Wholesale rape of the constitution (Check. Obama has called for a new regime of illegal indefinite detention), Immunity from prosecution for those who torture, rape etc at the administrations silent consent or even order (check), lack of healthcare reform(check), a complete and total failure at mitigating climate change (check), progress on gay rights issues that is contingent on the death of the old (check), the mortgaging of my future and those of my non-existent offspring to pay large banks and corporations obscene amounts of my money to fail while those same banks rape me without lube (check).

Where exactly are any of my interests and concerns addressed by the Obama administration any better than in the Bush Administration? Maybe my sense of aesthetics, after all, he is not sub-literate.

[Nova Andromeda]

I would rather vote third party or sit the federal election out in protest than vote for him again at this point.

While I can understand opposing Obama's reelection, I hope you understand that by far the likeliest outcome of this attitude on a large scale is another Republican Administration, which means we probably get another Bush as a best case scenario.

-First, I would say that staying home is a terrible way to send a message. All you do is make it look like conservatives are more popular. What you need to do is actually go vote. When large percentages of the population start writing in their own name then the politicians will take note.
-Voting democratic just to keep republicans from power won't work in the long term, middle term, or probably even the short term. The problem is that a demoralized base simply won't vote or volunteer in campaigns, the wall sitters won't vote for Democrats because they accomplish nothing useful, the Republicans will always have the advantage/initiative, etc. Unfortunately, I don't see a good way to motivate large numbers of progressives into a cohesive force: we have no underlying or unifying social institutions (like a religion, nation, etc.), we have no fundamental idiology (religion, communism, etc.), and we have little to no support from the major holders of wealth and power.

[ray245]

I would rather vote third party or sit the federal election out in protest than vote for him again at this point.

While I can understand opposing Obama's reelection, I hope you understand that by far the likeliest outcome of this attitude on a large scale is another Republican Administration, which means we probably get another Bush as a best case scenario.

-First, I would say that staying home is a terrible way to send a message. All you do is make it look like conservatives are more popular. What you need to do is actually go vote. When large percentages of the population start writing in their own name then the politicians will take note.
-Voting democratic just to keep republicans from power won't work in the long term, middle term, or probably even the short term. The problem is that a demoralized base simply won't vote or volunteer in campaigns, the wall sitters won't vote for Democrats because they accomplish nothing useful, the Republicans will always have the advantage/initiative, etc. Unfortunately, I don't see a good way to motivate large numbers of progressives into a cohesive force: we have no underlying or unifying social institutions (like a religion, nation, etc.), we have no fundamental idiology (religion, communism, etc.), and we have little to no support from the major holders of wealth and power.

Which kinda makes me wonder, how did the liberal movement in Europe manage to rise to power?

[The Romulan Republic]

What do I gain? Indefinite war(Check), Wholesale rape of the constitution (Check. Obama has called for a new regime of illegal indefinite detention), Immunity from prosecution for those who torture, rape etc at the administrations silent consent or even order (check), lack of healthcare reform(check), a complete and total failure at mitigating climate change (check), progress on gay rights issues that is contingent on the death of the old (check), the mortgaging of my future and those of my non-existent offspring to pay large banks and corporations obscene amounts of my money to fail while those same banks rape me without lube (check).

Where exactly are any of my interests and concerns addressed by the Obama administration any better than in the Bush Administration? Maybe my sense of aesthetics, after all, he is not sub-literate.

You know, I'll take all of that over a full-blown theocratic Bible nut who thinks we're living in the End Times, which is the kind of candidate the GOP seems to favor these days. I'll take Obama over someone who's campaign message appeals to racial bigotry, who calls their opponents Nazis and Terrorists and Communists, and who incites secession and civil war as a solution to America's problems.

Also, Health Care and Climate Change are more Congress's fault, and under Obama we would not have entered Iraq. And at least Obama stopped torture and tried to close down Guantanamo. Gay Rights I still hope for some progress on, namely the repeal of DADT within Obama's first term. And the Afghan war is not for me a complaint against him, as I consider it nessissary and justified.

[ArmorPierce]

From what I recall, it had a lot to do with the devestation of Europe after the second world war. Europe did not gain the prosperity that America and they realized that there is plenty of hard working people who at no fault of their own were not living in the best of conditions. Americans did not face this. In fact, there was anti-communism doctrination that spread the word about the 'evils' of socialism and the godless communists.

[Nova Andromeda]

What do I gain? Indefinite war(Check), Wholesale rape of the constitution (Check. Obama has called for a new regime of illegal indefinite detention), Immunity from prosecution for those who torture, rape etc at the administrations silent consent or even order (check), lack of healthcare reform(check), a complete and total failure at mitigating climate change (check), progress on gay rights issues that is contingent on the death of the old (check), the mortgaging of my future and those of my non-existent offspring to pay large banks and corporations obscene amounts of my money to fail while those same banks rape me without lube (check).

Where exactly are any of my interests and concerns addressed by the Obama administration any better than in the Bush Administration? Maybe my sense of aesthetics, after all, he is not sub-literate.

You know, I'll take all of that over a full-blown theocratic Bible nut who thinks we're living in the End Times, which is the kind of candidate the GOP seems to favor these days. I'll take Obama over someone who's campaign message appeals to racial bigotry, who calls their opponents Nazis and Terrorists and Communists, and who incites secession and civil war as a solution to America's problems.

Also, Health Care and Climate Change are more Congress's fault, and under Obama we would not have entered Iraq. And at least Obama stopped torture and tried to close down Guantanamo. Gay Rights I still hope for some progress on, namely the repeal of DADT within Obama's first term. And the Afghan war is not for me a complaint against him, as I consider it nessissary and justified.

