We have a bad bill = You people can’t be governed
I don’t know what part of this post about “Ungovernable America” is more laughable — the pro wrestling-esque notion that Republicans should know their role and just try to tidy up Harry Reid’s ridiculously bad health-care pseudo-bill around the edges, or the notion that the Republicans are the ones holding up a bill when there are enough Democrats and near-Democrats in the Senate to overcome any filibuster.
But let’s talk about each part.
The Senate is designed to be the more deliberative chamber of the Congress, where the passions raised in the larger and typically rowdier House can cool and the facts and ramifications of a particular piece of legislation examined fully. Frankly, any bill that can’t get the approval of 60 senators to even be put to a vote is a bill that deserves very careful consideration. Has this effective super-majority requirement been abused in more recent years, especially with regard to judicial nominations? Yep — but let’s not forget that Democrats have been every bit as interested in using that leverage when they have been the minority party. This is neither a recent institutional change nor an exclusively Republican practice.
But, but, but — this is all very theoretical when we are talking about a minority party keeping a bill from a vote, because Republicans don’t have enough senators to do this on their own. The left has twisted this fact as far as it can be twisted, but the fact remains that their own caucus won’t go along with their plans. It does not matter what Republicans think about the bill, except to the degree that a couple of Republican senators may be more liberal than a handful of Democratic senators. But even these liberal — or moderate, or however you want to brand them — GOP senators won’t go along with Harry Reid, and it doesn’t appear to have anything to do with sheer partisanship.
And why would Harry Reid’s ever-morphing plans get the approval of 60 percent of the senators when they have the disapproval of nearly 60 percent of the country?
There is nothing magic about passing a health-care bill before year’s end, except as it pertains to Democrats’ re-election chances.
Start. Over. Now.
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
46 comments Add your comment
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2009
11:50 am
Chris Broe: The plethora of links in the first paragraph are just for you…
Seriously, I put links only so that people don’t have to ask for my sources. But I admit that the vast right-wing Web conspiracy is more fun.
Road Scholar
December 14th, 2009
12:13 pm
‘why would Harry Reid’s ever-morphing plans get the approval of 60 percent of the senators when they have the disapproval of nearly 60 percent of the country?’
Because most people do not understand what the problems are and how they are interelated. Let’s talk the economy. How many people on both sides of the bloggersphere issues understand the issues, other than their pocketbook? How many have economics degrees or post graduate degrees? How many know the details contained in federal law? State law?
Yes, we wish we can waive a wand to make it better. Yes we’re asking our alledged leaders in the House and Senate to find solutions, while they take donations from the same industries they are trying to legislate.
But the mass following of a doctrine because a party says you should is even more stupid. This applies to both parties.
Joan
December 14th, 2009
12:13 pm
I guess talking about a health care bill is a lot more fun than actually throwing yourself on the sword for Reid/Pelosi/Obama’s ambitions–particularly when common sense tells you that the people who vote for this debacle will be torched in the next election.
Jess
December 14th, 2009
12:46 pm
If congress had stuck to the mission of fixing the things wrong with health care in the US, namely access and affordability, there would be an approved bill by now. Most conservatives I know expected health care to be a top agenda item, and were prepared for some changes.
What they were not prepared for was a total reform of the health care system in the US. When 60% to 70% of the people in the country are happy with their health care arrangement, total reform is going to be a hard sell.
Jake
December 14th, 2009
2:02 pm
The bill is just the latest example of how far away from Government of, by and for the people we’ve gotten. It’s laughable that O had the guts to quote that in a recent speech. All we have is a huge patronage system where votes are bought and sold, and the majority part takes the opportunity to reward as many of their constituents as possible. So we have the UAW as a major owner of GM, instead of making GM economically viable by releasing it from those ridiculous union contracts in bankruptcy court. Now we’re going to add about 35 million Americans to the health insurance rolls without doing anything about tort reform. Will ambulance chasers (totally Dem constituents) revenues go up or down with 35 million more insurance policies in place? We need term limits and a balanced budget amendment and we needed them about 30 years ago!
David Axelfraud
December 14th, 2009
2:15 pm
I smell regime change in the house and senate next November. Mmmmmmmmmmmmm mmmmmmm mmmmmmmmmm
Chris Broe
December 14th, 2009
2:34 pm
Never start a sentence with a troll.
