What just happened in health care … and what’s next
Politico has a nice piece dissecting who lied, who exaggerated, etc. Its conclusion?
Obama exaggerated. Boehner lied. Reid was incorrect. Ryan is wrong.
An army of partisan fact checkers bombarded the media through seven hours of the health care summit with such deep thoughts — replete with cherry-picked data — confirming the adage that there’s lies, damn lies and statistics.
Some of the jabs were dead on, but some were merely meant to back up partisan talking points. Still, there were plenty of factually challenged statements
The AP’s Alan Fram lays out the history — and future — of reconciliation, the course that Democrats seem increasingly likely to pursue. He writes”
“History shows that with the tables turned, Republicans have embraced the process. Of the 22 reconciliation bills Congress has sent a president since the procedure was first used in 1980, 16 were approved by a Republican-controlled Senate, including for President George W. Bush’s big 2001 tax cut.”
The Center for Public Integrity documents the army of lobbyists recruited to fight the health-insurance reform war in Washington. “… more than 1,750 companies and organizations hired about 4,525 lobbyists — eight for each member of Congress — to influence health reform bills in 2009,” it found.
“Among industries, 207 hospitals lined up to lobby, followed by 105 insurance companies and 85 manufacturing companies. Trade, advocacy, and professional organizations trumped them all with 745 registered groups that lobbied on health reform bills, illustrating the common Washington strategy of special interests banding together to pool money and increase their influence.
Among the most visible organizations in the halls of Congress, AARP deployed 56 in-house lobbyists and two from outside firms to work the issue on behalf of its members. The pro-business U.S. Chamber of Commerce deployed 47 lobbyists, all but eight from outside firms. The corporate titans who direct the Business Roundtable deployed 40, five from outside firms, and the American Medical Association had 33, 11 from outside firms. The data also revealed that the roster of groups trying to mold legislation went far beyond corporate and health care interests to include such unlikely entities as Americans for the Arts, and the International Association of Amusement Parks and Attractions.”
The Wall Street Journal editorial board complains that the session was all just prelude to the already planned use of reconciliation:
“In the end, after all the bipartisan cooing, the President’s 20-minute closing argument explained where the debate really is. Democrats won the election and they are going to do what they want to do, starting next week and on a partisan vote if they can shanghai enough members.
The point of yesterday’s session was to give a soothing, moderate political gloss to a government health-care takeover that will raise costs, greatly expand the entitlement state, and reduce choice and competition—the opposite of everything Mr. Obama claims.”
And the New York Times editorial board reached a similar conclusion about the inevitability of reconciliation, if not about the bill itself:
Here is a basic fact: If the House Democrats voted tomorrow to approve the Senate bill, health care reform would become the law of the land.
The president and Speaker Nancy Pelosi should push the House to accept the fundamentally sound Senate bill. If they still cannot garner enough votes from their own caucus, they should alter the Senate bill slightly with parallel legislation that could be passed with budget reconciliation.
Mr. Obama needs to keep explaining to Americans that this health care reform is critical — to give them security, to hold down costs and ease the strain on federal budgets. His main challenge, and his best chance, for passing it is to get his own party in line.
Tell us what you think about the site
Customer Care »
Vacation stops, manage subscriptions and more
AJC Services
Sections
Other Editions
Visitor Agreement | Privacy Statement
© 2013 The Atlanta Journal-Constitution
272 comments Add your comment
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 26th, 2010
11:26 am
mm
**Pathetic how the wingnuts think they came out on top yesterday. Typical. They never can admit wen they get their @sses kicked.**
If arrogance wins, then the Republicans lost. if presenting good ideas and keeping their heads while Obozo gritted his teeth in anger wins, then the democrats lost
Big mistake by the dems doing that. And Obozo’s dig at McCain, pointing out that the election is over was about as classy as Jeremiah Wright.
A lot of Americans saw the side of Obama that Sean Hannity had warned us about two years ago.
