Universal Healthcare

Remove all ads!

I think the fat lady is starting to sing.

Spoiler

WASHINGTON – Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that she lacks the votes to quickly move the Senate's sweeping health overhaul bill through the House, a potentially devastating blow to President Barack Obama's signature issue.

Pelosi, D-Calif., made the comment to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate's massive version of the legislation.

Her concession meant there was little hope for a White House-backed plan to quickly push the Senate-approved health bill through the House, followed by a separate measure making changes sought by House members, such as easing the Senate's tax on higher-cost health plans. Such an approach would be "problematic," she said, though Democrats haven't completely ruled out pursuing it.

"In its present form without any changes I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi said, adding, "I don't see the votes for it at this time."

Pelosi also signaled that advancing health legislation through Congress will likely be a lengthy process — despite Democrats' desire for a quick election-year pivot to address jobs and the economy, which polls show are the public's top concern.

"We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

Two days after the stunning special election in Massachusetts — where Republicans captured the Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward Kennedy — many House Democrats said one lesson was that the public wanted a more modest approach to overhauling the health care system. Several said Democrats should refocus the legislation onto popular proposals like barring insurance companies from denying coverage to sick people.

"The mega bills are dead," said Rep. Michael Arcuri, D-N.Y. "If we didn't see what happened Tuesday night, we have blinkers on."

Rep. Jose Serrano, D-N.Y., said that ideally, Democrats would like to address a whole range of problems, including giving more people coverage, helping them pay for it and curbing the growth of medical costs.

"We're obviously finding out we don't have an ideal world, so why not deal with that which we can get done," Serrano said.

By all accounts, Democrats have made no final decision on their options, which included breaking the health legislation into several smaller bills. But with Republican Scott Brown's Massachusetts victory denying Democrats the 60 Senate votes they need to kill Republican delaying tactics, Obama and others were talking about legislation that would attract broad support.

"I would advise that we try to move quickly to coalesce around those elements of the package that people agree on," Obama said Tuesday in an interview with ABC News.

"We know that we need insurance reform, that the health insurance companies are taking advantage of people. We know that we have to have some form of cost containment because if we don't then our budgets are going to blow up. And we know that small businesses are going to need help," he said.

In a bid for GOP support, participants suggested other elements that could be added. These included allowing insurance companies to sell policies across state lines, according to Rep. Timothy Walz, D-Minn.

Sen. John McCain rejected the idea of a slimmed-down version of the current legislation. "We are more than happy to sit down and start over," the Arizona Republican said Thursday on CBS' "Early Show." "Not scale back, but start over in a true negotiating process, rather than the Democrats going back to try to pick off one or two Republicans."

Nearly as shaken by the Massachusetts vote were health care provider groups that have supported the Democratic effort, such as drug makers, hospitals and doctors.

While few were making public statements, industry groups that stood to gain millions of newly insured customers were worried that such potential gains were in jeopardy, according to lobbyists speaking on condition of anonymity to describe confidential conversations.

Industry groups also were worried that without a health care bill, some of the savings several of them had agreed to contribute — such as lower Medicare reimbursements — might be used for separate congressional efforts this year to reduce the soaring deficit.

Underscoring their sense that the Massachusetts vote put them atop a political wave, Republicans were e-mailing fundraising solicitations on Wednesday to supporters.

"Democrats nationwide should be on notice: Voters are looking for checks-and-balances, and they are prepared to hold the party in power responsible for their reckless spending and out-of-touch agenda in Washington," wrote Sen. John Cornyn, R-Texas, who heads the Senate GOP's campaign arm.

___

Associated Press writers Ricardo Alonso-Zaldivar, Erica Werner and Ann Sanner contributed to this report

 

For this bill, yes, and it's about time. For health care reform in general, I don't think so, not nearly. I don't see this issue going away any time soon, and I don't think it should, but hopefully we can get a workable comprimise between both parties in both houses rather than the Senate Dem's nightmare bill.

 

While I would like to agree NOG, I think that's wishful thinking. Any health care reform bill is going to be seen as a Democratic initiative, and I think Republican Senators will block any attempt - there simply isn't a compromise to be reached when one side is unwilling. The smartest GOP plan at this point would be to delay any and all Democratic legislation - health care reform and otherwise - so that Dems have few accomplishments that they can run on in the fall of this year. The writing is already on the wall.

 

Yep, they will have a talk with the Republicans (who are just as beholden to them as the Dems), and you will see Republican defection towards "reform." The shell game is over and the cards are on the table. Snook, if you mean the lady with the "fat" corporate profits, you ain't seen nothing yet.

Will you to be commenting about the "need to save health care reform," Snook?

 

C'mon you know me better then that. I don't see how any "health care reform" is constitutional. This is a state's rights issue. MA has universal health care because the citizens of MA and their elected officials voted and approved it. Of course it is bankrupting us, and I suspect in a few years we will vote to cancel the entire thing.

Since day one, I've been waiting for someone to show me where in the constitituion the federal government has the authority to do any of the things they want to.