Ever.
Hillbilly Deluxe
December 14th, 2009
2:43 pm
I find party politics disgusting. Can’t they ever spend as much time trying to do the right thing as they do trying to get one over on the other side?
Swami Dave
December 14th, 2009
2:48 pm
Not that it ever was, but Reid’s recent actions are further evidence that this attempt to legislate, confiscate, and redistribute has little to do with addressing issues with the current system.
For nearly a month, Reid and his Senate Democratic cabal have been declaring “compromises”, “watersheds”, and “movements-to-consensus” on multiple occasions when no such truly exists.
In the end, it allows Reid and Democrats to blame their political opponents for their own inability to construct legislation that can even gain their own caucus’ support.
-Swami Dave
Robert Littel
December 14th, 2009
3:05 pm
As long as the insurance and pharmaceutical companies own the Republican Party in total and a good portion of the Democratic Party, the the only system that can guarantee reform, by getting those two industries out of the colossal con they have been running on the American people, is the One-Payer-System. Any so called reform, that leaves even the smallest part of health care in the hands of these thieving industries will never cover everyone in a cost effective and efficient way. The power of these two industries has been focused, not only on seeing to it that the One-Payer-System never gets put on the table, but to limiting any effort to achieve any kind of reform that will serve the interests of the people, rather than those of the stockholders who contribute NOTHING to providing health care.
What is coming out of the convoluted sham of debate on the problem, will be a gift to those two industries and we, individuals and the government, are going to pay through the nose to keep funneling our nation’s wealth to the top 4000 or so, who already control 1/2 of all the wealth in the country. If the doctrinaire wealthy elites continue to use the ignorance and fear of the lower classes to enrich themselves, especially by using the sanctioned, bean-counter premeditated murder by slide-rule that is the current health care system, they are going to push the country to a resolution much like occurred in France in 1789, and for the same reasons.
Kyle Wingfield
December 14th, 2009
3:17 pm
So you’re saying, Mr. Littel, that you wouldn’t leave “even the smallest part of health care” in the hands of the pharmaceutical companies? So, no medicine?
BS Aplenty
December 14th, 2009
3:48 pm
It’s easy to rant and rail at healthcare-related companies be they pharmaceutical or other. Easy, not because they create necessary pharmaceuticals out of thin air, but because they subsequently make profits from their sale.
I’m just thankful that a scientist has taken his talent and is using it to better lives. If I don’t want the drug, I won’t buy it. But without those creative minds in the pharmaceutical industry developing new drugs and new drug therapies, there is little hope for many people. None. And a lifetime of misery for others.
I don’t completely defend the U.S. healthcare system as it is currently constituted. There are certainly structural problems in the system that can and should be addressed. Like allowing individuals to purchase insurance from ANY sound insurer in the country. Like forcing individuals to purchase insurance but making the employer deduct and forward the monthly/quarterly payment. These changes enhance competitiveness and empower individuals rather than corporations.
There are rarely perfect economic solutions to healthcare or wealth-distribution or supporting the needy. But we have politicians who think they should rectify every inequity in a system by changing the entire system and that’s where they go wrong.
Let the market take the lead and let Medicaid and SCHIP-like programs support the less fortunate. But don’t throw out the baby with the bath water.
Robert Littel
December 14th, 2009
4:11 pm
Kyle – I’m saying that a drug that costs $4.00 to produce should not cost $200. when it is spit out at the pharmacy end of the process. The pharmaceutical companies are raking us over the coals and the fact that the same drug you buy here can be purchased in Canada for much less, is all the proof we need that they cannot be trusted. When they spend millions of dollars advertising prescription drugs to people who are told to go beg their doctors to let them have it, for maladies that sound almost made-up, it is easy to see that not only do they want to maintain this extortionary price structure, but they mean to get every man, woman and child in this country taking one or more of their drugs for the rest of their lives. All of this is done, while millions are excluded from receiving drugs they need to stay alive because we have no health care system that will supply them without bringing the pharmaceutical industry to task over their issue with self serving, out and out, murderous policy of greed.
BS Aplenty
December 14th, 2009
4:17 pm
I know of no off-patent drug, other than cocaine, that is produced for $4.00/dose and is sold for $200.00. Could you give more detail on the specific drug or circumstance?
Swami Dave
December 14th, 2009
4:32 pm
Robert:
If you wish to invest your own money and your own time toward the goal of starting a pharmaceutical company that produces whatever medicines that you decide should be developed and sell them to the public at whatever margin, then that is your free right. If, in doing so, you choose to sell the prescriptions at cost, or below cost, or under some “needs-based / from-those-who-can-providing-to-those-who-cant” model, then that too would be you exercising your rights.
Likewise, if you wish to use your own resources and time to build an insurance company that operates by whatever motive you deem worthy or if you wish to open a medical practice governed by your philosophy, then by all means, fill that vacant space that you highlight.
However, if you have done none of the above and have neither the motivation nor skillset that would be required to do it, then your opinions of what those who have already done it ring pretty hollow.
Those who can’t seem to have any number of opinions and perspectives about how those who can (and do) should carry out their actions. It is a pretty insulting self-righteous attitude to assume that you know better what levels of reward or benefits someone else should enjoy when they are doing something you would not do yourself. It is also an equally self-righteous attitude for liberals (collectivists) who deem themselves qualified to dictate how much of our earnings should be confiscated to fund socialist obligations that they deem worthy.
Feel free to send any amount of money that you deem appropriate to fund whatever level of coverage / health care that you wish to provide to whomever under whatever governance you choose. However, confiscations, obligations, and redistributions are either slavery (for services demanded) or theft (for payments covered) or both!
-Swami Dave
Liberals do legislation what muggers do with guns.
hatin' on the stupid
December 14th, 2009
4:42 pm
What about the Research 2000 poll out today showing one third of dems not voting in 2010 if dems in congress dump the public option. In other words, they lose the enthusiasm of their voting base. How does that square with those crowing here that passing this bill will cost them votes? And, Kyle, only one poll out of all those you sited was at 60%. Are you sharing information for debate or shaping the debate by selective reporting? The non-partisan Research 2000 poll, comissioned by liberal groups, also differs markedly in other data on health care reform from those you site. Results here: http://act.boldprogressives.org/cms/sign/natpollresults
Lastly, how does a year of hyperbole and outright lies from repubs and the right-wing media, skew people’s informed opinions about health care reform? The game seems to be: drag this out as long as possible and the lies will eventually become part of the public dialog, tarnishing an honest attempt at reform as well as those attempting it.
Jess
December 14th, 2009
4:51 pm
Robert Littel,
If there is a problem, as you say, with drug companies, this is not a good reason to do a complete overhaul of the US health care system. Fix the problems and leave the good parts of the system alone. I too think their profits are a little high, but I also see the market beginning to take care of this somewhat with Wal-Mart and grocery stores using their buying power to sell many drugs dirt cheap. If congress would allow other groups to form buying consortiums, the market would deal with the entire problem very effectively. Same goes for small business consortiums to by health insurance, and the ability of individuals or companies to buy insurance across state lines.
Jess
December 14th, 2009
4:55 pm
John McCain asked Dick Durben, a senate leader on health care reform why he thought people should commit to a program which they have not seen, and which no one knows the cost. Sen. Durben responded he had not seen it either.
The process has been totally unprofessional, and the credibility of congress on the issue is shot.
Linda
December 14th, 2009
4:57 pm
To Reid’s credit, at least he’s not in the House. Dem representatives are motivated (scared of) in this order:
Pelosi, the Black Caucus (as applicable), Obama, the liberal agenda, lobbyists, the Democratic Party, re-election, their conscience, Washington traffic, their constituents, God (if by some remote chance they think He exists) & the health care of the American people.
hatin' on the stupid
December 14th, 2009
5:00 pm
I think the credibility and professionalism of the rubber-stamp congress under Bush was much, much worse.
Jess
December 14th, 2009
5:02 pm
This entire process reminds me of a blog someone wrote months ago…..”the Democrats attacking health care reform reminds me of a Hunter entering the woods with a case of dynamite and a lighted flare”.
Robert Littel
December 14th, 2009
5:29 pm
The free market does not provide health care, it provides a product that is sold at the highest price the market will allow and to hell with anyone who cannot pay. This is not a product that should be subject to this type of disbursement, because it is a necessity that is not only needed by every individual, but needed to provide a healthy workforce to insure productivity in areas where the free market does work best. The greatest drag on business is providing health care in a complicated system that allows too many to siphon off their cut, while providing no service, and these added costs make our industrial products not competitive with those produced in countries where the government provides care, or no one provides it at all.
Rockerbabe
December 14th, 2009
6:11 pm
The repugs have never met a bill or a program that benefited the common person that they couldn’t bad mouth or run into the ground. This current healthcare overhaul is just another chapter in the repugs plan to destroy this country and its average citizens.
The private medical insurance industry is sucking this country and its people dry. We pay more and more each year and get less and less. Fewer and fewer citizens or the companies they work for can afford private medical insurance, hence the growing class of uninsured. Do the repugs care – HELL NO! I don’t think they will act on anything unless 50% of the population is uninsured, then even then, their distain for the average citizen is brasen and craven. They only serve one master and that is for-profit! Right to life – take a number and stand in line. Dealth penalty – oh yeah!
Wingfield’s ascertain that cost will increase is correct; cost have been going up and up yearly for the last 25 years! Benefits have declined; I know, I work in the healthcare industry. There is not a concern about policyholder; only a demand for more money.
We need to pass the medical insurance reform bill now; fix it later. Better yet, scrap the private medical insurance industry and have Medicare for all by 2020! I would take it anyday over the BCBS crap I pay for now!
Recovering Demoholic
December 14th, 2009
6:42 pm
Kill this unsalvageable bill (all and any Senate and House versions).
Stepwise, implement something as described by John Mackey from Whole Foods, beginning with cutting costs and waste.
Here it is:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204251404574342170072865070.html
StJ
December 14th, 2009
6:43 pm
Again, this “health care reform” is not about health care, or reform…it’s just another step on the road to liberofacsism, Communism, Socialism, whatever you want to label it. Many of the postings here illustrate the point (”take their businesses away”, “take their money away”, et al).
Hitler did the same thing to the Jews…then he sent them to the concentration camps after he was done confiscating their wealth. I suppose we should be sending the business owners to concentration camps next…how dare they make a profit.
Gordon
December 14th, 2009
7:20 pm
Robert,
You make good points, but the problem is that our choices seem to be 1) do nothing, or 2) swallow this crap sandwich of a bill. Don’t you think government could stick to its (at least at one time) traditional role of regulating, and leave the actual delivery of health care in the private sector? Make no mistake, the goal is universal health care, where politicians will make direct decisions on health care. Insurance companies, hospitals, and other health care providers can be regulated a lot easier than politicians. Besides, if you haven’t noticed, even if this was a good idea, our government is bankrupt. Regulations can curb the excesses of the insurance industry, like dropping coverage or raising premiums based on claim experience. Most of the problems can be solved without another huge government beauracracy.
Gordon
December 14th, 2009
7:22 pm
Rockerbabe @6:11: How are you going to pay for it? Medicare already has unfunded liabilities in the tens of trillions of dollars. Details, details.
Rush
December 14th, 2009
7:40 pm
Regardless of what I rant about, don’t listen. Anyone with an ounce of compassion and heart knows that deep down all citizens of the USA NEED healthcare now.
Robert Littel
December 14th, 2009
8:12 pm
Gordon – When both of our political parties are owned by corporate interests, the likelihood that we could ever get a meaningful health care system that actually puts the patients first, as long as corporate interests have their hands shoving wads of cash into the pockets of those elected to government, is pretty much nil. There is just too much money involved and too many people eager to get a bit of it while the bulk is passed to the top. The people who rail against “The Guv’ment” above, in favor of those looting the wealth of the country, fail to realize that the corporatists they are arguing in favor of, own the government and for all intents and purposes, are the evil government. The establishing of the One-Payer health plan would, in fact, be a reassertion of government of, by and for the people, not the destruction of freedom so touted by dolts who have swallowed the hack writings of Ayn Rand and filtered through corporate shills like Limbaugh, Beck and Fox (fake,faux, fraudulent…….) News. We have an autocracy of wannabe John Galts who are making the government they contol, the fall guy to cover their looting of the economy and self-righteous minions defending them while themselves being robbed. We have been bought cheaply and they mean to continue their ownership of us, if we allow it.