Matilda
February 26th, 2010
11:26 am
“Won’t it be nice to know that even if you lose your job you can still get insurance despite a pre-existing condition?”
Also, wouldn’t it be nice if more people were able to quit corporate jobs they HATE (raise your hand!) to pursue their true passions and utilize their real skills in an entreprenureal way? I always hear that small businesses create jobs and need more consideration and lower taxes — from both sides. But the policies of protecing the status quo favor big businesses, not small, and not individuals who want to embrace the spirit of freedom and “making it on your own.”
Being beholden to a giant corporation because of a pre-existing condition (for you or a dependent) is NOT in keeping with the kind of REAL freedom we need to have thriving personal capitalism in this country again! If anyone in your family has ever been sick, you’d be risking not only your start-up capital, you could be risking their lives when they can’t get another policy. It’s our individuality and inventiveness that made this country great to begin with — things that are now repressed under modern corporate rule. HELP US GET FREE OF “THE MAN”!!!
Lord Help Us
February 26th, 2010
11:31 am
Normal, still can’t remember how to link, but cut and paste this in your browser and feel your testosterone level rise…
http://www.in.com/videos/watchvideo-james-bubba-stewart-motocross-supercross-video-3689852.html
Unfortunately, Bubba is hurt and won’t be in Atlanta Sat night, but Dungey, Villopoto, Hill and others look just as good…
Whacks Eloquent
February 26th, 2010
11:32 am
Troll, don’t speak for me!
Reconciliation in most of those 22 cases was used for budgetary issues, period. No problem with that by either party. I do not support either side attempting to use it for legislation. Byrd’s rules apply, unless they decide to try to revoke those.
getalife
February 26th, 2010
11:32 am
What is the “real accounting” report Cooper was talking about?
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 26th, 2010
11:32 am
JAy
Having all that open road and a Kaw, you are lucky to be alive. There is nothing like doing 120 and realizing that the throttle is barely open.
And now, with these crotch rockets, I wouldn’t last a week. My riding buddy still rides. he claims to have toped 200 on a bike. He was pretty crazy, so I don’t doubt it.
I came upon a really bad wreck where the cyclist was cut in half and the two women in the car were also killed. After that I started being careful and as you know, that almost got me killed so i sold my baby.
Whacks Eloquent
February 26th, 2010
11:35 am
Matilda @ 11:26
You bring up an EXCELLENT point…there should be a carryover from one provider to another on pre-existing conditions. I think some states mandate this, but I am not positive. So long as the insuree is not downgrading their plan and still assuming they will get the same coverage. This is one of the sensible ideas that needs to be part of a NEW plan!
Scooter
February 26th, 2010
11:37 am
Whacks Eloquent
February 26th, 2010
11:23 am
Too funny! lol
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 26th, 2010
11:37 am
Matilda
**wouldn’t it be nice if more people were able to quit corporate jobs they HATE (raise your hand!) to pursue their true passions and utilize their real skills in an entreprenureal way?**
There is no law to keep you from doing that Just figure it out. I have just started another business with a friend that was a corporate guy all his life.
Take the chance and dive in, but I have to tell you, it’s a Polar Bear Club right now. We probably won’t make a profit until summer.
The internet can be a huge help. Start a small internet business while you are still working. I make a few hundred a month off a couple of businesses that I haven’t touched in years. If I really worked them, they would probably support me.
jefferson
February 26th, 2010
11:38 am
If the debate is not in good faith, why debate? (Mr. NO)
Tank
February 26th, 2010
11:38 am
From CNN; “Student protest becomes riot.”
Student protests over budget cuts erupts into a riot. Is this the bastion of the 1960’s liberal movement? Job loss, disenfranchised citizens, cuts in goods and services. This is the tip of the iceberg. Just wait, it’s going to get nasty.
Forget health care. How about finding some way to stimulate real, sustained job growth in the commercial sector? Without growing the size of government (sorry if this offends teachers, infrastructure construction workers and emergency responders).
