Patterico's Pontifications

3/21/2010

“Kill” “The” “Bill” (Updated)

Filed under: Health Care — DRJ @ 11:00 am



[Guest post by DRJ]

Republican lawmakers cheer on the protesters:

Outside, meanwhile, bullhorns and chants are seeping into the press room and even the chamber. Chants of “Naaaannnccy” and “vote them out” are constant, as are the usual “kill the bill” refrains. At one point, three lawmakers, presumably Republicans, went outside the Capitol building — on a second floor balcony — to greet the protestors. And they each held up one side reading: “Kill” “The” “Bill”.

The Instapundit describes it as chaos on the House floor, and Drudge has this “overheard on the House floor” tidbit:

OVERHEARD: Walking into Capitol this morning on phone, Speaker Pelosi tells Hoyer: ‘Steny, we have to get to 217. None of these members wants to be the deciding vote’…

— DRJ

UPDATE: Will Boehner “filibuster”?

“Leader John Boehner has threatened to use leadership floor privileges — which grant him unlimited time to talk (during the global warming debate he worried Dems that he might filibuster when he launched into an hour-long speech against the bill) — to read the entire 2,300-page bill. If that happens Dems say they’ll reconvene tomorrow to pass the bill rather than stretching the session too late into the night.”

20 Responses to ““Kill” “The” “Bill” (Updated)”

  1. “Walking into Capitol this morning on phone, Speaker Pelosi tells Hoyer: ‘Steny, we have to get to 217. None of these members wants to be the deciding vote’…”

    Profiles in courage… sheesh.

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  2. what did you expect? traitors are always cowards….

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  3. Oh, my. It looks to me like the White House is leaking stories that this is all Pelosi’s fault:

    In the jittery days following Scott Brown’s Senate victory, Nancy Pelosi was eager to resurrect comprehensive health reform. But first, she had to get past longtime ally Rahm Emanuel, who was counseling President Barack Obama to consider a smaller, piecemeal approach.

    During a mid-February conference call with top House Democrats, Pelosi made it clear she would accept nothing short of a big-bang health care push — dismissing the White House chief of staff as an “incrementalist.”

    Pelosi even coined a term to describe Emanuel’s scaled-down approach: “Kiddie Care,” according to a person privy to the call.

    Pelosi’s remark was more than just a diss. It sent a clear signal to House leadership that Pelosi wouldn’t compromise — and it coincided with Obama’s own decision to renew his push for an all-encompassing bill after weeks of confusion and discussion.

    The Administration thinks stories like this protect Obama but ultimately they make him look like a wimp.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  4. i see no downside to that DRJ… and it makes it look like they know they’re going to fail, which makes it a win/win for us.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  5. I agree this doesn’t sound good for the Democrats, red.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  6. The “Leader of the Free World” abdicated his responsibility to lead his Party in governance, letting Queen Nancy and the Prince of Fools to determine the legislative priorities that he would be tied to throughout recorded history.

    Right now, Jimmy Carter (who at least could schedule the WH tennis court), and Franklin Pierce (who knew enough to do nothing), are looking pretty good.

    AD - RtR/OS! (4c0b43)

  7. More evidence that this bill is a disaster: If you were one of Pelosi’s people and a true believer that this bill is the best thing ever to happen to the American people, wouldn’t you *want* to be the deciding vote and have it indelibly recorded in history that it was specifically because of you as the deciding vote that this epic bill passed????

    Politicians are notoriously egotistical and always looking for good P.R.- this would be something they’d *all* be clamoring for if they were indeed convinced of it’s intrinsic worth to the public.

    I call B.S.

    Dana (1e5ad4)

  8. I wonder… is there a Klingon word for bullsh*t?

    Ah, yes… Klabdak… that’s the word I was looking for.

    Klabdak!

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  9. I read things like the following, and politicians similar to Obama, Pelosi and Reid strike me as looking even more irresponsible, power-crazy, arrogant, greedy and perhaps somewhat addled in the brain.

    Politico.com, Tim Murphy, March 17:

    [T]he Massachusetts law was an experiment to expand health insurance coverage to almost every resident of the Commonwealth, by redirecting existing health care spending and without raising taxes. It was not an attempt to control costs.

    As someone deeply involved in drafting the law, our operating principle was to deal with the issue of access first, and then try to control costs. But the first big step was to get everyone under the insurance umbrella.

    …The key reform was requiring that all residents have proof of health insurance. This first-in-the-nation obligation was devised because we knew that the success of access to affordable health insurance depended on everyone taking responsibility for his or her use of health care.

    No more could the uninsured show up at a hospital emergency room for routine care and expect that the taxpayers would write the check.

