One of the truisms of life in DC is that whenever one party controls the presidency, the House, and the Senate, it is virtually certain that the last of those three institutions will be the toughest nut to crack in terms of actually getting anything done. Between the filibuster, a variety of other arcane procedural rules, the clubby atmosphere of the chamber, and the six-year term making Senators less concerned about the year-to-year swings of their constituents, the Senate is inherently slower and more resistant to change.
That well-known fact to political insiders has congealed into a hardened nugget of conventional wisdom about the health care fight, which is that there is no way a strong health care reform package, including a public option, can make it out of that body. However, if you really look at reality, at what we actually know, that piece of conventional wisdom is mythology.
The Baucus mark-up only adds to this conventional wisdom, of course. But keep in mind that Senate Finance is almost without question the most conservative committee in either house of Congress right now. Its chair, Max Baucus, is in the top five Democrats in terms of conservatism, and has been historically very close to big business and the ranking Republican on the committee (Grassley). He was happy to cut the deal with Grassley in 2001, against the wishes of the vast majority of the Democratic caucus, for the massive Bush tax cut for the rich that was the main cause of our massive federal deficit over the last few years. Other key committee Democrats like Conrad and Bingaman, of the Gang of Six fame, aren't exactly liberally stalwarts either.
But in a soon-to-be-60-Democrats chamber (when Kennedy is replaced), the most conservative committee does not determine things for the rest of the Senate.
Let's look at the actual facts in terms of passing a bill acceptable to most Democrats:
These are the facts about the Senate, facts which apparently are not being considered by every pundit and every public official who says the votes aren't there for a public option. The conventional wisdom -- fed in no small part by well-connected insurance industry lobbyists who spend every day running around Washington telling every reporter and political insider they know that "the votes for a public option aren't there" -- is simply false.
One of the reasons so many House and movement progressives are a little peeved about all the unnamed administration sources and the signals that the White House is backing off on this issue is that it is apparent that the Senate can be won on this issue with just a little bit of elbow grease and arm-twisting. It won't be easy, but getting this bill passed is within reach, if the White House and Harry Reid fight for it. The clubby nature of the Senate might have to be shaken up, the bipartisan comity might have to be given up, and insurance industry lobbyists/contributors might have to be angered. But passing a strong, comprehensive bill, with a public option, through the Senate is eminently doable.
Big I. took a jet to Montana
And bot him a Senator there
And when he was thru
Away Big I. flew
With Good old Max B in his pocket
Arriving in DC forth-with
Big I. tossed poor Max on the Floor
He said, "Listen, Max,
I want you to wax
And polish that Bill how I like it."
Old Max, he got right down to work
His duty to Big I. in mind
He lined up his team
According to scheme
And the 1.5 mil in his pocket
Now children let's all pay attention
And see how a Bill it is made
By Senators bot
And Senators got
And the Corporate Cash in their pockets.
--jayraye
Some of these Little Napoleons seem to be way too independent. . Landrieu, in particular , had better shape up. It wouldn't take too much of a push to topple her in a primary.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/story/29988909/sick_and_wrong
What we need is to ADD an amendment to the constitution! YES, add one that says: If you can vote, have voted, or will be eligible to actually vote (better known as a human being)then you are eligible to donate to a political campaign or a PAC and this comes with monetary limits. Business, lobbying groups, and PACs with the EXCEPTION of the DNC, RNC and their house and senate groups should not be able to give one Penny to a political campaign. The exceptions just mentioned are also not allowed to take non-human being's money. This will solve the problem of getting past the Senate. Our constitution reads government FOR THE PEOPLE AND BY THE PEOPLE not for and by corporations/business and their lobbying groups and PACS.
Notice that Tommy Douglas was selected "Greatest Canadian of All Time" in 2004 for being the "Father" of their system.
Does that tell you anything?
It would be interesting to see what they would produce if they actually had to face the people they allow to fall into the abyss. They are just '20% of the package'. Just percentages. Those they relegate to financial ruin and no health care are or will soon be 'the poor'. The poor are not a political factor. No sweat. Keep playing to those who are still viable.
I personally think we need to see some of that "Chicago style politics" the repugs were afraid of.