Paul
February 26th, 2010
11:38 am
Piggyback onto Jay’s 11:04
With all the talk about reconciliation, what it can and can’t accomplish, it would be useful to consider the opinion of one who is recognized by many as one of the Senate’s constitutional scholars:
”
Sen. Byrd calls proposed Democratic changes to filibuster rules ‘misguided’
By Michael O’Brien – 02/24/10 01:34 PM ET
Sen. Robert Byrd warned Democratic colleagues against changing filibuster rules in order to advance their legislative priorities.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.Va.) warned Democratic colleagues Wednesday against changing filibuster rules in order to advance their legislative priorities.
In a “Dear Colleague” letter dated Tuesday, Byrd, the longest-serving member of the Senate, said that the Senate’s rules on ending debate shouldn’t be changed, but he encouraged forcing senators to actually sustain debate in a real, live filibuster.
“I am sympathetic to frustrations about the Senate’s rules, but those frustrations are nothing new,” Byrd wrote. “However, I believe that efforts to change or reinterpret the rules in order to facilitate expeditious action by a simple majority, while popular, are grossly misguided.”
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/83437-byrd-calls-changes-to-filibuster-rules-misguided
The letter Sen Byrd sent to his colleagues is here:
http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/documents/2009/04/byrd-i-support-the-byrd-rule.php?page=1
Lord Help Us
February 26th, 2010
11:39 am
Normal, sorry, I am pumped for Sat night! Here is another:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yV6n4qdS_2g
Now, put the street bike away and go have some REAL fun!
Paul
February 26th, 2010
11:40 am
BTW – the justifications of “Pres Bush did it with his tax cuts…”
[[The Congressional Research Service (CRS) published “The Budget Reconciliation Process: The Senate’s ‘Byrd Rule’” in March 2008; the CRS paper makes clear that the 2001 & 2003 Bush tax bills were exempt from the Byrd Rule because they included sunset provisions that kept the bills within budgetary bounds–they expired within the budget reconciliation time window. ]]
md
February 26th, 2010
11:40 am
Speaking of motorcycles reminds me of how absurd gov’t can be – some states do not require helemts to ride motorcycles yet have laws for helemts to ride bicycles.
Go figure.
M Percy
February 26th, 2010
11:42 am
“No REAL economist agrees with that statement. If you can point to an unbiased source, I will retract and apologize.”
I don’t need to be an economist to lookup the Federal revenues, and compute year-over-year revenue growth. It is a fact that the revenue grew year-over-year. Look up the numbers and do the math yourself, like I did.
Since more money was coming in than ever before, if spending had not increased *even faster* then the cuts would have had no effect–because the revenues would have been sufficient.
Now, I might need to be an economist to calculate whether the revenues would have been even greater had the cuts not been enacted, and then demonstrate that had the hypothetical revenues been larger that the ever increasing spending would not have resulted in deficits. And if that’s the game you want to play, fine, but I’ll stick with the common-sense notion that we don’t have a revenue problem, we have a spending problem.
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 26th, 2010
11:43 am
Lord Help US
That is nuts.
Lord Help Us
February 26th, 2010
11:45 am
Have Mercy Miss Percy…
But to quote the great Ricky Bobby, ‘that idea ain’t worth a velvet paintin of a whale and a dolphin gettin it on…’
If it’s that cut and dry, why can’t you find ONE unbiased economist that agrees with you?
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
11:45 am
Jay
February 26th, 2010
11:21 am
“No More…”, it ain’t that easy.
If we did what you suggest, lots of people would cancel their insurance, then buy it only after they were diagnosed with something and needed somebody to pay their bills.
That’s pretzel logic, Jay. What woulod prevent the same people from doing the same thing under Federal control?
People aren’t goint to cancel quality coverage at a good price; we, as Ameicans, have been conditioned to think that someone else should pay for our hospital and Dr. bills. This is one reason why premiums are so high now. Jane Doe goes to the emergency room to have a splinter removed.
The point is that if the President really wanted to use his bully-pulpit power, he could just direct all 50 insurance commissioners to do the same, and Voila! pre-existings are covered.
