Passing Health Care (Or Not...)

The Times delves into the bipartisan health care discussions occurring in the Senate:

Spontaneous or contrived, the shouting, shoving and other shenanigans at lawmakers’ town-hall-style meetings point to one probable outcome: the demise of bipartisan health care negotiations.

Those negotiations have proceeded tortuously all summer, with centrists on the Senate Finance Committee maneuvering around obstacles erected by the Democratic left, the Republican right and the White House. President Obama last week urged the committee members to keep going.

Yet the rowdy start of the August Congressional recess has galvanized activists on both ends of the ideological spectrum. That makes it tougher for negotiators to stake out a middle ground — especially in conservative locales that Democratic centrists call home.

But the Dems ought to be worried about a possible Republican filibuster:

A Democrats-only course poses its own challenges; some elements of health care legislation may not qualify for action under “reconciliation” procedures, which are intended only to reduce the deficit.

“The parliamentarian has told us if you try to write substantive legislation using reconciliation, you’ll be left with Swiss cheese,” said Mr. Conrad, who is also chairman of the Budget Committee. Moreover, he added, reconciliation would require stricter budgeting that would make it “almost impossible” to meet Democratic liberals’ goal of near-universal coverage.

We also get some faux-common sense from Chuck Schumer:

“The proof of the pudding in this is not going to be who votes for it, if you have Republicans or not,” said Mr. Schumer, who is heavily favored to win a third term in 2010. “It’s going to be when it passes and when it goes into effect: does it work?”

Well, it may "work" in the sense that a revived base allows the Democrats to preserve control of both houses in 2010 (this no doubt passes as a long-term perspective for Dem strategists).

But suppose the long term consequences of the bill are disastrous.  Just for example, what if one result is a drastic reduction in investment in new medical technologies (drugs, procedures, and so on) in response to likely "cost-cutting"?  Europe already "saves" a tremendous amount by free-riding off of US research and development; off of whom will the US free-ride?

Hey, that will only be a problem down the road, not in 2010!  If the baby-boomers don't get breakthrough Alzheimer's treatments, well, Chuck Schumer can just tell them to forget about it.

Comments

[Charlie (Colorado)]

Hey, that will only be a problem down the road, not in 2010! If the baby-boomers don't get breakthrough Alzheimer's treatments, well, Chuck Schumer can just tell them to forget about it.

Oh, my.

I hope you're proud of yourself.

[Porchlight]

Europe already "saves" a tremendous amount by free-riding off of US research and development; off of whom will the US free-ride?

And the same goes for defense spending, of course. Yet even so they are increasingly in the hole due to their massive entitlement burden.

Not to mention that an overly-encumbered US economy hurts the whole world.

We are insane to take this on.

[clarice]

Watching the clunkers and stimulus follow om--I suspect this wouldn't work from the get go.Now, the MSM might not be able to get detached from O's butt in time to report it,but except for ACORN and SEIU families, who's going to vote for the Dems when granny's on the phone crying because she can't get medical care and no one knows how to get it for her or mom calls from the emergency room with baby where she's been stuck a whole day trying to get a doctor?

[DebinNC]

"Reconciliation" and the Bryd Rule. Who is "the Presiding Officer" referred to in the closing paragraphs...Joe Biden? Will Biden be the one deciding if the final bill passes the Byrd rule test? If so, Conrad is blowing smoke. Biden will assiduously greenlight whatever monstrosity Pelosi produces in her conference committee.

[RichatUF]

Deb-

Pretty much. The Dems need 218 in the House and 50 in the Senate. They already have bills that have been passed in Committees in both chambers. If they wanted too they can pass healthcare in any form they want. Obama has the votes.

Although in a different context:

“Even if I want to take them away, I don’t have the votes in Congress,’’ he said. “This can’t be the reason not to vote for me. Can everyone hear me in the back? I see a couple of sportsmen back there. I’m not going to take away your guns.’’

Obama's got the votes now.

[jimmyk]

Obama's got the votes now.

Maybe, but I wonder whether the senate would be so, well, audacious as to blatantly misuse and abuse the reconciliation provisions to prevent a filibuster, especially if they know that a lot of people are really angry and opposed to this bill. Also, from Deb's link, the "appeal" of a decision by the Presiding Officer is not spelled out, so it's hard to know who has the final word here. Wiki claims that overruling an objection ("point of order") requires 60 votes, but I don't know where that comes from.

[clarice]

And this bodes poorly for cap and tax:

Here's what Gallup found: The number of Americans who say the media have exaggerated global warming jumped to a record 41 percent in 2009, up from 35 percent a year ago. The most marked increase came among political independents, whose ranks of doubters swelled from 33 percent to 44 percent. Republican doubters grew from 59 percent to 66 percent, while Democratic skeptics stayed at around 20 percent.

What's more, fewer Americans believe the effects of global warming have started to occur: 53 percent see signs of a hotter planet, down from 61 percent in 2008. Global warming placed last among eight environmental concerns Gallup asked respondents to rank, with water pollution landing the top spot.

Another recent Gallup study found that, for the first time in 25 years of polling, more Americans care about economic growth than the environment. Just 42 percent of people surveyed said the environment takes precedence over growth, while 51 percent asserted expansion carries more weight. That reverses results from 2008, when 49 percent of respondents said the environment was paramount and 42 percent said economic growth came first. In 1985, the poll's first year, 61 percent placed a bigger priority on the environment, while 28 percent ranked economic growth highest.

All those results indicate trends that pose big challenges for the environmental movement, Gallup's researchers concluded. More pointedly, the findings signal potential trouble for policies designed to curb global warming.

[Ralph L]

The problem is people won't notice that innovation hasn't occurred, and like Medicare and SS and Medicaid, the costs won't spiral out of control for a few years, until it's entrenched.

[purchase soma online]

I cannot consider anything right now, all I can say now is to see is to believe. It is hard to believe in those things we cannot see for our country.