2012 Feb 9 |
 |
http://www.theatlanticright.com/2010/03/17/healthcare-bill-battle-lines-are-close-to-drawn/
0
0
Posted by Michael Merritt   |   18 comments

Apparently I’ve been very far out of the loop, even though I’ve been keeping abreast of the news.  Only a couple weeks ago, the idea of passing a healthcare bill in the House of Representatives was laughable.  Now, Dems seem to have the votes.  Tentatively, anyway.  Any discussion of “deem and pass” may go out the window if this is true.

Allahpundit seems resigned to defeat.  He blogs for a living, so if he’s worried, I’d take that very seriously.

Of course, Democrats have an easier time getting the bill passed, seeing as they have a supermajority in the House.  Still, it’s going to be a party line vote, simply because so many Democrats are joining the Republicans.  That means they have to look elsewhere for the yays.

Enter Dennis Kucinich, who will apparently announce tomorrow that he’s voting yes, even though the bill isn’t liberal enough for him.  I guess I could see him being swayed by talk of a reconciliation bill, but I have my doubts about that.  I could be very wrong, but if it was this difficult to get the Senate bill passed, the reconciliation bill’s chances seem remote, despite whatever Pelosi and co. say.  Instead, Obama may have convinced him to wait it out, to take the incremental change route.

Now, I know that people will be tempted to consider that Obama offered him a Baucus-style backroom deal.  Problem with that is if it’s true, then the bill must be worked out in conference and voted on again.  I doubt the Dems want this battle to carry on for several more months.  They’d like to get the bill passed and then work on the reconciliation fixes.  Why create more headaches if you don’t need to?

Some people seem to think that Kucinich could be the cover other Dems need to vote yes on the bill.  I’m also skeptical on this, because short of a backroom deal or a very good argument on why to vote with the Dems, all the players who were already “decided” are unlikely to change position at this point.  Maybe a couple more Reps. will follow along, but I doubt many will.

So, with Kucinich on board, the Dems have a slightly more comfortable padding between passage and failure when the vote comes this week.  Now it will be up to the undecideds, and I think we’re going to have to wait until voting day to see what most of them decide to do.