And it won’t cost a trillion dollars.
Lord Help Us
February 26th, 2010
11:46 am
Nuttin’, No it is wicked FUN!!!!!!! Been doin it all my life and I’m still walkin’.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
11:46 am
This might be a first, but I agree with LHU on this one. I used to ride a Suzuki 250 motocross bike and you just don’t get that kind of thrill from a street bike.
Lord Help Us
February 26th, 2010
11:48 am
Sorry RW, I was so taken about by you agreeing with me that I fainted and hit the button…
Scooter
February 26th, 2010
11:49 am
md
February 26th, 2010
11:40 am
The cyclists should have made a contribution to thier lawmakers like the motorbike riders did.
Jimmy Carter
February 26th, 2010
11:51 am
Matilda
February 26th, 2010
11:26 am
HELP US GET FREE OF “THE MAN”!!!
We’ll try to accomplish with the 2012 presidential election.
JackLeg
February 26th, 2010
11:51 am
Jenifer, According to you liberals Cuba has great healthcare, we are a free nation so feel free to move.
jefferson
February 26th, 2010
11:52 am
Paul, old Byrd should have been retired long ago, in this new age of no compromise, hard liner majority rule will be the new way to “stick it to the other side”. This is what it has come to. The Senate is no longer above “petty” politics. If they get voted out, that’s the way of the fickle public.
ken R
February 26th, 2010
11:53 am
Jay, why can’t Obama attack the waste right now? why wait until his bill gets passed?
60 minutes ( Steve Croft ) done an excellent piece on Medicare fraud, why won’t Obama show us that he can eliminate the fraud and show us some results? I just don’t get it, then again maybe I do.
Whacks Eloquent
February 26th, 2010
11:55 am
Gotta love Charlie Rangel getting the smackdown, but ironically not for tax evasion just improper sponsoring of a Caribbean trip!
D’oh!
Will Pelosi ask him to step down, like the GOP did with Tom DeLay? Don’t count on it…
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:00 pm
Did anybody know the renewal of the Patriot Act passed the House 315-97 last night? I guess all that bellyaching whenever it came up for renewal while Bush was President was just some of that political theater we were talking about yesterday.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:01 pm
Whacks
Wasn’t his fault. He’s not responsible for knowing what his staff does… let alone having the moral understanding to know if something’s wrong or not.
//sarc//
I find it neat, though, the way a gov’t employee making a hundred seventy grand a year (lower middle class, according to Democrats?) owns vacation homes and has four apartments in NYC and…
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:03 pm
Now, now Paul, those were rent controlled apartments.
Oh wait, isn’t have more than one of those a violation too?
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:03 pm
RW-(the original)
That vote’s gotta be wrong. That many Democrats passed a bill extending warrantless wiretaps and targeting people thought to be part of a terror group but acting as a ‘lone wolf’ and all that other stuff?
But… but…. that stuff is wrong! It’s a grab for fascist totalitarianism! It’s unconstitutional!!! Just having a Democratic president and Democratic Congressional majority doesn’t change anything!!!!!!!
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:04 pm
Actually, MPercy, the data show something quite different than what you claim. In fact, they contradict your claim directly. (See http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/budget/historicals/, Table 1.3)
In 2000, the year Bush was elected, federal revenue hit $2.31 trillion. In inflation-adjusted dollars, federal revenue didn’t reach that peak again until 2006, and even then it was barely ($2.32 trillion). In 2007, revenue again exceeded 2000 levels, but again only barely ($2.41 trillion). Those are the only two years since the Bush tax cuts that revenue exceeded 2000 revenue, and it took six years to do it.
A comparison with the Clinton years is instructive. In 1993, federal revenues were $1.51 trillion. The controversial Clinton tax increase that year produced steadily rising revenue every year thereafter, and contributed greatly to the four balanced budgets (1998, 1999, 2000, 2001) at the end of his presidency.