But the trick is that the second bill, though, is where the money’s at, whereupon it’s at that point that “the CBO boom” can be brought down, because that’s the only place where you can bring “the cost curve down”. Of course it will be seen (by the process of elimination) that the public option is the best way to do that. (He’ll probably include “Olympia Snowe’s trigger” to show his continued “bipartisanness”, but the public option was never going to be immediate anyway). Also, when the American people feel the immediate positive affects of that first bill, they will be so impressed that that will only provide added pressure to get that second bill passed because of “the trust factor”. When it does inevitably pass (and I’m thinking that, by then, it may not have needed “reconciliation” due to the “coattails effect”) Obama will be seen as the chess genius that he is and all us liberals will feel doubly ashamed for all the doubts we had expressed about his methods. IT’S ALL ABOUT RESULTS, PEOPLE! He will, of course, demonstrate more of a campaign style with this speech and will be more assuringly be incredibly detailed, because after all, these will be HIS proposals and then we will feel all great and enthusiastic about that. But this must be seen as a victory of Pragmatism over Ideology (the Left’s or the Right’s). The results of this speech, I predict, will set the tone for his administration!
I have a prediction of what President Obama will declare on Wednesday night’s speech. He will split his proposal for the healthcare reform plan into two. One portion would be the first one up for the regular Senate vote and contain the non-controversial package of “health insurance reform” that is already contained in 80-90% of the proposals by the House and the Senate. The more controversial stuff, including the public option and the “universality question”, would be in a second bill and that would be up for a reconciliation vote in the Senate at a later date. The President would re-emphasize his strong preference for the public option (and detail HIS version of it) but would ask that the majority Democrats in the House to vote along with those in the Senate (including ALL the moderate D’s and some Republicans, if they have any sense) for passage of that first bill. They won’t be able to refuse because they know it’s what the majority of the American people want and it’s not in the House Democrats’ interest to sabotage that bill just because the public option’s not in it- I mean, they still can fight for the second bill (and also their President gets to look good by coming through on his promise and that can only help the Party in 2010). (The Republicans will no doubt feel victorious that they got the public option kicked to curb with its passage!). But....
The Mormon church is very conservative--is he answering to their suggestions or that of his Party?
There is a real conflict there.
Never ever ever give up!!! Folks, do not forget the marches on September 13th!!!
If not now, when? If not us, who?
Kennedy was one of our greatest champions of health care reform. He carried the torch for a long time...and now it is up to us to continue to carry it!
Our elected officials in Congress receive health care mostly paid for by us tax payers, yet many are trying to make it impossible for us to purchase an affordable plan of our own :
While many of us are struggling to afford medical insurance/medical bills.
While Congress people try to stop healthcare reform.
While Congress people accept large contributions from lobbyists to prevent health care reform.
Please sign these petitions - and by all means, spread the word! Thank you!
http://www.petitiononline.com/PubOp676/petition.html
http://www.democrats.com/honor-ted-kennedy?cid=ZGVtczQ0MTA5OGRlbXM=
http://salsa.wiredforchange.com/o/5649/t/4922/content.jsp?content_KEY=2763&tag=hk1_typ-e1
Green Cross Health Insurance of Stateasota tells its customers that they will pay 80% of hospital expenses, leaving only 20% paid by the customer.
The CEO of Green Cross then calls the Chief Administrator of Capital City Hospital and hells him, "Cut your bills to us by 25% or we will make your hospital 'out of network' and you will lose millions of dollars worth of business per year."
The Chief Administrator is forced to agree, and then raises all prices to make up that loss.
Then, whenever a bill comes in to Green Cross from Capital City Hospital, the Green Cross accountants tear into every item and argue every item and renegotiate whatever they can: "$6 for an aspirin? We're not paying that!" Then CCH reduces the costs on some or most of the excessive charges.
Now a particular hospital stay now costs GC about 30-50% less than the original bill.
Green Cross can then tell the customer that the customer now has to pay 20% OF THE ORIGINAL BILL. This means that instead of the promised 80%, GC would then only be liable for 30-50%.
(This is assuming that they don't arbitrarily decide to disallow parts outright.)
My Suggestion: an amendment to the current Health Care Bill that would require Health Insurance corporations to guarantee that percentage co-pays are a percentage of negotiated costs, not a percentage of the original inflated bill. (Actually, I hope that it's already in there.)
good idea