More Evidence of GOP-Style “Bipartisanship”
They now say health care reform must pass with a super-super majority in order to be truly bipartisan — a standard they never set for themselves during the Bush years, as David Wiegel tells us:
Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-Iowa) and Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.), the key Republican players in the Senate’s health care tussle, are telling reporters that a health care bill that fails to get 75 to 80 votes will, in Enzi’s words, “fail because the American people will have no confidence in it.”
By that standard, what else do the American people have no confidence in? Well, Chief Justice John Roberts only got 78 votes for confirmation, so it’s not clear whether or not President George W. Bush should have nominated him. The 2003 ban on “partial-birth abortion” only got 64 votes. The 2001 Bush tax cut only got 58 votes, and the 2003 Bush tax cut only got 50 votes, with Vice President Dick Cheney casting the tiebreaker; surely, Enzi or Grassley will work on repealing all of this, because such partisan legislation has no right being passed by the Senate.
opinions powered by SendLove.to
74 Responses to “More Evidence of GOP-Style “Bipartisanship””
People having complex lives is not an excuse not to compare plans (or the costs of procedures) on something as important as their healthcare.
Having said that, the for-profit insurance companies are in business to create a return to their shareholders. They are not in business as a charity merely acting as a conduit of money from the policy holders to the healthcare providers. The insurance companies have a vast bureaucracy in place to ensure that they don't pay a single penny more than necessary for a procedure. I don't understand why more people don't realize that the insurance companies look after themselves and their shareholders before their policyholders.
As far as a national database…. What if there is a discrepancy between a doctor's stated cost for a procedure and what he actually bills? What if there is a difference between what the insurance will cover on the website and what they actually cover (or the cost)? I can bet you that you will be the one to pay. Either through losing the fight with the insurance company (or doctor) because it was an honest mistake on their part or by spending a lot of time fighting with them until they understand their mistake and then correct it (at their own pace). The more money involved, the longer it will take to resolve.
Dr J
Put the thread in context. Grassly et al came out today to say “real bipartisanship” requires 75 to 80 votes in the Senate. Maybe you should define “cynicism” instead.
You know well as anybody the ploy has nothing to do with reform and everything to do with blocking it.
A suggestion for the on-going discussion, if I may (which, by the way, is unfolding quite nicely here). In trying to see the forest for the trees, perhaps overall questions should be answered before details are meshed out. That said, is there agreement on whether or not each and every American citizens should be eligible for some sort of basic health coverage? In addition, what is your idea of basic health coverage, so that the answer can be taken in context?
Hemm, yes, I'm shocked–shocked!–to hear that politicians in the senate are engaging in political maneuvering.
You've surely witnessed enough of these conversations to know how productive they are.
<span style=”color:blue”>These Republicans are playing politics!</span>
<span style=”color:red”>Oh yeah, well Democrats do even worse!</span>
<span style=”color:blue”>Oh no they don't!</span>
<span style=”color:red”>Oh yes they do!</span>
And so on. It's pretty thin stuff.
Polimom,
“You may be right that the two positions can't find compromise”
I disagree, the positions can find several areas of compromise, but can the politicians? thats the question. The problem is twofold.
First on the democratic side, the liberals of the party want the whole cake, they feel they won the election and should be able to do what they want. The problem is the American people didn't just vote to approve a democratic agenda, some who voted for democrats really support that very little, what they wanted was the policies of George Bush ended. This is not the same thing as a mandate to the liberal wing of the democratic party to do what they want.
Second on the GOP side. They are emphasizing opposition to Obamacare which is unpiopular. They see the President's approval ratings going down and are taking advantage, and with some justification given the partisan way the stimulas was rushed through with democrats predicting “Armageddon” if nothing was done. However, justified this is, they should still make more time to present a positive note and promote their own plans more, its not like they don't have thought out and detailed items to present. Focusing just on opposition to Obamacare was proably needed initially, but its come to the point now that the public option is a dead horse, for the GOP to bring their ideas forth and encourage debate and compromise. Paul Ryan is already doing this, but John Boener and Mitch McConnel as party leaders in Congress and Micheal Steele need to get on board as well.