  1. Posted by Cas
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #109978
    Cas The Democrats are advocation “Pay as you Go” or “Pay-go” Paygo sounds Great! Let’s encourage the Dems to DO it. Let's see how it applies when we consider how much things cost per taxpayer. In 2009 the IRS said that it collected $1trillion in taxes and had 142.3 Million taxfilers. Of course some of this income was from businesses, but for simplicity let's divide it out. http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/10winbulindincretp... $1,000,000 million in revenue/142.3 million taxfilers= $7,027/ taxpayer p>Does this mean that congress is going to add $1.4 trillion in taxes to pay this years deficit for the junk cares, but no roads or bridges? That's an additional $9,838/taxpayer. At the end, let's add up the amounts and figure out how much we all owe and add that to the taxes for 20 years. I LIKE the "Pay-go" concept. Will congress apply it to the expenditures that they made in 2009? Will Mr. O'Bama, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid also repeal $9.1 trillion in debt or will they pay for it, $9.1trillion = $63,949/taxpayer debt? Sources 1)Washington Post $9 trillion in debt http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/arti... 2) Dr. Reid at Heritage foundation: O’Bama’s programs= $9.1 trillion in debt http://www.heritage.org/Research/Testimony/Facing... To eliminate the $9.1trillion in debt will Mr. O'Bama, Ms. Pelosi and Mr. Reid will repeal some of the additional 10.3 Billion in new welfare programs that they passed last year? Source: http://www.heritage.org/Research/Reports/2009/09/... 103-Trillion-on-Welfare-Uncovering-the-Full-Cost-of-Means-Tested-Welfare-or-Aid-to-the-Poor Because Medicare is 50% unfunded, its debt is $38 trillion, that's $267,041/taxpayer. If Mr. Obama doubled taxes from $7022/taxpayer in 2009 to $14,044 in 2010, we could pay the principle off in 38 YEARS. Wall Street Journal On 9 May 2009, the Wall Street Journal said, "Last week the Medicare trustees reported that the program has an "unfunded liability" of nearly $38 trillion -- which is the amount of benefits promised but not covered by taxes over the next 75 years. So Democrats have decided that the way to close this gap is to create a new "universal" health insurance entitlement for the middle class" http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12426873770583216... Rep Ryan at the Healthcare Summit, "Mr. President, ....Medicare, right now, has a $38 trillion unfunded liability. http://online.wsj.com/article/SB12426873770583216... Source: William Poole, St. Louis Fed Reserve Governor, in his Jan. 2007 Speech, "What should we do with the GSEs?" Paragraph 2, "Using information as of September 30, 2006—the latest available as of this writing—these 14 firms have total assets of $2.67 trillion....The housing GSE liabilities on their balance sheets and guaranteed obligations off their balance sheets are about $4.47 trillion. $2.67 in Assets - $4.47trillion in liabilities = -$1.8trillion in liabilities. $2.19 trillion/142.3 million taxpayers = 15,390/taxpayer http://research.stlouisfed.org/publications/revie... Obviously, we shouldn't start any NEW program until we fully fund the OLD one and pay it's debts. Will Congress do so?? Total of debt per taxpayer: $267,041 Medicare debt +$9,838 '09deficit + $63,949 O'Bama Welfare pgm debt +$15,390 GSE debt = $356,218/taxpayer If we TRIPLED our TAX RATE and apply 67% to this debt, then we could pay it off in 25 years 4 months IF we didn't have to pay interest. It might be better to cut some of the extra spending. The more that we cut, the better off we’ll be. Ask your Congressman to: 1. VOTE FOR adding taxes to pay off our debt 2. VOTE AGAINST any program that is not fully PAID FOR or 3. REPEAL any program that in future is not FULLY PAID FOR.
  2. Posted by Interested
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #109979
    Interested they do not have the votes to pass the Senate version. Instead they're doing an end run around passing the version. It's the Dim's, not like we could expect anymore from them
  3. Posted by Evil
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #109981
    Evil Why is Allahpundit worried? He knows, like all republicans (at least those we've seen on the networks) that the democrats are going to be punished if they pass reform, so in the long-term it would be good for his agenda.
    • Posted by Michael_Merritt
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #110033
      Michael_Merritt Bad policy passed is bad policy passed. People can actually be worried about the implications of a law just as much as they can hope for a political victory.
      • Posted by Evil
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #110040
        Evil Horrible status quo sustained is horrible status quo sustained. I don't know where the American middle class got off thinking it can ignore the plight of the uninsured and misfortunate, and it's about time they are reminded the world doesn't revolve around them. Not only is the current situation pathetic, and the worst kind of socialism (you all have to pay for people becoming bankrupt or having to wait to get into the ER, so don't think you can save any money by keeping the current situation) but it is deteriorating, so you are just clinging to what you have out of either blind anti-left hatred or, in your case, caution over government. Well, I see the absence of government in the situation to be just as frightening a thing as the hypothetical presence of it. The bill is not good, but it is far less ideological than anything the modern GOP can procure. All you have is fear, but you don't offer up anything of your own (Ryan's hallowed and "responsible" budget proposals, for example, is one of the scummiest and ostensibly "moderate" offers I've ever seen). It wouldn't matter if 80 % of Americans would be against it - 80 % who all make the wrong conclusion doesn't make the conclusion the correct one. This is not a battle between good and evil, but it most certainly is a battle between good and bad, and your position is worse.