F. Sinkwich
December 14th, 2009
8:18 pm
Gordon, don’t you know?
THE MAN will pay for healthcare for “Rush” and all those other losers out there. Ol’ “Rush” and others like him made bad choices in their lives, but now they want those who worked hard, played by the rules, and actually contributed to society to make up for their loser choices.
Face the truth, “Rush.” You’re a loser. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can get better.
God bless you.
You’re welcome.
F. Sinkwich
December 14th, 2009
8:21 pm
Mr. Littel, you too.
Repeat, rinse, repeat: “I’m a loser and need help, I’m a loser and need help, etc.”
Thanks for your time.
Skip
December 14th, 2009
8:27 pm
So a year goes by and everyone gets to yell and complain. Nothing changes but the people think they had their say. And the boys in congress laugh all the way to the bank. Some things never change.
FBowman
December 15th, 2009
1:38 am
The reason drugs are cheaper in Canada is because Americans are subsidising Canadians health care. Pharmaceutical companies want the business in Canada but are regulated by what they can charge to Canadians. So, they raise the price here. If Canadians were not straped with Universal Health Care the prices would come down here and go up there. Fair & Balanced
CaliforniaDreaming
December 15th, 2009
2:11 am
What part of “You Are Not Entitled To Anything” don’t you understand.
Chris
December 15th, 2009
8:49 am
Robert Littel…Unfortunately your posts show you know nothing about economics nor costs of doing business. Drugs company’s routinely spend over 1 billion dollars in research and trial testings LONG before they ever see ONE penny of return of investment, if ever. Many drugs never make it to market after all the expenses incurred… These losses then must be factored into the costs of successful drugs that do make it to the market. So you claiming a company’s cost for a drug is $4 is not only laughable, but completely ignorant
Chris
December 15th, 2009
8:53 am
Robert Littel…Had to comment on your definition of “Free Markets”. So because healthcare is something you believe to be necessary you feel, no profit should be made? I guess that means you feel grocery stores should not make money on food? Nor construction make money on the building of homes or apartments?
Blow the Ballasts
December 15th, 2009
9:07 am
Hear! Hear! Swami Dave.
I, for one, am sick of those, who sit around and do NOTHING but bellyache. There is no invisible glue that binds the productive to the chronically non-productive.
PoliticalMan
December 15th, 2009
9:43 am
For all of those who find that free markets allocate goods and services for the best, why not eliminate insurance companies from the health care system totally. They are completely unnecessary and actually stand in the way of buyers and sellers of health products, be it goods or services. Make the selling so-called health insurance illegal. Now let’s see how the free market works. Of course, don’t let the fact that the requirements of free markets are largely missing, that is, complete info, alternatives, ability to walk away, etc, concern you.
Robert Littel
December 15th, 2009
10:53 am
If you examine the rationale behind insurance to begin with, you will find that it is based on something called shared risk. It is collective in nature, with many paying for a product they never use and whose resources are used to pay for others who are not so fortunate. The only difference between insurance and a governmental program of shared risk is that it is structured to look like a market function by allowing a small group to profit from the process while providing no product at all. The profit is the justification for non-inclusion of 47 million, whose inability to pay extortionary rates somehow validates the myth that insurance is not socialist in its conception, and due to manipulation, just a convenient way to funnel wealth to the top. This creates a situation that can only be called socialism for the rich, and free-enterprise for the rest of us. It is thievery at the best, and government sanctioned bean-counter driven premeditated murder at the worst.
Health care, unlike other products we consume, cannot be done without, or substituted for something else the way beans and rice can be substituted for steak in the diet, or a bus-pass can be substituted for an automobile. It is so vital, that to be denied access means death in many cases and, as a supposedly advanced society, we should make every effort to see to it that our population is as healthy as all the money poured into health care says we should be. Paying the most and getting the least (in the developed world) is not a resounding pat on the back for our contrived Capitalist ideal, it is just an excuse for heartless greed.
