Reconciliation

[BanginJimmy]

Well it looks like Dems are at it again. They plan to use reconciliation to force a destruction of our health care system on us. According to Pelosi, the only reasons Americans are against it is because we are just too stupid to know what is best for us.


Lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public, Pelosi said in an interview being broadcast Sunday the ABC News program "This Week.


Pelosi told CNN that "in a matter of days" Democrats will have specific legislative language on health care to show to the public and to wavering lawmakers. She predicted voters will warm up to the bill once they understand its details.

If only we were smart enough to understand that any of these bills proposed by Dems. It will just create a prefect society where the innovation from corporations will come out of the good of their hearts and promising young medical students will be happy with 500k in school loans and a 70k/yr job. At the same time, people that require 100k a year in medical procedures will only have to pay the same premiums as the people that have 1k in yearly medical costs, while at the same time, bring premiums for everyone down. Oh what a glorious world it will be when the dems can use procedural tricks to bring us this perfectly written piece of legislation. even over the objections of 60% of the population and all those knuckle dragging Republicans.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/02/28/pelosi-lawmakers-sacrifice-jobs-health-care/

For the liberally challenged
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/02/26/health.care/index.html

[Vteckidd]

Drunk with power. I think the lawmakers dont understand healthcare at all, not the people lol.

One side wants to EXPAND COVERAGE=Costing us TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS
One side wants to CUT COSTS= Costing us LITTLE money

The Dems are just proving this has NOTHING to do with healthcare and everything to do with a power grab. The Summit proved that was a setup to just say "they tried" to be bipartisan.

I totally agree with what Mccain said, for once. He is right, the PROCESS is just as important as the PRODUCT. Dems have excluded the republicans during this WHOLE PROCESS. They didnt need any republican support and they STILL COULDNT PASS HEALTHCARE. So now, 2400 page DEAD IN THE WATER BILL LATER, they want to say "you join us now or you dont care about the American People" is such utter bullshit i cant stand it.

How can you come up with some 2400 page bill, then NOW want to include the republicans, but only include them if they AGREE with you? That is not how our system works.

The republicans have some VERY good points. Buying across state lines, no caps on coverage, Allowing small businesses to band together to get better purchasing power, tort reform, etc All those have positives i can see NO NEGATIVE to any of them.

The dem plan, all i see is negatives. Their numbers are cooked (collecting taxes for 4 years BEFORE benefits begin) in an effort to say its "deficit neutral" is an outright lie to the american public.

Forcing doctors to be paid less because of insurance companies.

its all just shit.

I say let them pass reconciliation, it will end this crap FINALLY and let them focus on jobs. It will kill public outcry and maybe in Nov 2011 we will have better options, and we can repeal this thing

[preferredduck]

Drunk with power. I think the lawmakers dont understand healthcare at all, not the people lol.

One side wants to EXPAND COVERAGE=Costing us TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS
One side wants to CUT COSTS= Costing us LITTLE money

The Dems are just proving this has NOTHING to do with healthcare and everything to do with a power grab. The Summit proved that was a setup to just say "they tried" to be bipartisan.

I totally agree with what Mccain said, for once. He is right, the PROCESS is just as important as the PRODUCT. Dems have excluded the republicans during this WHOLE PROCESS. They didnt need any republican support and they STILL COULDNT PASS HEALTHCARE. So now, 2400 page DEAD IN THE WATER BILL LATER, they want to say "you join us now or you dont care about the American People" is such utter bullshit i cant stand it.

How can you come up with some 2400 page bill, then NOW want to include the republicans, but only include them if they AGREE with you? That is not how our system works.

The republicans have some VERY good points. Buying across state lines, no caps on coverage, Allowing small businesses to band together to get better purchasing power, tort reform, etc All those have positives i can see NO NEGATIVE to any of them.

The dem plan, all i see is negatives. Their numbers are cooked (collecting taxes for 4 years BEFORE benefits begin) in an effort to say its "deficit neutral" is an outright lie to the american public.

Forcing doctors to be paid less because of insurance companies.

its all just shit.

I say let them pass reconciliation, it will end this crap FINALLY and let them focus on jobs. It will kill public outcry and maybe in Nov 2011 we will have better options, and we can repeal this thing

the insurance companies already pay a fraction of what a cash person would pay, even after the hospital discount. taxing us upfront is wrong, esp if it goes to the insurance companies. i bet you see alot more people denied or dead before a procedure for sure, it works that way in the UK so it should work here too. i think she is about to be in hot water for basically saying that the american people are stupid and don't know what is good for them. i tell you what if pelosi goes on our health plan and we stop her super insurance then i will sign up, if not i want what she has. bastards!!!

[BanginJimmy]

I say let them pass reconciliation, it will end this crap FINALLY and let them focus on jobs. It will kill public outcry and maybe in Nov 2011 we will have better options, and we can repeal this thing


I agree until this point. It will be impossible to repeal thia bill once it is enacted. First off, it would require.a bill to pass in both houses of Congress. Then Obama will veto that bill. It will then head back to the Senate where it will take a 2/3rds vote to override that veto.