 

We may have covered this ground in the past, and I apologize for being a bit redundant, but Hamilton and Jefferson had this debate over the Constitution in the very first adminstration of government after the Constitution was framed. Thomas Jefferson lost that debate when President George Washington agreed with Hamiliton that the Constitution was essentially an insrtument of the public good, more so than just a simple blueprint for government.

Btw, both Washington and Hamilton were at the Convention and helped to frame the Constitution; Jefferson was not.

Here is a bit from the ruling by the Supreme Court on the creation of the National Bank:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Welfare_clause

 

Interesting. Hopefully, the Robert's court will not intrepret the general welfare clause the same way. Although, I have my doubts. Then again it hasn't been tested. I don't believe anyone has taken the government's takeover of the auto and banking industries to court.

 

Chandos, that does imply that the Federal Government is somewhere given the power to do this, even if not specifying the means by which to do it. Specifically, this ruling seems to say to me:
No, the Constitution doesn't expressly give them the right to make a bank, but it does imbue them with the power to oversee taxation and spending, and a bank was necessary and proper to do so. If the Constitution tells the Federal Government to do something, you have to let them do it how they want, provided that they do it in a reasonable way.

That still means the Government has to be exercising a legitimate power, and I think that's what's at question here.

 

The man who wrote the opinion, John Marshall, is Justice Robert's personal hero. There is a statue of Marshall at the Supreme Court that Roberts touches before a decision, kind of a ritual, or so I have heard.

NOG - I was responding to Snook's point that it did not have to be in the Constitution for the government to be able to craft policy, only that it did not act outside of those powers specifically not given to it by the Constitution. In other words, the Constitution doesn't say that the government can't do it.

Jefferson's point, like Snook's, is that the Constitution gave the government only specific powers that limited it and the National Bank was one of those, just as the powers of Assumption, that were not allowed because the Constitution itself did not allow for it.

But you are reading the specific part, relating to the formation of the bank, exactly how I read it. Remember the government is above all charged with the welfare, security and with protecting the property of its citizens. Hence, it can pretty much do what it needs to, to protect those interests as long as it can demonstrate the need for it.

 

I find it amazing that arguements regarding Constitutional interpretation happen to this very day. After over 200 years of wrangling, you'd think we'd have the basics better figured out. There are basically two camps. The first premise is that unless the Constitution specifically states that the government CAN do something, that they cannot. The other states basically the exact opposite, in that the government can take on additional roles and responsibilities, provided those roles and responibilities are not already given to another branch of government by the constitution. (So in essence it boils down to a federal versus state rights issue.) And there's lots of people on both sides.

 

Aldeth - It's the same argument Jefferson and Hamilton had in their time. I don't think it is meant to be resolved - completely - one way or the other. It's much like the old argument about if whether or not we have a democracy or a republic. The problem is that it is a meaningless argument, because we have a mixed government.

People will latch on to one or two quotes by one Founder to make a case for one side or another, much like they do with the Bible. Those are the really lazy and phony "internet scholars" of a false history. Most of them have never cracked open a single book on the Founders or the history of the Revolution and the Constitution. A real shame, that.

 

The problem is the 10th Amendment, which pretty specifically states that all powers not given to the Federal Government are instead given to the States. Now, I can understand the Federal Government taking powers that it needs to do it's duty, but it's debatable how far that goes. Does that include the ability to create a national bank? How about to override State laws on drugs? Or the ability to buy out corporations? The ability to take over all manufacturing ability in the US? To take all personal property? Some get a definite 'yes', others a definite 'no', but where you draw the line is a matter of debate.

 

That was Jefferson's argument and he was strong supporter of state's rights. He did not want a strong, central government - no federal army, no national bank. Nor did he want any national debt and he was anti-big business (he knew that a big military and big business meant big government); he wanted small, limited government, with "The People" having most of the say.

Alexander Hamilton wanted a strong central government, with the authority to create a large standing army, and of course a national bank for the formation of credit. He was pro big business and manufacturing, and felt that the rich and well-educated should run the country. In other words, his vision of America was much like the nation-states of Europe in the 18th century.

 

I know you have, DMC. And I agree, Hamilton as won out, for the most part.

 

I think it's a continuing battle, honestly. Sure, Jefferson's side is the underdog, and has been for a while, but I wouldn't count it out yet. The states are starting to get concerned about their rights on issues like abortion, gay marriage, and marajuana, and that may spark a new battle.

 

This is quite an amazing story; very tragic and sad, but it illustrates what one family went through in the health care system. It's not an attack on the system and there are not really any villians, but some heroes. Nevertheless, it highlights what a nightmare it is when the worst strikes an average family.

http://www.businessweek.com/magazin...2321836.htm?chan=magazine+channel_top+stories

 

And the unanswered question, unfortunately, is how government healthcare would change that. Remember, the most popular candidate last time around did little more than extend Medicare to everyone. Plans that actually add regulations and make sense of the system are few and far between.

 

No one can answer that until there is an actual bill. Still waiting....

 

Forever. Aaand ever and ever and ever and ever and ever... Stay with me here!

Sorry, I had a Dr. Cox moment there.