:lmfao:
QuoteSenate Democrats are already lowering expectations for the final health care bill, insisting that there will more efforts at reform to come.
In a conference call with reporters on Friday, Sen. Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) and Debbie Stabenow (D-Mich.) both stressed that they will continue to try to tinker with changes to the health care insurance and delivery system and the pharmaceutical industry, even after legislation passes.
"This is fairly clearly the beginning and not the end of health care reform," said Whitehouse. "There is going to be an awful lot of oversight of the big programs, which is necessary. We have got to change the delivery system so it provides better health care to Americans with less... And the ongoing nature of this continuing effort to make the American health care system one we can be really proud of is one that will allow plenty of time for people to continue to advocate for their views. It is not as if, if you don't get your voice heard in this particular episode, or if you don't win the program or position that you wanted in this particular episode, you have to walk away for ever. This is going to be continuing."
Whitehouse is right in a narrow sense. Additional health care related legislation will be considered once -- or if -- the current round of massive reform becomes law. But his remarks seem aimed at diffusing anger (largely from the progressive community) over the concessions granted during the current process of reform. Both senators, for instance, said they are personally discouraged by the deal cut by the Obama White House to limit the government's ability to negotiate prescription drug prices in exchange for help from Big Pharma in passing reform. But Stabenow, for one, suggested that she was willing to swallow that disappointment in hopes of future action.
"All of us in the caucus are united to make sure that, even if there are things that we need to come back and work on later -- such as has been done with every other major reform that has ever passed -- we can't let anything get in the way of the larger goal," said the Michigan Democrat. "I'm hopeful we can do more on the prescription drug front. But if we can't I'm sure Sheldon and I will be back again."
Whitehouse and Stabenow didn't spend the entire call, hosted by the group Families USA, attempting to mitigate potential dissatisfaction. They also emphasized that various components of the reform effort are hugely important steps forward. And, in particular, they lauded the last-minute decision by leadership to expand Medicare coverage to those as young as 55.
"For a lot of Americans it will be viewed as more reliable, certain and secure," said Whitehouse. "It has lower administrative costs so you are by definition getting more medical payment per dollar you put in. And ultimately the subsidy that the bill provides for low-income folks can travel with them into this Medicare program... I think people are pretty optimistic that this will be a very credible alternative for those in the age group."
"For a lot of people in that age group the coming of age to qualify for Medicare is [like] finally entering safe harbor after years of stormy seas," he concluded. "And for people to be able to make that turn earlier, even as a relatively comparable price point, would still be a big plus
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/11/dems-say-theyll-pursue-he_n_388951.html
Good luck with that.
STFU, Democrats, you're not supposed to say that until you at least get a food in the door.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 12:33:50 PM
STFU, Democrats, you're not supposed to say that until you at least get a food in the door.
Meals on wheels?
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 12:33:50 PM
STFU, Democrats, you're not supposed to say that until you at least get a food in the door.
Actually, I read it as more of a promise ot the people on the left who are unhappy with the bill.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 12:29:55 PM
:lmfao:
Good luck with that.
Whats the problem?
Any forward move is a forward move no matter how small, you can always inch a bit more forward later.
This is good. It leaves the people hoping for more change.
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2009, 12:54:01 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 12:29:55 PM
:lmfao:
Good luck with that.
Whats the problem?
Any forward move is a forward move no matter how small, you can always inch a bit more forward later.
The Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. If they can't pass anything now, they certianly can't after 2010.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 01:04:47 PM
The Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. If they can't pass anything now, they certianly can't after 2010.
I've been saying this for a while, but this 60 seat majority is meaningless. Democrats are not a monolithic party that can get its members to pass anything they want. Anything that Democrats pass by 60 votes in the Senate will be an internal bipartisan agreement of sorts.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 01:07:50 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 01:04:47 PM
The Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. If they can't pass anything now, they certianly can't after 2010.
I've been saying this for a while, but this 60 seat majority is meaningless. Democrats are not a monolithic party that can get its members to pass anything they want. Anything that Democrats pass by 60 votes in the Senate will be an internal bipartisan agreement of sorts.
This is true, but it doesn't really disprove my point.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 01:04:47 PM
The Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. If they can't pass anything now, they certianly can't after 2010.
The bar is raised though.
Not voting to impliment health care reforms is one thing, voting to get rid of them is another, much harder thing, it seems the slight changes that are coming through will stay.
You can't go straight to 2 from 0 but if 1 is the norm then 2 isn't such a big step.
I suppose what will decide things is how what few reforms there are make a difference.
Worst case they prove utterly inadequate and thus give opponents a chance to ridicule the whole idea of the government meddling in health care. On the other side though if the sky doesn't fall in and they work well it will make people more receptive to further changes.
:bleeding:
What I say is that if the American health system isn't broke then why try to fix it ?
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2009, 02:06:46 PM
Worst case they prove utterly inadequate and thus give opponents a chance to ridicule the whole idea of the government meddling in health care.
Worst case is it costs more than predicted, raises costs for everyone, and the people required to get insurance think they are getting a shit deal.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2009, 05:32:38 PM
Quote from: Tyr on December 12, 2009, 02:06:46 PM
Worst case they prove utterly inadequate and thus give opponents a chance to ridicule the whole idea of the government meddling in health care.
