• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Congress might actually pass bipartisan healthcare reform?

Puppycow

Penultimate Amazing
Puppycow
Joined
Jan 9, 2003
Messages
32,005
Location
Yokohama, Japan
Strange news from the New York Times: dogs and cats living together? Red Sox and Yankees fans being civil to one another? No, even weirder:

WASHINGTON — The deal is as politically remarkable as it is substantive: a long-term plan to finance health care for older Americans, pay doctors who accept Medicare and extend popular health care programs for children and the poor. It was cobbled together by none other than House Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the leader of House Democrats, who rarely agree on anything, with the apparent blessing of a majority of their respective members.
. . .
“This is what we could get done in the House,” Ms. Pelosi said on Tuesday. “I’m very proud of the product.”
. . .
For years, Congress has had to settle for temporary patches to prevent deep cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, like a 21 percent cut scheduled to take effect April 1 if Congress does not intervene.

The House measure would permanently remove the threat of such cuts, and would require some higher-income Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher premiums, a change Republicans hail as a major reform. It also would renew the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program and provide $7.2 billion for community health centers — crucial to both rural and urban areas where doctors are scarce — over two years.

The compromise between Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi had something for everyone to dislike. Democrats for the most part were not happy about the premium increases and the fact that the children’s health program extension lasts two years rather than four. And some Republicans were displeased that over half the cost of the package, which is estimated to total $200 billion over 10 years, was not paid for.
Click to expand...

A bipartisan compromise? A permanent fix for the so-called "doc fix"?
Of course, nothing is ever quite so simple though.

Then along came a surprising impediment: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, along with other Senate Democrats, objected to abortion restrictions in the bill and limits to an extension of a health insurance program for children. They have begun to undermine what was poised to be a sweeping bipartisan solution to several policy problems that have long vexed Congress.
Click to expand...

Thanks Harry Reid! Why do you want to undermine "a sweeping bipartisan solution to several policy problems that have long vexed Congress"? Because Republicans were mean when you were in the majority and now you want to pay them back? If it's OK with Nancy Pelosi (and House Democrats), how bad could it be?

Mr. Reid is using his power to filibuster bills and toss up chaff — a role Senate Republicans enjoyed for several years — to push back on anything Mr. McConnell may wish to accomplish.
Click to expand...

OK, to be fair, let's look at their stated reasons for opposing it. One of the reasons Reid and Feinstein give for opposing it is that it supposedly places new restrictions on abortion access. But let's examine that:
Abortion rights advocates in the House also pushed back on the idea that the measure imposes additional restrictions.

“We will be supporting this bipartisan compromise,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, and Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, in a joint statement. “And we encourage other members of the Pro-Choice Caucus to do the same.”
Click to expand...

Of course, to be sure, Senate Republicans are doing their own kinds of obstruction at the same time, like holding up Obama's nominee for Attorney General to replace Holder. But two wrongs don't make a right.
 
They need to stop enabling those mooching elderly, they are as bad as veterans at demanding this kind of socialist disincentive to work.
 
Puppycow, like Travis, I think you've been taken in by a satirical "news" website.
 
I have to agree that there isn't a sufficient reason to block the bill. First, it only applies to the community health centers mentioned above. Second, it doesn't seem that this bill would actually expand the Hyde Amendment. The community health centers are existing programs and from what I can tell the only thing this bill would do is extend funding for two years (along with $120M in new funding). The Hyde Amendment seems to be the status quo.

I don't have a problem with Harry Reid blocking bills on merit but this one does't seem to merit blocking. If he does block it, it seems that he might doing it be to make sure the GOP Congress doesn't get anything done presumably because he thinks it will hurt them in the election. If so, he would be the Democrats' Mitch McConnell.

It is also interesting that Boehner decided to work with Nancy Pelosi on this. I'm guessing because he needs her votes. Has he finally realized that if he wants to get anything done that the best way to do so is to tell the teabaggers to go screw thememselves and work with Democrats? If so, good on him.

Did I just take John Boehner's side over Harry Reid's, lol.
 
Last edited:
ponderingturtle said:
They need to stop enabling those mooching elderly, they are as bad as veterans at demanding this kind of socialist disincentive to work.
Click to expand...

I don't know the exact stats, but a good portion of elderly have bigger incomes than many of the taxed people paying for their SS and Medicare.

They would be, rightly, pissed off having paid maximum into the system their whole lives, being told they'll get max out, then being ripped off...when it's time for those benefits.

See, it was born back in a time when poor were lazy good-fer-nuthin's, before memes evolved attempting to make you feel bad for feeling that, so they needed this promise of future benefits for all, especially you, paying the lion's share.
 
Beerina said:
I don't know the exact stats, but a good portion of elderly have bigger incomes than many of the taxed people paying for their SS and Medicare.

They would be, rightly, pissed off having paid maximum into the system their whole lives, being told they'll get max out, then being ripped off...when it's time for those benefits.

See, it was born back in a time when poor were lazy good-fer-nuthin's, before memes evolved attempting to make you feel bad for feeling that, so they needed this promise of future benefits for all, especially you, paying the lion's share.
Click to expand...

So what are the stats about this?
 
Why is the GOP putting anti-abortion language into a Medicare bill in the first place? Most Medicare recipients are not in a position where abortion is an issue one way or the other.
 
Random said:
Why is the GOP putting anti-abortion language into a Medicare bill in the first place? Most Medicare recipients are not in a position where abortion is an issue one way or the other.
Click to expand...

It is their job to put anti abortion language into all bills?
 
Strange definition of "reform". Looks to me it further entrenches the Balkanization of US health care, separate programs for every conceivable demographic each with their own bureaucracies promulgating thousands of pages of rules and procedures, often overlapping and conflicting with each other, that health care providers will have to navigate.

No one is interested in real reform, it will remain the most expensive health care system on the planet and continue to yield mediocre results at best.
 
WildCat said:
Strange definition of "reform". Looks to me it further entrenches the Balkanization of US health care, separate programs for every conceivable demographic each with their own bureaucracies promulgating thousands of pages of rules and procedures, often overlapping and conflicting with each other, that health care providers will have to navigate.

No one is interested in real reform, it will remain the most expensive health care system on the planet and continue to yield mediocre results at best.
Click to expand...

Of course. No one has enough money to effectively lobby for a less expensive healthcare system, when you compare to how much money those who profit from the existing system have to pay for legislation it is clear what is in the best interests of politicians. They have expensive campaigns to run and with out medical superpac money how are they expected to be able to win?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom