The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

Howard Dean says ‘Kill the Senate bill!’

http://trueslant.com/rickungar/2009/12/15/howard-dean-says-%E2%80%98kill-the-senate-bill%E2%80%99/

"Dean further added, according to Bob Kinzel who conducted the interview, that if the Democratic leaders cave to Joe Lieberman’s demands, they will be left with a bill not worth supporting."

I can't see the urgency in passing something you can't get your own party to support, then watering it down so they do but then complaining about it being watered down. Not sure why everyone is highlighting Lieberman when their are many on his side who are actually registered democrats.

Passing a health care bll which doesn't actually effect health care is like passing a stimulus bill which doesn't actually create any jobs... oh yeah.

Lunch Anyone?

I have to use Scott's post to respond to both FOTD and Scott. 

The remaining bill is not devoid of useful reform.  It doesn't go as far as I and many other Democrats would like, but there are still enough important reforms that it would be stupid to throw it away as Howard Dean proposes.  Kevin Drum responds to Dean in Mother Jones here: http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/12/starting-over (http://motherjones.com/kevin-drum/2009/12/starting-over).  To paraphrase, Kevin thinks Howard is in dreamland and lists the following major reform principles that are still on the table:

• Insurers have to take all comers.  They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick.
• Community rating.  Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.
• Individual mandate.  I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax?  And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.
• A significant expansion of Medicaid.
• Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.
• Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.
• Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.
• A broad range of cost-containment measures.
• A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.

Kevin also points out that if history is any guide at all, dumping this bill will sideline needed reforms for decades.  Is having that kind of snit worth it?

I am also angry with Liebermann.  Contrary to Scott's assertion, in the Senate there were very few Democrats who did not support the public option in some form.  Possibly Ben Nelson, but I'm not sure about him.  Others such as Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu were in favor or more modest measures such as a "triggered" public option or the medicare buy-in that was the last vestige of the public option jettisoned by the Senate.  In fact, all of the doubters on the Democratic side signed on to the Medicare buy-in option, relying on Liebermann to adhere to his previously announced support for the buy-in as recently as September, 2009.  This points out the the biggest reason to be angry with Liebermann -- his breathtaking dishonesty throughout the debate.  In his senate campaign Liebermann was in favor of the public option.  After he was elected he changed his mind, no doubt in response to money paid by the Connecticut insurance industry.  But only three months ago he favored the Medicare buy-in for persons 55 and over.  He changed his mind on that.  Throughout the debate he kept moving the goalposts, negotiating behavior that demonstrates bad faith.  That is why Democrats are wondering why Senate Democrats keep looking the other way and allow him to stifle their agenda in underhanded, dishonest ways.

Cynical, and those that read that motherjones link, take a look at the comments after the article. Enlightening. As for the "Blame Lieberman" bandwagon, here is one prominent dem Russ Feingold assessment:

“This bill appears to be legislation that the president wanted in the first place, so I don’t think focusing it on Lieberman really hits the truth,” said Feingold. “I think they could have been higher. I certainly think a stronger bill would have been better in every respect.”



That's right, the head of the democrat party is President Obama, there are clear democrat majorities in both the house and senate, and little ol' Joe Lieberman is responsible for no PO or Medicare buy-in in HCR. Hey, let's blame Joe for the failure of the Dorgan Amendment which was designed to reduce for the costs of drugs via reimportation (interesting that  "Dr. No" Coburn was a "yea" and Inhofe a "nay" on the amendment).

I'm with cynical on this. Perhaps I'm not partisan enough for FOTD, but any sort of medical reform is better than none at all. And I'm hard-pressed to find anyone, Republican or Democrat, who says that the system doesn't need tweaking.

I agree the system needs tweaking but cannot agree that any reform is better than none at all.  I have faith that our lawmakers can make it worse.

+1

You middle of the roaders....always complaining about the inefficiency of government...

Sgrizzle, please realize that the stimulus worked if for nothing more than restoring confidence through printing money to prop up the over all economy. Looks to be working quite well along side the banksters sobering up.

BO made his deal with the Corporate Powers on this some time ago. Everything that has happened since has been a stageplay for the benefit of the peeons. BO and Lie berman in bed together as Lie berman provides cover for the prez's  deal with Big Pharma and Big Swindler Insurance...

Go back to that "single payer is the only option" thread and you will see this devil was not partisan at all....

FOTD thinks there little diff between left wing Repigs and right wing Dims. Perhaps, Lie berman isn't the problem. Looks like the problem is wanting to get along with Conservatives. Nobody wants to get along with Libtards. As far as us progressives like Dean, we could become a force for change if we were more aggressive and less gullible.

Transparency in action right now in the Senate. Dr. Coburn forces the reading of a 767-page single payer amendment to the healthcare bill.

http://spectator.org/blog/2009/12/16/coburn-forces-reading-of-767-p

Here is an exchange between Dr. Coburn and Baucus that I believe preceded the reading.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mz4sWdFxlmg&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Coburn is just a super rich obstructionist pig. He had to bury his mother quick so he could move forward with his shennanigans on crapitol hill.