Probably no one's plan is perfect for everyone's point of view, but enough items are workable from enough peoples that some reform is possible. This whole pie does not have to be eaten at one sitting. Work on one slice at a time, take a break and let it digest then tackle another.
Dr J is living in a fantasy world where Congressional Republicans want to help create a good health care bill. What Republicans want is to destroy Obama and the Democratic party. That's why they are making sh*t up about “death panels” and the like.
Shard,
” That said, is there agreement on whether or not each and every American citizens should be eligible for some sort of basic health coverage? In addition, what is your idea of basic health coverage, so that the answer can be taken in context?”
I'm ok with basic health coverage (catastrophic events, standard illness and accidents, a yearly physical, full dental, etc. (no stumped toes, cosmetic surgery (except due to accidents/birth defects) drug abuse therapy, injuries incurred while breaking the law, etc.) to any US citizen who is contributing to the society or willing to do so. By contributing I mean paying taxes and I also include anyone who has ever served in the armed forces and been honorably discharged. By willing to contribute, I mean those 18 or older (exemption for students enrolled in colleges until graduation) who if not meeting the contributing criteria will sign up for being willing to work in public service in exchange for coverage. These folk will be evaluated and called on if needed up to a limit and paid minimum wage while called up. If they fail to report without medical reasons if called upon, then they will be dropped.from coverage and have to petition for reinstatement. Most of these folks will likely never be called upon, but they should be willing to contribute to a government that will provide for them when they are currently being a burden.
And Chris is living in a fantasy world where I said something positive about Republicans.
Polimom and others,
I really do think the differences are deep and ideological. All the two sides can agree on is that they want Americans to be healthy. Well, great. The different positions reflect fundamentally different ideas about the role of government in the economy. It may be, as a matter of politics, that Republicans can go along with the Democratic vision (or vice versa). But there is little to encourage Republicans to walk across the aisle when Democrats themselves cannot come together. The fact of the matter is: Republicans have never liked Medicare or Medicaid. They've never liked Social Security. And they sure as heck are not going to like another expansion of the Federal government in healthcare. Though I'm a staunch Democrat I don't begrudge the Republicans for taking this position. What concerns me are the conservadems who don't seem to be arguing for any coherent position. If they have a real compromise then fine. But the only one we've seen – co-ops – is neither substantively useful (nobody seems to know how they would work) nor politically helpful (the GOP just sees them as another government health option).
Until the conservadems in the Senate show their cards and tell us if they would support a GOP filibuster of a bill with the public option, this whole debate is meaningless.
Ummm the democratic majority id filibuster proof.
“I really do think the differences are deep and ideological. All the two sides can agree on is that they want Americans to be healthy. Well, great.”
My point exactly, Elrod. If more people would acknowledge even that much, the debate would get much easier. Instead, look how much ink is being spilled trying to prove the opposite. Democrats want Death Panels! Republicans want to Screw the Poor to make Themselves Even Richer!
The difference in visions of the role of government isn't about ideology, it's ultimately a disagreement about numbers. Those can actually be resolved, if reasonable people invest the effort to work them through.
Does anyone here have a problem with my statement above:
“If your not willing to do what you can to contribute to society, society should have no interest in promoting your well being.”
Just curious to see how folks here stand on this.
Define “contribute”.
How would you treat a child of poor parents born with Down Syndrome?
StockBoy
” As far as a national database…. What if there is a discrepancy between a doctor's stated cost for a procedure and what he actually bills? What if there is a difference between what the insurance will cover on the website and what they actually cover (or the cost)?”
They should be held legally responsible to honor what they have entered on the database. It should be clearly written in law in such a way. If they screw up, they screw up. The data entry should perhaps include a double entry just like email confirmation for many things on the internet to help prevent honest mistakes.