-Let me point out that voting for the lesser of two evils and not punishing the Democrats for ignoring their base resulted in Regan and both Bush's. There is no reason to think it will prevent a Palin presidency once you consider that demoralized progressives don't vote as much and the 'middle' will go w/ god and guns over nothing every time.

[The Romulan Republic]

-Let me point out that voting for the lesser of two evils and not punishing the Democrats for ignoring their base resulted in Regan and both Bush's. There is no reason to think it will prevent a Palin presidency once you consider that demoralized progressives don't vote as much and the 'middle' will go w/ god and guns over nothing every time.

Well in that case its damned if you do, damned if you don't. What you're essentially saying is that you believe the Republicans will win next election regardless of what the Democrats do. In that case you might not vote Democrat without doing much harm, because they're going to lose anyway. But I doubt it will teach the Democrats a lesson, any more than losing yesterday will teach them a lesson. They'll probably just conclude they lost because they were too liberal, not because they were too conservative.

I don't personally agree that a Democratic loss is certain, and think its way too early to predict 2012. Nor do I think Palin is the likeliest winner thank God, though the whole Republican party is well-saturated with corruption and stupidity these days.

Not to say that I'm very happy with Obama or the Democrats. I don't despise him as much as some of you seem to, but I am very disappointed. But I'm not going to fucking pretend there's no difference between him and the Republicans, and if you think that's the case, as Alyrium Denryle seems to, you quite frankly need to pull your head out of your ass.

[Nova Andromeda]

-Let me point out that voting for the lesser of two evils and not punishing the Democrats for ignoring their base resulted in Regan and both Bush's. There is no reason to think it will prevent a Palin presidency once you consider that demoralized progressives don't vote as much and the 'middle' will go w/ god and guns over nothing every time.

Well in that case its damned if you do, damned if you don't. What you're essentially saying is that you believe the Republicans will win next election regardless of what the Democrats do. In that case you might not vote Democrat without doing much harm, because they're going to lose anyway. But I doubt it will teach the Democrats a lesson, any more than losing yesterday will teach them a lesson. They'll probably just conclude they lost because they were too liberal, not because they were too conservative.

I don't personally agree that a Democratic loss is certain, and think its way too early to predict 2012. Nor do I think Palin is the likeliest winner thank God, though the whole Republican party is well-saturated with corruption and stupidity these days.

Not to say that I'm very happy with Obama or the Democrats. I don't despise him as much as some of you seem to, but I am very disappointed. But I'm not going to fucking pretend there's no difference between him and the Republicans, and if you think that's the case, as Alyrium Denryle seems to, you quite frankly need to pull your head out of your ass.

-You clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say so I'll try saying it again. I think Republicans taking power in the future is inevitable if the Democrats fail to enact any significant part of the progressive agenda which others have already outlined above. I don't know if it will be next election or some time further down the road though. I also think Republicans are far worse than the Democrats, but that doesn't matter when the Democrats basically facilitate and legitimize the Republicans (remember 9/11, Iraq, torture, etc.?) when the Reps. are in power in addition to doing nothing useful when the Dems. are in power.

[Alyrium Denryle]

You know, I'll take all of that over a full-blown theocratic Bible nut who thinks we're living in the End Times, which is the kind of candidate the GOP seems to favor these days. I'll take Obama over someone who's campaign message appeals to racial bigotry, who calls their opponents Nazis and Terrorists and Communists, and who incites secession and civil war as a solution to America's problems.

The results are the same. In terms of policy, even with democrats in control of 2 branches of government we still might as well have that same theocratic bible nut in office. So I say to you again, what is the fucking point? Unless we say in one way or another "If you do not grow a spine, you will not stay in fucking office" they will just keep bending over backwards for the republicans.

And at least Obama stopped torture and tried to close down Guantanamo.

Tried and failed, and those responsible will never face prosecution for the crimes against humanity they committed.

Gay Rights I still hope for some progress on, namely the repeal of DADT within Obama's first term.

I will believe it when I see it. And on top of that... getting rid of it is a bit bittersweet for me.

"We wont let you be considered a full person under the law, but you will be allowed to be out and proud when fighting for a country that hates you. However we will force you to be regularly stationed when not deployed more than 50 miles from your "spouse", and will not recognize your relationship with that "spouse" when you get shot and die alone on some god-forsaken battlefield, depending on what state you are from, your children might not ever see their other parent again and when you get shot your "spouse" will not be your next of kin."

No one ever thinks about that.

Also, Health Care and Climate Change are more Congress's fault

He failed to motivate them or actually use his political capital for either.

They'll probably just conclude they lost because they were too liberal, not because they were too conservative.

And we end up with two identical parties.

But I'm not going to fucking pretend there's no difference between him and the Republicans, and if you think that's the case, as Alyrium Denryle seems to, you quite frankly need to pull your head out of your ass.

Having one's heart in the right place is not sufficient to mitigate the fact that he has spectacularly failed at cleaning up after the Fascists mess, despite a clear mandate to do so. If he cannot get that done, how is he any different. For fuck's sake he did not even purge the fucking DOJ.

-You clearly don't understand what I'm trying to say so I'll try saying it again. I think Republicans taking power in the future is inevitable if the Democrats fail to enact any significant part of the progressive agenda which others have already outlined above. I don't know if it will be next election or some time further down the road though. I also think Republicans are far worse than the Democrats, but that doesn't matter when the Democrats basically facilitate and legitimize the Republicans (remember 9/11, Iraq, torture, etc.?) when the Reps. are in power in addition to doing nothing useful when the Dems. are in power.

Nail--->head

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

So a big question, is the progressives in the US a substantial % of the population such that catering to them will actually do the Democrats any good, actually?