Allen
December 16th, 2009
12:17 pm
I agree that Yglesias chose his words poorly here, but your article obscures his main idea: our system seems unable to address objectively big problems like health care, the deficit, climate change, with correspondingly big legislation.
Yglesias is on record decrying the filibuster and structural problems with governance in 2005. Perhaps you should consider granting Matt the benefit of the doubt. “You people can’t be governed” is different than “ungovernable” is different than Matt’s more involved argument. See how people argue over-vociferously in the effort to make a point?
Kyle Wingfield
December 16th, 2009
12:38 pm
Allen: I understand what he’s saying. But the problem here is not the system. This is exactly the kind of system we need to have for the objectively big problems, because it ensures that there is some degree of objectivity — that is, more than mere partisanship or even ideology — in solving these problems. Like I said, if you can’t get 60 percent of the Senate to agree even to allow a vote on a bill, there is something wrong with the bill. Not the system.
I understand that these requirements frustrate those who would like to see things move more quickly. But by and large Americans have benefited from having a cautious and slow approach to big changes. And I think we continue to do so, precisely because so many of the big changes are as ill-considered as this bill is.
Allen
December 17th, 2009
12:54 am
Kyle, I do feel like there are many institutional safeguards in effect (bicameral legislature, presidential veto, judiciary), not to mention the difficulty inherent in building consensus around large-scale reforms.
Our modern congress has witnessed more cloture votes in one year than there were in the ’60s and ’70s combined. The de facto 60 vote standard discourages substantive debate, encourages obstruction, and flows power to other, less accountable/representative bodies (the Fed, EPA, courts). I don’t want make serious governance mostly the province of elusive “supermajorities.”
“Filibuster reform” (not revocation) could encourage parties to work together. Compromise is the essence of statesmanship, and until Congress becomes marginally more flexible and supple, we will continue to see both parties devising suboptimal solutions to our countries most persistent problems…or avoiding the issues entirely. Many thanks, Kyle.
MH Brown
December 20th, 2009
11:46 am
Robert Littel, whoever you are, is running rings around all of you who try to debate him. I’m reminded of that collage of video on YouTube where a single, lone economist was expressing the danger and assured collapse of the economy to the ridicule of blowhard, know-nothings like Neil Cavuto. Mr. Littel, I salute you and your valiant attempt to deliver the “straight dope” about what plagues this country–not just limited to health care, mind you. Like the Lorax in the Dr. Suess book, however, I doubt anyone will listen. People today do not look for truth, they only hear what they want to believe already. For me, I feel a community–which is what a country or even a planet is–gets what it deserves as a collective. As with housing values or health care, a lone cautionary voice of truth has no chance against institutionalized ignorance. I do, however, admire your attempt at the impossible.
Congrats Robert Littel
December 24th, 2009
10:24 pm
A second salute for Mr. Littel!
Jesse
February 26th, 2010
8:40 pm
if the demcrats realy want to fix the world i got alot of info to help fix it they need to fund ssi unemployment n publicaid but they also need to fund the police staions and they also need to do better on their research they need to think small instead of big i may nt have a ged or a high school daploma but i can garrentee u my iq is high i had an iq test done at 13 n they wanted to give me my daploma and any degree of my choice i turned it down if they want people to get jobs they need to at least give people a chance some people can change some cant they also need to put a stop to citys and towns wateing money on building stuff that realy isnt needed n start to build stuff needed and funding stuff thats realy needed nt stuff that isnt now im nt putting down the demacrats im just giveing advice on what i have seen wrong in life and i want to help better it some people cant work even if they went back to shcool cuase their bodys cant walk or stand n their health is in bad shape because of the family jeans their is alot that can be inharated thro blood of family memebers and liveing cost is hard to keep up on because amerian cilco and american water wanna keep putin u behind in debt with their company cuase they tell u one thing to do to get cuaght up and then u do it and they say a different story n threaten to take u to court for sumthing that isnt ur fault then some landlords who dont fix anything in the place you are renting who want you to pay for the supplies for them to fix it and then tell you the day they baord up your apartment you either pay your rent to day or you will be eveicted and have to move out in three days if you want anymore advice plz email me and i will be happy to email you back
Jesse
February 26th, 2010
8:45 pm
they also have to fund the research for finding cures for all the dasseies that we have today