This coming year I see the dems losing the House, but I think they keep a slim majority in the Senate. It won't be until 2012, when the first anti Bush dems were elected, that the GOP takes control of both houses. At that point they may even take the white house at the same time.

[Vteckidd]

That's why I said 2011, but I meant nov 2012 when the presidential election is I was a year off

[bu villain]

I'm curious, for those who think reconcilliation is not a valid tactic to get a bill passed, what do you think of filibustering? Should all bills require 60 votes to pass?

Don't get it twisted, I don't like the healthcare bill as it is but we can't only allow "procedural tricks" when we like a bill and then complain about it when we don't.

[BanginJimmy]

I'm curious, for those who think reconcilliation is not a valid tactic to get a bill passed, what do you think of filibustering? Should all bills require 60 votes to pass?

Don't get it twisted, I don't like the healthcare bill as it is but we can't only allow "procedural tricks" when we like a bill and then complain about it when we don't.

Reconciliation was meant to be used only for mandatory spending and deficit reduction bills, not for a sweeping change of our entire health care system.


the reconciliation process is utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution.

http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm

[bu villain]

I agree this is the largest reconciliation effort yet but this is not that new proceduraly. The reconciliation process has been used to pass reforms on medicare, medicade, social security and childrens health services by both republicans and democrats for 30 years. I guess no one remembers COBRA.

So my beef is two fold:
1. Filibustering is BS (which is the only reason reconcilliation has to be used in this way to begin with).
2. I never heard any complaints about it before like when it extended Bush tax cuts or made other large changes to health care laws.

Also, you never answered my question. Do you think we should require 60 votes to pass anything through the senate?

[tony]

Amazing, how do any of you think Bush got a lot of his legislation through? Reconciliation should be a last resort but with the Republican party being the obstructionist party at the moment, Democrats should do what is necessary.

[BanginJimmy]

I agree this is the largest reconciliation effort yet but this is not that new proceduraly. The reconciliation process has been used to pass reforms on medicare, medicade, social security and childrens health services by both republicans and democrats for 30 years. I guess no one remembers COBRA.

So my beef is two fold:
1. Filibustering is BS (which is the only reason reconcilliation has to be used in this way to begin with).
2. I never heard any complaints about it before like when it extended Bush tax cuts or made other large changes to health care laws.

I will start by saying that I dont agree with the process in ANY circumstance. For MANDATORY budget bills, I think that if a new bill cannot be signed into law by Oct.1, then the previously approved budget should be extended for another year.

I agree that the filibuster is BS, but I also think the legal bribery that goes on is also BS.

Previous reconciliation efforts, by both parties, were for changes to existing laws. This is a massive restructuring of 1/6th of our entire economy, and by the way, it is going to cost 200B+ a year on the low end.


Also, you never answered my question. Do you think we should require 60 votes to pass anything through the senate?

Those are the rules of the Senate and I have no problem with them. It is done purposely to make it more difficult to get bills through the Senate as at 1 time, senators were appointed, not elected.

[BanginJimmy]

Amazing, how do any of you think Bush got a lot of his legislation through?

I cant think of a single piece of legislation costing $2T over the 10 years after benefits start that went through because of reconciliation. Why dont you point out one for me.



Reconciliation should be a last resort but with the Republican party being the obstructionist party at the moment, Democrats should do what is necessary.

So the fact that American citizens are also against it shouldnt mean anything. They are smarter than us knuckle dragging civilians, right?


http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

[Vteckidd]

Amazing, how do any of you think Bush got a lot of his legislation through? Reconciliation should be a last resort but with the Republican party being the obstructionist party at the moment, Democrats should do what is necessary.

How are republicans being obstructionist? The dems need ZERO GOP support to pass these bills. They could do it If they had the votes in their own party.

GOP is powerless so let's not skew the argument.

Using reconciliation is a suicide mission to pass this bill. Plain and simple

[tony]

I cant think of a single piece of legislation costing $2T over the 10 years after benefits start that went through because of reconciliation. Why dont you point out one for me.






The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed through Reconciliation, the first costing $1.35 Trillion and the latter $1.8 Trillion. So I found two for ya. :goodjob:

[BanginJimmy]

The 2001 and 2003 tax cuts were passed through Reconciliation, the first costing $1.35 Trillion and the latter $1.8 Trillion. So I found two for ya. :goodjob:

I will have to check again, but I believe those bills brought inmore tax revenue, not less.

[tony]

I will have to check again, but I believe those bills brought inmore tax revenue, not less.

You asked what they cost, not how much did they bring in. Independent studies have shown that the proposed healthcare reform would result in a surplus rather than a deficeit so if you're going to compare the two, compare them by the same measuring stick.

[Vteckidd]

If it was wrong when bush did it it doesnt mAke it ok now.

[tony]

But its not wrong till someone you oppose gets in office

[bu villain]

Exactly how I feel tony... I'm not pro reconciliation but what I like even less is the double standard of outrage.

[Vteckidd]

You can't possibly compare tax cuts to healthcare takeover unless you're delusional.

