Obama has been told that disputes over abortion and the tight schedule are highly likely to delay a final deal, a blow to the president, who had hoped to trumpet a health care victory in his big speech to the nation. But he has also been told that House Democratic leaders seem inclined, at least for now, to largely accept the compromise worked out in the Senate, virtually ensuring he will eventually get a deal. – Politico
Wait a minute. The House comes back Jan. 12, then goes on some retreat, with the Senate back Jan. 18. So, if House leaders are “inclined” to give a nod to the Senate bill, why can’t Obama delay the SOTU until the first of February and announce it then?
If what Politico reports is correct, that health care legislation could be delayed until February, after the State of the Union, this is simply managerial incompetence. If they’re so inept to not be able to push this bill through before Obama’s SOTU, then who knows what could happen. Someone’s playing with fire here, because nobody is going to let up on this one and the Christmas mood will not last.
Not having health care legislation, after all this holiday drama, to trumpet at the SOTU would be leadership malpractice.
Rep. Slaughter speaks out to say no to the Senate bill.
Supporters of the weak Senate bill say “just pass it — any bill is better than no bill.”
I strongly disagree — a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.
It’s time that we draw the line on this weak bill and ask the Senate to go back to the drawing board. The American people deserve at least that.
But get this, according to Greg Sargent, she nor Democratic Representatives Barbara Lee and Lynn Woolsey, who say a public option “must” be added to the bill in conference, will say they won’t vote for the bill without it. Seriously, you just can’t make this stuff up. What good is a demand if you want pull the trigger?
Incompetence is an understatement. This is madness. But it may get us our Public Option.
Just gives the Left (the real Left) another 6 weeks to hammer Obama’s poll numbers down some more. Peace
Interesting:
“But the important thing, when you look at the Senate and the House bill, is not the huge differences; it’s actually the remarkable similarities. Ninety-five percent of the House bill and the Senate bill are in accord. And there are going to be some tough negotiations around the 5 percent. What we know is that under either the Senate or the House bill, there is going to be an exchange set up so that people who right now can’t get insurance in the private market can go in and get a good deal.
We know that subsidies to small businesses, so that they have a greater incentive to provide health insurance to their employees, that is going to be in the bill. The things that ensure that not only 30 million people get health insurance, but also that you have the insurance reforms for people who have health insurance and don’t have the protection they think they’re buying right now, we know those things are going to be in the bill.
And we also know that under either scenario, as I indicated at the beginning of this process, it’s going to be deficit-neutral. And, remarkably, I think to much — to the surprise of many cynics in Washington — so far, at least, we have actually observed that line in the sand that I drew.”
oy vay! i was talking to some dems today and they say carter was better than this. carter. oabma- for and against anything you may or may not want at any given time.
One more (in case you missed it):
“First of all, I think it is very important to keep in mind that the insurance companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars opposing the bill. And although I know NPR doesn’t have advertising, if you turn the dial on your radio and you listen right now, there will be an insurance company ad somewhere trying to kill this bill. The notion that, somehow, this is something that the insurance companies welcome is just nonsense. There are a couple of critical protections that we feel very confident are going to push costs down.
No. 1: the structure of this exchange. Essentially, again, going back to the model that Congress uses and federal workers use, the reason that Congress has pretty good rates — they get a pretty good deal — is they’re part of a huge pool of millions of federal workers and every insurance company out there wants that business. And so they’ve got to compete and they’ve got to keep costs relatively low and quality relatively high in order to get that business.
Now, if you or I just go to the private marketplace, we’ve got no leverage and we don’t get as good of a deal. The idea here is, we’re essentially setting up an ability for everybody in the nation to pool together and buy through this exchange. That’s going to drive prices down. If insurance companies try to engage in obnoxious practices, they’re not going to be able to compete. That’s point No 1.
Point No. 2: We’ve got a provision in the bill that talks about medical loss ratios. That’s a fancy term for basically saying that insurance companies, we’re going to look to see how much of the average premium is going into actually providing medical care and how much is going to profits and overhead. And by keeping the profits and overhead low, we can make sure that, in fact, prices are kept down. So I think there are a lot of provisions in here that protect against insurance company abuses. That’s why they have spent a lot of money and a lot of lobbyist person-power to try to oppose it.”
A possible response to the above “for and against anything you may or may not want at any given time” ? __
“Well, you know, I have to say that if you had told me at the beginning of this year that at the end of a grueling process in which the opposition, I think, has been more politically driven and ideologically driven than substantive that I’d still have a bill, potentially, for me to sign that provides 30 million people coverage, provides enormous protections to families who are getting hammered right now when it comes to the fine print of insurance forms, that is deficit-neutral, that is geared towards reducing costs over the long term, that has huge increases in prevention and wellness, sets up additional community health clinics across the country for people who have trouble accessing medicine, I’d say we did really well.
And that is, I think, what’s going to happen.
This morning during Fox’s ‘News’ banter they asked this supposed (overweight male) ‘expert’ to pinpoint the “worst” thing he found in the Health Bill. Nearly fell off my chair when he actually answered, “They’re going to build a 100 million dollar hospital!” (Louisiana? Arkansas? Can’t remember now).
Um. That’s “bad”?
That’s the “worst” thing you found?
Well, Ramsgate, right now all we’ve got is people promising to do something about putting competition in the bill. That doesn’t get it done, as you know. Yep, Imhotep, the incoming is going to keep on coming.
texan4hillary says:
23 December 2009 at 10:33
There are a lot of very disappointed Dems today, even in the middle of this historic moment. Which it is, remember, no matter how you feel about the bill.
Traditional media would have eaten Senate Dems alive if they’d failed to pass this bill. But the news being reported about Feb. is really disturbing. With Republicans crowing loudly, something that would have hard to take.
pmichael, that’s *not* the worst, obviously. The Nebraska deal; no drug importation; the big Phrma deals; keeping the insurance monopoly… But the *worst* being that they’ve postponed the goodies down the line so the cost is deferred & isn’t noticed until later, well, it’s a lot to fix.
But looking at what Rep. did, which is nothing, I’d be ashamed to be among them today. We need health care reform… even though this bill is far away from that there are things in it that are good, just not nearly enough of them, especially considering the horrible: MANDATES, without competition. Unconscionable.