Hope that gutsy Brad Carson or even Kirk Humphrey's kicks his arse back to Muskogee in 2010...but knowing Dr. Tom he will be moving to a much more affluent community once he no longer needs to appear like a common man.
What a loser...

Tweaking yes.  Major overhaul? No.

Tweaker.

Do you seriously have a problem with him wanting the amendment read?  Why should an amendment contain 767 pages in the first place if the bulk of that wasn't a bunch of pure crap?

I am really loving the cannibalization of the dems over this health care reform. Here's Dean the Scream at it with Sen. Mary "Louisiana Purchase" Landrieu (D-La.):

http://www.freedomslighthouse.com/2009/12/democrats-mary-landrieu-and-howard-dean.html

Bernie withdrew his amendment in order to proceed funding our troops by Fridays deadline.... saved Doc Co Burn from more embarrassing evidence of his anti soldiers and vets position.

Oh that's right, Sanders withdrew his single payer amendment, which had no chance of passage but nevertheless submitted to appease that stroke's and the kos kids (and apparently your) f'd up needs, to rescue Dr. Coburn. That's right, Dr. Coburn. Let's see, how many lives have you brought into this world or saved or made better through the delivery of health care? Tell us. Oh, and get off your "pro-military" soapbox. You couldn't care less about them except to use as an instrument to advance your dooshy views.  

You are Bernies mirror image..... you seem so unpatriotic when you defend a Senaturd who does not support our vets....just look at his record.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LxuS-cNEQyA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Watch it: [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FNOYb216wdM&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]


You should be ecstatic that you and this devil have strong reservations over BO!

Ed Schultz Rocks!
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ortjRL5LyuA&feature=player_embedded[/youtube]

Obama: U.S. 'will go bankrupt' without health care bill
http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2009/12/obama-government-will-go-bankrupt-without-health-care-bill/1
BO using scare tactics...Is he just an extension of the Busheviks?

(http://ic2.pbase.com/g5/35/396535/2/118878298.HMPPHpmV.jpg)

You nailed it, he and the rest of those globalists from Gold Mansacks

I don't believe for a second Dean is serious on killing the bill. As Saint Clinton preached yesterday, any bill is better than no bill for he knows that it opens the door for single payer down the road. Kill this bill and government run healthcare is dead in the near future and who knows how long.

We get to 2013 and you just can't predict who will reside in the White House and which political party will control Congress. Even if the democrats retain control of the Senate, keeping 59 seats will be difficult. I suspect the balance will moce back closer to 50 / 50 which will make future bills even more difficult to pass.

Reconciliation?  The Repubs did it for 6 years...

Reconciliatoin?  Are you sure you don't mean revenge or retribution?

How many years did the Republicans have control of Congress since WWII?  About 6?

Yes

http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm (http://uspolitics.about.com/od/usgovernment/l/bl_party_division_2.htm)

It works both ways.  Remember rubberstamping of essentially anything Bush II put through?  Payback's a b!tch.

Payback depends on when you start counting.  I consider the rubberstamping of Bush II as payback for the nearly 60 years before it.

Insurers have to take all comers.  They can't turn you down for a preexisting condition or cut you off after you get sick. - Probably a good idea, but This one isn't going to pass the Senate

• Community rating.  Within a few broad classes, everyone gets charged the same amount for insurance.

- Not sure how this works

• Individual mandate.  I know a lot of liberals hate this, but how is it different from a tax?  And its purpose is sound: it keeps the insurance pool broad and insurance rates down.

This might face constitutional challenges down the road

• A significant expansion of Medicaid.

  Off the table already

• Subsidies for low and middle income workers that keeps premium costs under 10% of income.

  I guess this is the part that will cost over $1 trillion $$$

• Limits on ER charges to low-income uninsured emergency patients.

This seems meaningless as low income ER visiters invariably don't pay their bills because they can't, and most hospitals just write off the bills of the indigent.

• Caps on out-of-pocket expenses.

OK, but this could mean larger premiums.  It could also mean that certain treatments become uncovered.

• A broad range of cost-containment measures.

  Thats mostly code for "rationing"
A dedicated revenue stream to support all this.  Which like most govt projections will quickly fall behind as spending rises faster than expected and individuals and corps change their habits to avoid these new taxes.

Basically, in the Senate version we are left with a bill that costs way too much for our economy in its current state to support and still has no teeth.  The insurance lobbies are too powerful.  Preexisting condition coverage will not survive house/senate reconciliation and allowing 55 y/o to buy into medicare is already DOA as of yesterday.

Just a bit o/t, but is factual, I cannot tell you how many of these folks showed up in the ER where I worked as an EMT which was a real drain on time and resources.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_m64cy1MMPge][/youtube]

Exit question:  Will increasing coverage result in an increase of these folks?

Several state AGs investigating the legality of Nelson's Nebraska's Compromise which exempted only that state from responsibilities the other 49 (or 56 in Obamaspeak) states have.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34551523/ns/politics-health_care_reform/