Pelosi: “I Don’t See the Votes” to Pass Senate Bill
[Guest post by DRJ]
The Senate version of ObamaCare seems dead for now and maybe for good:
“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.”
The announcement followed a closed-down meeting of House Democrats:
“Pelosi, D-Calif., spoke to reporters after House Democrats held a closed-door meeting at which participants vented frustration with the Senate legislation.
Many rank-and-file Democrats said the stunning defeat in this week’s Massachusetts special election — in which Republicans captured the Senate seat held for decades by the late Edward M. Kennedy — meant it was time to seek more modest health legislation.
***
Several Democrats said they 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 blinders on.”
It’s time the White House takes those blinders off.
— DRJ
This will be a time for Republicans to stay alert. The Democrats are now looking for cover for the fall elections. They will attempt to snag some unwary Republicans (Of which there is a surfeit) to join in a crap sandwich “bipartisan” bill. The best thing for Boehner to do is come up with a GOP bill and keep pushing it.
Mike K (2cf494) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:13 pmMike, if they get to Snowe or Collins (or that stooge in OH) like they did earlier, the GOP could still be rolled. They have to make it clear that this time anyone leaving the reservation will face severe consequences down the road.
Dmac (539341) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:24 pmDidn’t the Dems already do a few “disinformation” campaigns along the way?
When did taking a stand that made sense become popular with this administration?
Trust them to say what they mean and mean what they say when they have a track record of at least three days, if they can do that, even.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:32 pmA simpler bill which does the following might work:
1) make health insurance national, not state-by-state. This will lower costs and increase choice.
2) Create an assigned risk pool for people with pre-existing conditions. Make the cost 2 or 3 times the cost for the same age to discourage waiting until you are sick. Perhaps a declining cost factor over time.
3) Mandatory renewal regardless of condition, perhaps even with a loss-of-income premium-payment policy. I.e. no cancellation due to illness. It does no good to buy insurance when well if they cancel when you need it.
4) Make fraud on application revert to assigned-risk-plus-penalty rather than cancellation, to avoid companies killing innocent people through, um, overzealous policing. The company still pays for the treatment and the supposed fraudster has a chance to contest.
These reforms will deal with most of the problems of the current system other than inability to pay for insurance.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:41 pmoh. forgot
5. Tort reform with reasonably high limits.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:44 pmEven with blinders on you can see what’s right in front of your face.
happyfeet (71f55e) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:51 pmthis is living proof that a blind pig really can occasionally find an acorn.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 1/21/2010 @ 2:56 pm#4:
How about NO?
Since when is medical insurance a matter for the federal government? Why not auto insurance? Basic homeowners? Life insurance?
Show me where in the constitution the federal government has a role in any of this? And don’t even go to the “general welfare” clause – because it does not apply.
Dr. K (adb7ba) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:02 pmThe democrats theory that republicans would wander in the wilderness for a generation came to an abrupt halt, after only one year. Must be the high speed rails and air travel.
Scrapiron (4e0dda) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:03 pmYou want ideologues to take off their blinders? What, you born yesterday?
bill-tb (541ea9) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:17 pmAnd can I get that “pre-existing condition” thing for my auto insurance?
navyvet (e4db05) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:31 pmWith health care lost, the Demos will look for a new issue to recover. This face saving will focus on bankers and Wall Street and a populist cry of: “We want our money!”
They figure this won’t get the Tea Baggers too riled up so why not put business in their cross-hairs.
But all it will do is run the economy into the ground. So in the long run, it will mean more Republican votes.
Alta Bob (5daf3f) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:38 pmDRJ – looks like the hallowed Botoxed one spoke too soon:
null
I hope she actually tries to ram this thing through – it will spell the end of the Dem party’s future as we know it. Go ahead, make our days.
Dmac (539341) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:43 pmWow, that link definitely didn’t work:
http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YTIxZmJiOGUwMTViYjYxODVjOGYzNGUxOTkzNDcyYWU=
Dmac (539341) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:44 pmWell, Dr. K, besides that being a non-starter, how is “health insurance” different from some other form of economic activity? I’m pretty sure they cannot force me to buy it, but that does NOT mean they cannot regulate it.
Why do you feel that insurance is a matter best left to states? Clearly I want insurance I buy to have effect in other states. Don’t you? If it does, that makes it interstate commerce and they CAN regulate it.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:45 pm11. Sure. You just have to pay a lot more. Although, unless you are willing to tie YOUR life to your car’s life, they are rather different things.
Kevin Murphy (805c5b) — 1/21/2010 @ 4:46 pm[…] Now Barney Frank and the Dems are for the Nuclear Option Patterico’s Pontifications: Pelosi: “I Don’t See the Votes” to Pass Senate Bill and Specter to Bachmann: “Act Like a Lady” and Did Obama Get Massachusetts’ Message? (Updated […]
Limbaugh on Scott Brown & Massachusetts Election, on Doomed ObamaCare, on Democrat Politicians Runing Scared « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/21/2010 @ 5:12 pmKevin, under that scenario, they can regulate ANYTHING.
But, then again, that’s your dream, isn’t it? All economic activity regluated by the Federal Governnment. I mean, since they print the money, they may as well tell you how to spend it.