        • Posted by Patrick Glenn
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110041
          Patrick Glenn Evil, I've been trying to carry on a dialogue with you, but after this post, I'm going to throw in the towell - you're a waste of time. Do you realize how much you sound like a Stalinist when you write things like, " I don't know where the American middle class got off thinking it can ignore the plight of the uninsured and misfortunate, and it's about time they are reminded the world doesn't revolve around them."?
          • Posted by Evil
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110042
            Evil No, you know what is a waste of time? Trying to find anti-reform people who exhibit good faith, neutrality and self-awareness. Do you have any idea how rare you are, even on just this site? Simply put, I don't care if the pro-reform people win, but the anti-reform side, collectively, is aesthetically and intellectually appalling to the point that it must lose. My only measuring stick is meritocracy, and overall, your side is much worse here, and you are an exception to the rule. Also, stalinist? Holy cow how unbelievably predictable and excitable. Get some perspective.
          • Posted by Patrick Glenn
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110062
            Patrick Glenn I didn't say that you WERE a Stalinist, just that your statement SOUNDED like one, probably unintentionally. When you suggest the middle class should not be allowed to ignore the plight of (fill in the blank) oppressed persons/group, that statement exhibits a coercive mentality that, when held by persons in power, has justified all sorts of top-down, tyrannical measures (e.g., force bourgeosie to see what it's like living under oppression). In a constitutional democracy, the government does not have the authority to decide what a middle class citizen is allowed to ignore. If he doesn't give a R.A. about the plight of the less fortunate, that is his prerogative. Again, maybe you don't realize the similarities between your statement and parallel examples from utopian leftists throughout history, but when I see that coercive mentality, it makes me wretch - sorry.
        • Posted by Michael_Merritt
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #110063
          Michael_Merritt
          I don't know where the American middle class got off thinking it can ignore the plight of the uninsured and misfortunate, and it's about time they are reminded the world doesn't revolve around them.
          I was on my state's flavor of Medicaid until I was 19, so you don't have to preach to me about the plight of the uninsured.
          It wouldn't matter if 80 % of Americans would be against it - 80 % who all make the wrong conclusion doesn't make the conclusion the correct one. This is not a battle between good and evil, but it most certainly is a battle between good and bad, and your position is worse.
          There is actually some truth to this, and though you say it here in a very high horse kind of way, I think even conservatives would agree with you. After all, how many of them spent a lot of time last year proclaiming vindication for the foreign policy of George W. Bush? He was a guy who stuck to his guns, too, even when his numbers were hovering around 29%. Hopefully this paragraph was your philosophy then, too.
  4. Posted by Patrick Glenn
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #109984
    Patrick Glenn If Kucinich was turned, it is most likely because team Obama and their allies in Congress were able to convince Kucinich that passing the Senate bill (and promises of "fixes") - as bad as Kucinich thinks is - will help lead to similar goals: public option, government take-over, ultimately single-payer. According to Jane Hamsher, word is that Kucinich demanded an ERISA waiver (to enable states to enact single-payer systems of their own) and a federal public option, although I suspect that he'd probably settle for the ERISA waiver. Conservatives have been called a lot of names for suggesting that ObamaCare is a vehicle for achieving socialized medicine, but what could be telling is how many allegedly hard-core "progressive" single-payer proponents in the House end up voting for the Senate bill. As much as I vehemently oppose the politics and worldviews of the Kucinich-types, I don't believe that they're as likely to be bought off with pork and personal goodies. They're "bought off" with wink, wink . . .
  5. Posted by Jeb
    | Quote | Trackback | Link #109988
    Jeb I think that the biggest factor in turning Kucinich was that this bill perhaps with a few fixes in a reconciliation bill will be the closest he can get to what he wants coupled with the threat of losing Obama's support in the next election. It really doesn't require more than that.
    • Posted by Patrick Glenn
      | Quote | Trackback | Link #109989