That’s what the numbers say.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:05 pm
RW-(the original)
Naw…. it’s FOUR violations. For starters.
Don’t know why the ethics panel has such a tough time with it.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:05 pm
I think the Bolgod is watching as I type and changing my words. I know I typed having, I just know it!!!
(IHB)
Whacks Eloquent
February 26th, 2010
12:06 pm
“Did anybody know the renewal of the Patriot Act passed the House 315-97 last night? I guess all that bellyaching whenever it came up for renewal while Bush was President was just some of that political theater we were talking about yesterday.”
Oh well, we all know it’s still Bush’s fault…
Doggone/GA
February 26th, 2010
12:10 pm
“Oh well, we all know it’s still Bush’s fault…”
Not anymore
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:11 pm
As to Rangel, I do not defend him and have written that he ought to step down as chairman. But on this particular count, I think justice is being served. They can’t prove he knew about the illegal sponsorship, but they did admonish him anyway, which within the range of congressional discipline is pretty serious.
The big violations have yet to be decided — I think we’ll see him going down, and deservedly so, on those counts.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:12 pm
Seriously, I think the Patriot Act extension (as well as those other national security actions) demonstrates the reality of having your hands on the controls, as opposed to sitting in the back seat giving advice.
Never get’em to admit it, which is why it’s fun to ping ‘em.
Jack
February 26th, 2010
12:14 pm
Nothing new here at the “summit”. The usual liberal dog & pony act.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:14 pm
An admonishment with no penalty. Now that’s some serious discipline there I tell ya. Those “big violations” may just earn him a strongly worded letter.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:15 pm
Jay
You’ve been consistent regarding Rep Rangel. His defense (my staff did it) struck me as a too-convenient shirking of responsibility. After 40 years’ service, witnessing all the changes and being involved in the legislation, to not even ask ‘who’s paying for this trip? What are the parameters?” strikes me as a conscious effort at plausible deniability.
Spkr Pelosi doesn’t strike me as all that different from Pres Bush in this regard – loyalty to friends above responsibility to citizens, loathe to release one of the team -
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:16 pm
Paul,
Actually the Senate did want to weaken the Patriot Act somewhat, but when they couldn’t they just passed an extension on a voice vote Wednesday. Maybe they should start working on these things before a deadline is staring them in the face.
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:17 pm
But RW, an admonishment goes on his permanent record!
And we all know how serious THAT is.
:>)
Whacks Eloquent
February 26th, 2010
12:17 pm
Paul,
“Spkr Pelosi doesn’t strike me as all that different from Pres Bush in this regard – loyalty to friends above responsibility to citizens, loathe to release one of the team -”
If only politicians would feel this kind of loyalty to the American people…
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:20 pm
More seriously, that record may actually have an impact. As they decide the other, more serious cases, they can use this admonishment to document that he’s a repeat offender on ethics. So stay tuned.
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:20 pm
I wish I could find my permanent record. I think it’s issued in volumes.
Matilda
February 26th, 2010
12:24 pm
Drain the Swamp (NIF) at 11:37,
Congratulations and good luck in your new endeavor! I hear you, but it’s not that simple. First, most cannot afford COBRA payments, and that expires anyway. Cost is prohibitive for many, and rates continue to rise here in Georgia, despite tort reform in 2005, and despite Oxendine’s claims of being on our side. (As IF!)
Second, many (including me) have been DENIED the sale of a policy, even a bare-bones, major medical — at any price, due to a “pre-existing condition.” So while I appreciate your “GO GIT ‘EM” fearlessness, your “JUST DO IT” response is overly simplistic, and fails to address the REAL reasons more people don’t.
Just because YOU don’t have a particular problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a real problem. I don’t have cancer, AIDS, or diabetes — that doesn’t mean it couldn’t happen to any of us. Get real.
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:27 pm
Wasn’t that your permanent record piled up on Eric Cantor’s desk yesterday, RW?
RW-(the original)
February 26th, 2010
12:30 pm
Jay B,
It may well have been and if they would just slap a cover sheet on it saying Health Care Reform Act of 2010 I bet Obama would sign it.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:31 pm
RW-(the original) you too, Jay
For the lunch hour – about 3 minutes, advance to 3:45, the exchange is timely, the 6:30 about making inquiries especially so –
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zLWVcEyfVyY&feature=related
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:31 pm
It would still have to go through reconciliation….
No More Progressives!
February 26th, 2010
12:31 pm
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:04 pm
Actually, MPercy, the data show something quite different than what you claim. In fact, they contradict your claim directly.
“White House Data” is an oxymoron, Jay.
Lies, damn lies & statistics.
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:34 pm
Those are standard OMB statistics, No More. Not even the most rabid partisans in Washington question their honesty.
Jay
February 26th, 2010
12:36 pm
And Paul, that’s a hilarious riff on the various newspaper audiences.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:37 pm
Make that 6:15, not 6:30
Drain The Swamp (NIF)
February 26th, 2010
12:37 pm
Matilda
We are having a bad time with insurance also. I am ten years older than my partner and our only worker is 23 and I am the only one that has been approved for Health Care from Humana. They have both ben denied because of pre-existtings. it’s a mess and needs to be fixed, but not like the congress is trying to do.
**Just because YOU don’t have a particular problem doesn’t mean it isn’t a real problem.**
We are having huge problems and I am watching my savings going away, but it’s just what it takes. This is a great idea and I’m sure it will work, but it just takes time and money.
The advantage of an internet business is that you don’t have to quit work until the business is making real money. I have a friend that sells Cocoa Mix over the internet. She bought a packaging machine and mixes up her cocoa in her second bedroom. She quit her job two years ago and works a few months a year mixing the stuff up and then just fills orders.
I’m not telling you that it is easy. It isn’t. But doing something hard that you love is a lot easier than doing something you hate every day. I hate that you hate your job. I hated mine many years ago when I finally quit and started the business that I just sold. I should have sold it three years ago, so I lost a lot of money, but that’s the way it works. Win a few, lose a few.
But be very careful looking for a business. Most are rip offs and if any want you to pay them money, move on. I would advise getting a good book on starting internet businesses but make sure they are current. I bought one years ago that was outdated and everything I tried had already been outlawed or policies of search engines had changed. I wasted about a year on that one.
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:39 pm
Jay
One of my favorites – (for the rest of you who may catch it, it’s just before the 3:45 mark and the Sun is a British tabloid known for a Page 3 model (topless) in every issue -
Johnny
February 26th, 2010
12:39 pm
At the end of the day, if most of the country is unemployed, and it looks to be heading that way, those in power will have to provide some sort of healthcare and services. If they don’t, and the masses get hungry & angry enough, those with the wealth and power won’t have that wealth and power very long and they and their families will be deceased. It has happened before, albeit under different circumstances, but not out of the realm of possibility. Just look at Cuba or Czar Nicholas of Russia.
kjdfg
February 26th, 2010
12:40 pm
jay – the obama plan uses repub ideas, not the house or senate plan
Dusty
February 26th, 2010
12:40 pm
Admonish, astonish and other robbish! I only have a few minutes here so I had to skip most of this lovely discussion. Nevertheless, I couldn’t miss Jay’s frequent commments in gray. He posts almost as many comments as Jenifer with some similarity.
. Anyway: NO TOTAL GOVERNMENT HEALTH POLICY. I like my doctor just like he is now, a wise man who needs no instruction from politicians.
And..let me add this note to RedNeck. He is pleased he isn’t married to “Sister Dusty”. Well, that makes two of us. Alleluia!
Paul
February 26th, 2010
12:47 pm
Dusty
For another time, perhaps, but I don’t see how the Democratic plan would in any way impact my relationship with my doctor, whom I’ve gone to for years.
In fact, I don’t see how it’d affect me much at all. But it may do much for people who may find out they have cancer and their insurance company wants to drop them because they didn’t disclose they had ‘high’ blood pressure… or the guy who got married and two years later his wife’s exhusband called and said “just thought you’d like to know, I’ve developed AIDs, sorry ’bout that” (happened to a guy I worked with) so he couldn’t get health insurance, or all those other problems we’ve discussed.
Yeah, wouldn’t affect me much. But it might to a lot of good for others less fortunate than I am.
SwedeAtlanta
February 26th, 2010
1:00 pm
I am disappointed this “summit” didn’t happen last Spring about the same time there were discussions with other industry players such as the pharmaceutical companies. I’m not sure the outcome would have been much different in terms of substance as it was clear from yesterday’s meeting that while there is general agreement on objectives there are clear differences in solutions.
If these were “normal” times when we weren’t facing unprecedented challenges in the economy, infrastructure, etc. I would be more patient in giving Congress a little more time to work on HCR. But I don’t think further discussion across the aisle is going to bring any change to well-entrenched positions. If the Democrats believe, as I do, that we need to address this issue this year, and they know they face certain filibuster in the Senate from Republicans, then drive this through in Reconciliation. Then move on to the other issues facing us.
The 2010 elections will certainly bring some changes in terms of Congress. The Republicans could take back control of the House and will narrow the margin in the Senate. If the new Congress isn’t happy with what was passed in 2010 through Reconciliation they can attempt legislative modification or repeal subject to a presidential veto and Congressional overrride.
We have spent enough time debating this issue and have many more pressing problems to address.
Dusty
February 26th, 2010
1:02 pm
Paul,
I’m just closing out as time is about gone. Sorry, but I don’t believe there are a large number of people who have been refused health insurance or have no access to health care. Maybe you know better. There are valid reasons for refusing insurance of any kind and usually other resources to be tried. It is hard for me to believe some hardtime health stories when the biggest and often best hospital in Atlanta is there for those who have the least. I think there are many such places.
If you don’t disclose facts on your application, you might not be considered a safe customer. (the BP incident).
Are you telling me people with AIDS cannot get health insurance? I wonder about that one as the USA is spending money all over the world to treat AIDS.
Anyway, I will check later as I value your opinion.
MLeake
February 26th, 2010
1:32 pm
Some of the pro-reconciliation arguments and thoughts put forward in this forum are so outrageous that I have to wonder if their posters are really in favor of the health care bill, or are actually against it and are sneakily providing ammo for those of us who are openly against it.
MLeake
February 26th, 2010
1:35 pm
This is not to say I’m opposed to the concept of health care reform, just that I’m opposed to a lot of what the administration is trying to do with it.
I tend to agree with Bill Frist: Before we can have meaningful health care reform, we need to have a more health-conscious public. Americans could do a lot to help themselves, by cutting back on the processed foods and increasing levels of exercise. Obesity and diabetes are major factors in rising health care costs in the US.
I’d like to see the government allow us to purchase insurance across state lines.
I’d like to see tort reform pass.
Unfortunately, it’s very unlikely the Democrats will allow any of those things to happen, as they involve individual responsibility, as well as the normal functions of a free market.
Then again, the Republicans haven’t been too effective in pursuing real change on those counts, either; they mostly just seem to offer lip service.
Think I may have to go Libertarian…
M Percy
February 26th, 2010
1:54 pm
Jay, I went to Table 1.3 there and found the following numbers for receipts:
2003 1,782.3
2004 1,880.1
2005 2,153.6
2006 2,406.9
2007 2,568.0
2008 2,524.0
2009 2,105.0
Doing the year-over-year numbers, I find
2004 5.5%
2005 14.5%
2006 11.8%
2007 6.7%
2008 -1.7%
That’s pretty much right on with the numbers I provided: Comparing year-over-year, we had revenue growth of 8.2% (’04), 14.6% (’05), 11.7% (’06), 6.7% (’07) before dipping by 1.7% in ‘08. Revenues exceeded $2T every year after the Bush tax cuts except for ‘04 ($1.88T) and in ‘06 & ‘07 exceeded $2.5T.
I will admit there is a small discrepancy in 2004 (8.2% vs 5.5%). I will have to reexamine my original source. I also had a typo, I should have said exceeded $2.5T in ‘07 and ‘08, not ‘06 and ‘07. Bu ti si true that in the years following the tax cuts (which is to say 2004 forward), revenues exceeded $2T every year but ‘04, which had exactly what I said ($1.88T).
On the spending side, your Table 1.3 provides those numbers too:
2003 2,159.9
2004 2,292.9
2005 2,472.0
2006 2,655.1
2007 2,728.7
2008 2,982.6
2009 3,517.7
The year-over-year calculations:
2004 6.2%
2005 7.8%
2006 7.4%
2007 2.8%
2008 9.3%
2009 17.9%
Also, pretty much in line with what I said: But it wasn’t enough, as Congress continued deficit spending. Year-over-year spending increases were 6.2%, 7.8%, 7.4% and 2.8% from ‘04-’07. Then the Democrats took over Congress and things really caught fire, as they spent 9.3% more in ‘08 and a whopping 34% more in ‘09.
Some discrepancy in ‘09 spending (17.9% vs 34%). Again, I will check my original sources for the one discrepancy. My other number there may have been an estimate.
But to say my numbers are wrong, then point to a table of numbers that produce (with some exceptions) identical results hardly supports your statement.
I never said anything about 2000 levels (which was pre dot-com bubble recession). Nor anything about Clinton-era receipts or spending. I only pointed out that year-over-year increases in spending exceeded year-over-year increases in revenue, and that the year-over-year revenue growth was pretty strong after the 2003 tax cuts. Which your own source reiterates.
The Nerve
February 26th, 2010
1:57 pm
Wow USinUK and Kamchak….thanks for the witty and thoughtful replies. I certainly apologize that I do not consider the current bill proposed by the party that represents the 51% majority of this country is a good and proper way for us to solve healthcare. I was simply using the same language your blog leader Jenifer likes to use. I also certainly apologize for sounding anything like Rush Limbaugh. And you are right. I concede all to the Democrat Party. Where and/or how do I begin to become as thoughtful, insightful and knowledgeable as you?
Oh and USinUK…Top Gear is one of the best shows on television. Saw that you mentioned that the other day. I like more of the episodes from the first couple of years better, but all of them are very entertaining.
TnGelding
February 26th, 2010
1:57 pm
Republicans don’t want reforms and don’t care how many of us are maimed or killed by incompetent practitioners. Democrats don’t have a clue as to the problems. I was disappointed Obama shrugged off the effects of lifestyle choices on our health. And nobody offered any solutions to stop the waste, fraud and abuse that was stated as 30%. If 5% of the beneficiaries are using 50% of the health care dollars in Medicare, then there is an easy solution to that: death with diignity. How many are there out there like Keith Olbermann’s father?
Williebkind
February 26th, 2010
2:02 pm
M Percy
February 26th, 2010
1:54 pm
Daggum Percy, you make my head hur!! Now you got Jay all tongue tied.
M Percy
February 26th, 2010
2:05 pm
Also Jay, your Table 1.3 actually helps confirm what I’m trying to say. Looking at the post-1993 Clinton tax increases:
Yr Rev. Spend.
1994 9.0% 3.7%
1995 7.4% 3.7%
1996 7.5% 2.9%
1997 8.7% 2.6%
1998 9.0% 3.2%
1999 6.1% 3.0%
2000 10.8% 5.1%
The reason Clinton and the Republican Congress reached surplus was because the spending growth was held below the revenue growth.
This was broken when Bush and the Republican Congress decided to spend like madmen, with spending growth outstripping the revenue growth, but even worse when Congress changed to Democrats.
Photty
February 26th, 2010
3:49 pm
Why is Tort reform out of bounds…McCain had some good comments. Throw out the special deals, and add in a simple tort-reform limitation on liability like in Texas, and we could have gotten a deal.
Opportunity lost.