[bu villain]

So the fact that American citizens are also against it shouldnt mean anything. They are smarter than us knuckle dragging civilians, right?

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/current_events/healthcare/september_2009/health_care_reform

It does mean something but it doesn't mean everything either. If it did, we wouldn't need representatives to vote at all. We could just take polls for every bill...oh and we would have had Al Gore for a president!

[Vteckidd]

Anyone that thinks this creates a surplus is delusional too.

[tony]

You can't possibly compare tax cuts to healthcare takeover unless you're delusional.

Healthcare takeover? This is a great misnomer with healthcare reform, there isn't even a public option.. I would love to be enlightened as to what role government will play in the proposed reform, because personally I feel it doesn't go far enough.

[tony]

Anyone that thinks this creates a surplus is delusional too.

I guess the Congressional Budget Office is delusional then:


The Congressional Budget Office (CBO) released estimates this evening confirming for the first time that H.R. 3200, America's Affordable Health Choices Act, is deficit neutral over the 10-year budget window - and even produces a $6 billion surplus. CBO estimated more than $550 billion in gross Medicare and Medicaid savings.

Important to note that this is the House bill (the one I actually like) not the Senate bill.

[Vteckidd]

I'll bet you $1000 it goes over budget and never gives a surplus.

Fuzzy math doesn't make it right. I guess if you collect taxes for 4 years and only pay benefits for 6 years during a 10 year period anything is possible

[David88vert]

I guess the Congressional Budget Office is delusional then:



Important to note that this is the House bill (the one I actually like) not the Senate bill.


Actually, look at HR 3962.
The CBO sent a letter to Rangel on 10/29/2009 and stated in it:
"Over the 2010–2019 period, the net cost of the coverage expansions would be more than offset by the combination of other spending changes, which CBO estimates would save $426 billion, and receipts resulting from the income tax surcharge on high-income individuals and other provisions,
which JCT and CBO estimate would increase federal revenues by
$572 billion over that period."

Reading this, you can see that the CBO is relying on unstated spending changes to be able to save money. This vague wording should concern you. It also leaves "high-income" undefined. In reality, it says that more tax income will need to be gathered, and cuts, which are not able to be determined, will need to be made also in order to not overspend.

Everything is posted on the CBO's site.

Your information on HR 3200 - that comes from the House Committee on Education and Labor's website - and was the preliminary guess back in July 2009. Old news, since surpassed, it appears.

[tony]

HR3200 is the bill that I like as stated, the Senate bill is a clusterfuck of fail.

[David88vert]

HR3200 is the bill that I like as stated, the Senate bill is a clusterfuck of fail.


Interestingly enough, the CBO's preliminary analysis found this from what I read - HR 3200 would:

“establish a mandate for legal residents to obtain health insurance”
“set up insurance ‘exchanges’ through which some individuals and families could receive subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing insurance”
“significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid”
“make modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid programs”
“impose an income-tax surcharge on high-income individuals”
In addition, “enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”

I haven't studied that bill, but it seems that it won't be legislation anyway.

[Vteckidd]

I haven't found anything that suggests realisitically there would be any sort of a surplus. Quoting cbo numbers on bills with half truths doesn't do either party any good.

[tony]

Interestingly enough, the CBO's preliminary analysis found this from what I read - HR 3200 would:

“establish a mandate for legal residents to obtain health insurance”
“set up insurance ‘exchanges’ through which some individuals and families could receive subsidies to substantially reduce the cost of purchasing insurance”
“significantly expand eligibility for Medicaid”
“make modifications to the Medicare and Medicaid programs”
“impose an income-tax surcharge on high-income individuals”
In addition, “enacting H.R. 3200 would result in a net increase in the federal budget deficit of $239 billion over the 2010-2019 period.”

I haven't studied that bill, but it seems that it won't be legislation anyway.

What you quoted dismisses an issue in the original bill that the House addressed, it had to do with the calculation for setting physician fees for Medicare plan B and the continual rising costs due to a costly formula. Commonly referred to as sustainable growth rate, H.R 3200 amended how it is calculated which resulted in the CBO's finding that the bill is deficit neutral.

[David88vert]

What you quoted dismisses an issue in the original bill that the House addressed, it had to do with the calculation for setting physician fees for Medicare plan B and the continual rising costs due to a costly formula. Commonly referred to as sustainable growth rate, H.R 3200 amended how it is calculated which resulted in the CBO's finding that the bill is deficit neutral.


But did they just amend how they calculated it so that it would agree with the politicians pushing the bill? That happens a lot on bills from both sides of the aisle.

At the end of the day, we still have politicians, not doctors, legislating a complete overhaul of the healthcare system. Politicians answer to lobbists, not the public.

Personally, I am fine with the care plan that I currently receive, and the cost of it. Why am I ok with it? Because I worked hard to climb into a position that delivers the benefits that I need for my family. I did not need a government handout or regulation, and I don't particularly care to be forced to change to help someone who has not made the same effort as I have to succeed.

[preferredduck]

i just can't stand pelosi basically said the american people were dumb and don't know what they need and she will waive her magic wand and save us. i hate that woman now for sure. with a passion actually.