    As an experiment, however, the Massachusetts law has revealed certain weaknesses in the plan. Three areas of concern are: overreaching social planning by the Commonwealth Health Insurance Connector Authority (the “exchange”); double-digit increases in health insurance costs for many employers and individuals, and too much taxpayer money still underwriting free care.

    Each of these maladies can be cured, if state officials recognize the limitations of top-down government solutions.

    The most important action that state officials can take is to revisit the “minimum credible coverage” for compliance with the individual mandate.

    The Connector Authority got this wrong by reinforcing an idea that health insurance should be a series of expensive, government-decided, pre-paid benefits. It forgot that health insurance, first and foremost, provides consumers protection from financial calamity during a serious health crisis.

    Two important objectives would be accomplished by establishing a minimum creditable coverage standard that reflects this understanding of health insurance. First, the cost of buying health insurance to meet the mandate would drop dramatically. Second, the government would be out of the social-planning business — and no longer unnecessarily intruding on our personal liberties.

    The exchange can lower costs for employers and consumers by offering employers a defined contribution model, where the employer contributes a fixed amount to each employee. The employee would then be responsible for purchasing the health insurance.

    This approach puts the consumer in charge, allowing them to buy a policy that meets their needs. If the employee purchases a product that costs less than the employer contribution, then the difference could be put into a health savings account, or given to the employee as additional income.

    Second, we need to reduce the number of coverage requirements — for everything from in-vitro fertilization to chiropractic care. This was central to Romney’s attempt to drive down insurance costs, but it was unwisely set aside by the Legislature.

    Finally, the state must stop paying for free care, a central reform of the original Romney law. While this decreased in recent years, at $400 million annually it is still unsustainable and tears at the fabric of law’s founding intent. The state should scrap this program — as was intended — and direct more limited funding to only financially distressed and essential providers.

    With the focus now on containing costs, the state must avoid market-distorting actions, like Governor Patrick’s recent price control recommendations. Instead the state should reduce burdensome insurance regulations, promote the direct purchase of health insurance by consumers and eliminate the free care program left over from the days before universal coverage.

    Tim Murphy was Secretary of Health and Human Services for Massachusetts under former Governor Mitt Romney.

    Mark (411533)

  10. “I read things like the following, and politicians similar to Obama, Pelosi and Reid strike me as looking even more irresponsible, power-crazy, arrogant, greedy and perhaps somewhat addled in the brain.”

    It’s all about the power grab, Mark.

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  11. The Dems see this as a sea-change moment… one that will change the face of government… at least until the American people have a chance to right this grave mistake.

    GeneralMalaise (20e943)

  12. I added an Update.

    DRJ (daa62a)

  13. To give a small example of the moronic economic theories of the Democrats, Michigan governor Granholm has declared a “Meatout Day” in a state that has few remaining jibs that aren’t related to agriculture. The people have suggested an alternative called a “Granholm out Day: on January 11, 2011

    Mike K (2cf494)

  14. Oh, dear–Stupak says he’s signing on, now that Obama has agreed to an executive order etc. etc. etc.

    I would be so incredibly surprised if the next bill to come up after Obamacare passes will be a bill repealing the executive order. Or if Obama subsequently issues an order “clarifying” (read: repealing) the order he’s agreed to.

    Assuming he issues the order at all.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  15. Executive orders can be just allowed to die. Anyone who takes Obama’s word is a fool or was looking for an excuse. I think Stupak wanted a face saving gesture and he got it.

    The next order of business is to defeat 100 Democrats in November. I think it can be done.

    Mike K (2cf494)

  16. I can’t imagine that the promise Stupak got from Obama has any prospect of being enforced. So I’m amazed that this deal wasn’t struck sooner. Maybe this whole thing has been for show.

    If this passes, it will never be repealed. “This, too, shall pass” does not apply to government agencies.

    Alan (07ccb5)

  17. i think the first thing to do Monday morning, for those of you with j*bs anyway, is to file a new W-4 form that increases your deductions to the point where you owe the Feds $$ every April. doesn’t have to be a lot, but if enough people do it, it will make things harder on them, and also deny them a refund to seize if you don’t have government approved insurance when they check.

    redc1c4 (fb8750)

  18. I suppose hoping the Supreme Court rules 5-4 that requiring Americans to purchase private health insurance is unconstitutional is a little too much of a stretch. Besides, even if they did make such a ruling it probably wouldn’t come until at least 2012, and by then the Big Government machine would simply declare that this means that single payer is the answer.

    A dark day indeed for the cause of small government and personal freedoms.

    JVW (fd30ab)

  19. There are so many provisions in this bill, a lot of horrible stuff would survive (almost all of it, really) even if the individual mandate were held unconstitutional. The justiciability doctrines are going to preserve almost all of this law; the rest of it will be upheld on the Supreme Court’s libertine reading of the Commerce Clause.

    Alan (07ccb5)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0904 secs.