Damn communist.
Dr. K (adb7ba) — 1/21/2010 @ 6:12 pmEven better:
Apply DOMA to annul all same-sex marriages throughout the nation. Blanket rule. Since married and singles pay different tax rates, that’s commerce, isn’t it?
Dr. K (adb7ba) — 1/21/2010 @ 6:16 pmNRO says Paul Ryan says Dems will go the reconciliation route with ObamaCare.
Not as comprehensive since they can only deal with the budgetary aspects of the issue.
But, this will put the storm right into the late spring and early summer — when all the Dems have to file to run again. I predict lots of Dem retirements as a result.
And in the end, there won’t be enough Blue Dogs willing to pull the trigger and end their political careers so the retirements from failures to file will all be for naught.
Shipwreckedcrew (58dde3) — 1/21/2010 @ 7:03 pm^uh, didn’t I link to that about two hours ago?
Dmac (539341) — 1/21/2010 @ 7:27 pmI found a great new blog I must share with you all. It’s by David Bellavia. He is one the most decorated soldiers in Iraq War (nominated for MOH) He also wrote the spectacular book “House to House: An Epic Memoir of War” His blog is intelligent and funny.
http://www.DavidBellavia.com
proudamerican (48b013) — 1/21/2010 @ 7:42 pmThe reason I feel insurance should be left to the states (what I really feel is that gov. should leave us the hell alone!) is that a state can screw up only a small chunk of the system, and people can leave.
The Feds will screw up the whole thing, and there’s no place left to go.
jodetoad (7a7b8a) — 1/21/2010 @ 8:15 pmKnocking out the ‘state’ portion of the insurance system would make it so you have 17k or so choices instead of 3 or 4 🙂
I don’t like the idea of the federal gov’t regulating insurance, but giving insurance the ability to cross state lines to get customers will help the customers (who could also look across state lines to get insurance, hence more choices and better prices).
Lord Nazh (821ae1) — 1/21/2010 @ 8:57 pm“I don’t like the idea of the federal gov’t regulating insurance, but giving insurance the ability to cross state lines to get customers will help the customers (who could also look across state lines to get insurance, hence more choices and better prices).”
Companies can offer insurance in more than one state. They just have to meet the regulations of that state.
imdw (795ee1) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:00 pmIf ObamaCare does die, look to see where new “health care czars” or some such spring up. A radical is a radical, if one angle of attack doesn’t work, at the moment, don’t for a second think the war is over.
There are a few things that make health care different from buying cars and other things we do and why I think some kind of governmental role is more important:
1. We are talking about human beings, not things. There is a profound difference between someone not being able to afford a car repair vs. a human body repair that to a large degree makes them uncomparable.
2. We can choose and take responsibility for what kind of car we want to pay for. We often have no choice over what illness we will have and how much it costs to treat it.
3. The resources needed for developing treatments are often enormous and benefit all in society at least indirectly. I may sense no direct benefit from tax expenditures to maintain troops in Germany and elsewhere, but I understand that investment in the military is a necessary thing.
4. While those are some reasons why I think government/legal system has a role in health insurance, I have no reason to think a governmental system is likely to be efficient or effective in actually managing health care.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:01 pmWhat if Pelosi and Reid start reconciliation while Obama and the White House cover by saying everything should slow down? That would get Pelosi/Reid a few extra days to start pinning Democrats down behind the scenes.
DRJ (84a0c3) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:01 pmExactly the kind of thing (#27) I would envision, DRJ.
Remember, a dead rattlesnake can bite.
MD in Philly (d4668b) — 1/21/2010 @ 9:14 pm@25 imdw — Companies can offer insurance in more than one state. They just have to meet the regulations of that state.
—
One product X 50 sets of regulations = 50 types of products.
50 types of products = not efficient.
Not efficient = prohibitively expensive.
Of course the government could do it, they just wave their magic wand.
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 1/21/2010 @ 10:27 pmPons – That individual 50 state regulation employs an awful lot of public servants. You wouldn’t want to put any of those government workers out of a job would you?
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/21/2010 @ 10:46 pmdaleyrocks — You are right; what was I thinking!
Hey, maybe the government could employ everyone, that way unemployment would be zero 😉
Pons Asinorum (1f16cc) — 1/21/2010 @ 10:51 pmPons – Now you’re on the right track!
daleyrocks (718861) — 1/21/2010 @ 11:04 pmI think MD in Philly is exactly right. Government does have a strong role to play in health care.
The problem occurs when one thinks the only solution is the government.
As MD said humans are not things. But bureaucracy, by its nature, has to assume humans are things. It can only work, to steal a corporate phrase, by commodization.
Ag80 (1592cc) — 1/21/2010 @ 11:05 pm[…] Now Barney Frank and the Dems are for the Nuclear Option Patterico’s Pontifications: Pelosi: “I Don’t See the Votes” to Pass Senate Bill and Specter to Bachmann: “Act Like a Lady” and Did Obama Get Massachusetts’ Message? (Updated […]
Clueless: Rep. Alan Grayson Predicted Coakley Win in Mass & That Health Care Would Proceed As Normal (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 1/22/2010 @ 7:12 am