Worst case is it costs more than predicted, raises costs for everyone, and the people required to get insurance think they are getting a shit deal.
I am sure this finely crafted piece of legislation will never cause that problem.
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 05:54:19 PM
I am sure this finely crafted piece of legislation will never cause that problem.
My relief knows no bounds.
Quote from: Richard Hakluyt on December 12, 2009, 04:23:44 PM
What I say is that if the American health system isn't broke then why try to fix it ?
How would Britain react if tomorrow there were 9.4 million British citizens were uninsured? (proportional to the US figure of 47 million)
It's broke. It needs fixing.
Quote from: DGuller on December 12, 2009, 01:07:50 PM
Quote from: Faeelin on December 12, 2009, 01:04:47 PM
The Democrats have 60 seats in the Senate and a huge majority in the House. If they can't pass anything now, they certianly can't after 2010.
I've been saying this for a while, but this 60 seat majority is meaningless. Democrats are not a monolithic party that can get its members to pass anything they want. Anything that Democrats pass by 60 votes in the Senate will be an internal bipartisan agreement of sorts.
Internal bipartisan? :lol:
I'm with Faeelin--you are right that Harry Reid can't dictate what is in the bills that are finally passed just because he has 60 votes, but if they can't get results now, when can they? It is unlikely the are going to get an appreciably larger senate majority anytime soon.
My concern, like that of many others, is that the "compromise" bill will be a step sideways, and not forward. If it creates impediments to movement forward, it is a bill that should not be passed even if the re is a doubleplussecret promise to fix it later. If it doesn't create impediments to future progress, then it should.
I just cannot tell at this point which is true.
Quote from: alfred russel on December 12, 2009, 06:03:34 PM
I'm with Faeelin--you are right that Harry Reid can't dictate what is in the bills that are finally passed just because he has 60 votes, but if they can't get results now, when can they? It is unlikely the are going to get an appreciably larger senate majority anytime soon.
But this isn't how the Senate's supposed to work. It's not like parliament with a super-majority and you just win enough seats. It's meant to be the conservative deliberative negotiating chamber. It shouldn't be like this.
I hope that something gets passed - my understanding is that the current draft has all but one of Baucus's cost control ideas and has tax scheme that healthcare economists consider a million times better than the House bill, though I'm sure there's crap in there too.
Don't understand the connection between your post and Fredo's.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2009, 09:53:39 PM
Don't understand the connection between your post and Fredo's.
Well the whole idea that the Democrats have 60 seats so should be able to do anything seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the Senate was designed for and even if that was enough I don't think it's necessarily something I'd encourage or support precisely because I think it would be turning the Senate into a slightly more difficult version of the House.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2009, 10:30:33 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2009, 09:53:39 PM
Don't understand the connection between your post and Fredo's.
Well the whole idea that the Democrats have 60 seats so should be able to do anything seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the Senate was designed for and even if that was enough I don't think it's necessarily something I'd encourage or support precisely because I think it would be turning the Senate into a slightly more difficult version of the House.
No Republican is willing to vote for this bill. While your idea is nice in theory, I think in practice it isn't happening.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2009, 10:30:33 PM
Well the whole idea that the Democrats have 60 seats so should be able to do anything seems to fundamentally misunderstand what the Senate was designed for and even if that was enough I don't think it's necessarily something I'd encourage or support precisely because I think it would be turning the Senate into a slightly more difficult version of the House.
He said exactly the same thing. Reid can't dictate a bill and whip in 60 votes.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2009, 07:35:54 PM
My concern, like that of many others, is that the "compromise" bill will be a step sideways, and not forward. If it creates impediments to movement forward, it is a bill that should not be passed even if the re is a doubleplussecret promise to fix it later. If it doesn't create impediments to future progress, then it should.
I just cannot tell at this point which is true.
I agree. It's like sleeping with your girlfriend's sister because she won't put out. It might seem like a good compromise but it will make it that much harder to get your girlfriend to put out.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on December 12, 2009, 10:50:23 PM
He said exactly the same thing. Reid can't dictate a bill and whip in 60 votes.
I didn't disagree. I don't think that 'if they can't get results now when can they' is fair because the Senate's not meant to work like the House or a parliament. It's designed to be a very different creature.
Quote from: grumbler on December 12, 2009, 07:35:54 PM
My concern, like that of many others, is that the "compromise" bill will be a step sideways, and not forward. If it creates impediments to movement forward, it is a bill that should not be passed even if the re is a doubleplussecret promise to fix it later. If it doesn't create impediments to future progress, then it should.
I just cannot tell at this point which is true.
I have to be honest and maybe this is just an English thing, but I wouldn't do down a compromise. They're not all bad. I think I'd rather have a fudge that everyone's a little unhappy with than something that's more coherent but divisive.
Quote from: Sheilbh on December 12, 2009, 10:55:00 PM
I didn't disagree. I don't think that 'if they can't get results now when can they' is fair because the Senate's not meant to work like the House or a parliament. It's designed to be a very different creature.
Ah. I think that is a case of misunderstanding on your part. He wasn't talking about swift passage, he was talking about radical reform Democrats being at the peak of their powers and this is the best people should expect.