      Patrick Glenn Jeb, I doubt it would be good enough for Kucinich for the bill to be the closest he can get. He was against the "closest its gonna get" bill before today. If the Republicans were in charge of Congress and the executive, and they ended up making numerous compromises to lure RINOs and moderate Democrats, do you think Kucinich would vote for that hypothetical package on a "good as it will get" basis? No way. He's only going to support the compromised, far from ideal package (from his p.o.v.) if he feels that it will move things in the direction he wants it to go. What direction is that, Jeb? As for losing Obama's suport on the campaign trail, few Democrats care about that these days. The hard-core progressives are usually in hard-core progressive districts and the "moderates" don't want Obama anywhere near their districts. On the other hand, if "withdrawal of support" is a subtle, Chicago way of saying, "we'll no longer be able to protect you . . ."
      • Posted by Jeb
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #109990
        Jeb
        He was against the "closest its gonna get" bill before today.
        In the previous round his vote did not matter in order to get passage and he was thus able to lodge a protest vote. By holding out until pressure came directly from Obama he is able to show his more progressive constituency that he did his best to get a more progressive bill.
        On the other hand, if "withdrawal of support" is a subtle, Chicago way of saying, "we'll no longer be able to protect you . . ."
        In a way yes. It means that absent his vote Obama and the national party might not support Kucinich against a primary challenger that accuses him of torpedoing health care reform.
        the "moderates" don't want Obama anywhere near their districts
        I seriously doubt that. In all but a few southern blue dog races Obama would be a welcome campaign addition. He is still personally popular among independents and very popular among democrats and his appearance at a campaign event virtually guarantees a good crowd and more money coming in. Any bets on how many Democrats attempt to avoid having Obama on the stump for them? I would put the over under at 10. Name your wager.
        • Posted by Patrick Glenn
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #109994
          Patrick Glenn Jeb, so you're saying that Kucinich was lying (or didn't really mean it) in his Cleveland Plain Dealer op-ed when he wrote that the president's plan "leaves patients financially vulnerable to insurance companies," was a "step in the wrong direction," and was loaded with ill-advised "loopholes." Kucinich also stated that the Senate bill was "even worse" than the House bill, which itself did NOT "provide relief to my constituents." So, he wrote all those things with every intention of signing the bill? What did Kucinich get that will make for a more progressive bill? By "no longer able to protect you," I meant from rumors, scurilous attacks, etc. - you know, the Chicago way. As for your wager, it could be very difficult to score it. Some Blue Dogs might find a quiet way to keep their distance and it would never be reported. With that in mind, I'll take over 5 for a gift certificate to a national restaurant chain of our choice, for entertainment purposes only, and all other disclaimers (denomination to be determined).
          • Posted by Jeb
            | Quote | Trackback | Link #110149
            Jeb I still think that Kucinich in the end went for the best he could get. As to the wager, it could be difficult to score but if moderate Democrats really don't want Obama anywhere near their districts then we should be able to see them positioning themselves away from Obama the way we saw Republicans trying to distance themselves from Bush in 06 and 08. We could iron out details on acceptable media outlets later.
            I'll take over 5
            That seems a mighty low over under for someone convinced that the moderate Democrats don't want Obama anywhere near their campaigns. I could easily see 5 pulling away given how many previously reliably Republican districts went for Obama in 08. I'm sticking to the offered over under of 10. Are you in?
      • Posted by Jeb
        | Quote | Trackback | Link #109991
        Jeb I just read that Mrs. Kucinich took part in on convincing Rep Kucinich to vote yes. That brings a whole suite of new threats to the table.
        • Posted by Patrick Glenn
          | Quote | Trackback | Link #109997
          Patrick Glenn Again, my theory is that Kucinich was convinced, in the past two days, that passing the Senate bill would be a step in the "right direction" toward socialized medicine. If you were part of team Obama hanging around with Kucinich for the past few days, what would you have told him to convince him to vote for the Senate bill? Heck, I could make very compelling arguments, myself, for why the Senate bill will help lead to a Kucinich-friendly health care system, myself. Well, I bet he's been inundated with those arguments in the last two days, and he finally saw the light. He still dislikes the bill, itself, but now better understands what it can do as a means to an end. Of course, the Obama administration probably told him not to emphasize that in so many words because Kucinich saying it is his kind of bill would be a political liability, so instead we hear about Mrs. Kucinich, and that Rep. Kucinich doesn't want Obama to be delegitimized, etc. (sorry, too late for that).
  6. Pingback | Link #110106
    PoliGazette » My Health Care Manifesto [...] to convince one member of Congress to change their vote.  After all, I wrote last Tuesday that the battle lines were almost drawn.  By now, the players ought to be in position, though no doubt there will be appeals from the [...]