Don Q
” Define “contribute”.
I did in the previous post where I first said the term. I also defined willing to contribute.
Leonidas, I would agree with this sentiment. I would even go one step further, in stating that I would be willing to pay more taxes if my lifestyle choices required a government-funded health care option to have to pay more for correcting those choices.
Leonidas,
I see, the starship trooper model…
“I really do think the differences are deep and ideological. All the two sides can agree on is that they want Americans to be healthy. Well, great.”
I'm not even sure the politicians on both sides agree on that much. At some point don't you have to look at the actions of Republican politicians and see that they are only prolonging pain and suffering for many Americans?
Every day we continue our current broken system, more and more people are denied coverage, or financially destroyed because the insurance companies aren't actually insuring anything. And yes, some people are dying because of it.
“The difference in visions of the role of government isn't about ideology, it's ultimately a disagreement about numbers. Those can actually be resolved, if reasonable people invest the effort to work them through.”
This sounds more like a description of the argument between Blue Dog Democrats and the more liberal members of their party.
Republicans, at least when out of power, deem that government has no role in domestic affairs, lower taxes, dismantle the safety net, etc. That's a matter of ideology, even if it's not principled.
“Republicans, at least when out of power, deem that government has no role in domestic affairs, lower taxes, dismantle the safety net, etc. That's a matter of ideology, even if it's not principled.”
Then you don't understand what they're actually saying. If you could get to the point where you could summarize their views in a way they would agree with, you might see them differently.
chris, how are the Republicans prolonging anything right now? If the Dems care so much about all those uninsured people and don't want more days to go by without those people getting covered, they could have formulated a plan that was acceptable to most in their own party and passed it, and had it on Obama's desk for signature before the Aug recess began.
CStanley,
By not doing anything since 2000. By pretending there is some kind of compromise they will accept (see Grassley and Enzi's in the original post).
But believe me, if the Democrats don't get anything passed by the end of the year, it will be entirely the Democrats fault.
Dr J,
Republicans are saying that the Democrats are trying to socialize all of health care, that they are going to destroy Medicare, that they are going to set up Death Panels and that they are going to cover illegal immigrants. Republicans, clearly, aren't making an honest argument for compromise.
That doesn't mean there aren't honest conservative and libertarian plans for health reform, but they aren't being pushed by the Republican party in a meaningful way. Which is too bad, because there are good market based plans that we could take ideas from that would make the bill better. But as I've said, good policy is not something the Republican party is concerned about.
But believe me, if the Democrats don't get anything passed by the end of the year, it will be entirely the Democrats fault.
Well, that's a bit more honest. Have you heard the criticism from the left, also, though, that the current House plan wouldn't really start increasing coverage for anyone until 2013? If I understood these critics correctly, the plan is so complex that it will take that long before the public option is really available- and others are saying that this delay might have been by design so that the costs aren't felt until after the next presidential election. I'm just wondering (if these claims are factual), will you also agree that that doesn't speak well of the Democrats having more real concern for the people affected than the GOP does?
The GOP certainly didn't do enough, but it's not true to say they did nothing. HSAs were created and there was a drive to keep expanding on that model and simultaneously making it feasible for the working poor to afford them through tax credits (to the individual and to employers to match funds.) I don't think they went far enough, but considering that the GOP base hasn't had any interest in the issue at all, I think it's commendable that some were trying to start addressing the problem.
CStanley,
It's the lesser of two evils argument I guess. If you're right, Democrats want to increase coverage (but are delaying it for political coverage or lobbying reasons) and the Republicans don't care. That certainly points to “more real concern” even if it's not as much as they should have.
Chris,
” By not doing anything since 2000. “
Ummm… who signed the Medicare drug benefit program? And more indirectly, what about the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005?
also what about the
Patients First Act of 2003
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=s…
guess which Party blocked it?