TxTenther says:

Great article and very informative. RedState has had some of those as well, though today’s was a bit hysterical. As for Hot Air, you usually get more heat than light over there. We need more articles about strategy and the pitfalls of reconciliation. Thnx.

Bill in WI says:

Your hypocrisy is astounding. Back in 2005 the Senate GOPers were hatching the so-called “Nuclear Option” to lift the judicial fillibuster of some of the more pure right-wing ideologues proposed by Halliburton, excuse me, Bush. At that time, Frist suggested simply not referring this to the GOP appointed parlimentarian, or even firing him, if he did not agree. And now you conflate that effort with the use of Budget Reconcilliation, that has been used 22 times since its inception, 16 by the GOP, and yet claim that this is some parlimentary “trick.” This procedure has been used in healthcare issues, COBRA, the “BR” stands for “Budget Reconcilliation”, and by the GOP for other programs, like the deficeit funded Bush tax cuts, which dwarf the current Senate health bill.
To your other points. Tort Reform; is less than 1% of total costs of medical services in this country, look it up and do the math. It is NOT the biggest cost driver. Allowing purchases across state lines; did you ever wonder why all the major credit card companies are located in Deleware? It’s because when that practice (buying across state lines) was green-lighted for that industry, there was a race to the bottom in state regulations to attract those business. Did you notice that in your card agreement, it is entirely subjected to the laws of the state of Deleware? So its basically unregulated, good luck getting any satisfaction when you are abused by them.
How is this bill “Freedom threatening”? The individual mandate? A republican proposal since 1993. The wellness personal responsibility? Afraid they will make you exercise? Again, this is another Republican idea. You bandy about “liberty”, and “freedom” without actually ever using them cogently in your arguments, example, “my liberty is abridged because…….” “my freedom has been taken from me thusly, …” No, these words are just props for you, “buzzwords” if you will. I’d like an answer from any conservative on these issues.
Tell you what, you take your “freedom” to have your insurance rates escalate by double digits each year, at the same time your deductibles, co-pays, and ‘out-of-pockets’ shift more of the burden to you. And then we you need it most, your insurer has the ‘liberty’ to cancel your policy and deny payment. Personally, I’d prefer to have the ‘freedom’ to know that if my kid gets cancer, and is facing a lifetime of treatment, they will be able to have the ‘liberty’ to recieve those treatments without fear of yearly and lifetime caps. How about you?

joe k. says:

obama and his SHIP OF FOOL’S ARE GOING TO SINK OUR WAY OF LIFE….. thank god for our (constitution) !!!!!!! it’s WE THE PEOPLE !!!!! (NOT WE THE GOVERNMENT) .

Angus says:

Bill in WI,

You seem to have difficulty reading a sentence and accurately interpreting what is being written. Or, you apparently have the false impression that you can make a coherent argument defending your beliefs by confusing two slightly similar lines of thought.

Where did I mention the ‘nuclear option’? Obviously you didn’t support the Republican use of Budget Reconciliation to pass those ‘deficit causing’ tax cuts, why do you support Democrats using Budget Reconciliation to pass a healthcare bill that isn’t related to the Budget? Do you support the current frenzy for even higher deficits or are you only opposed to the deficits created under Bush? For what it is worth, I was opposed to Bush’s deficits, his Medicare drug plan, and the current deficit spending insanity.

In response to your frenzied attack against the unforgivable sin of actually speaking about God, did you even read the entire sentence I wrote? Do you equate abiding by the U.S. Constitution with the Crusades, Zionism, and Jihad? If God doesn’t grant you your rights, then who or what does? If God doesn’t indeed grant you your rights, then those rights can only come from some form of government and all governments are composed of politicians. If politicians have the right to grant your freedom and liberty, then that implies that politicians also have the right to deny your freedom and liberty.

Since most wars are started by politicians, then it would seem that your tirade caused by mentioning God-given rights should instead be directed towards politicians that falsely claim they are following God’s wishes instead of at those that recognize that God grants all humans of all races and creeds their freedom and liberty. You are free to believe whatever you desire, why do you get so irate if others don’t have the same beliefs as yours? Who is the intolerant one in this conversation?

On the subject of the Commerce Clause, where did I say that it shouldn’t be applied where it is actually applicable? Does it apply to each and every aspect of my life? Does it apply to the entire healthcare bill? Once again I will try to ask the question (without mentioning the Commerce Clause so you won’t get confused), where in the U.S. Constitution is the Federal Government given the authority to implement any of the proposed healthcare bills?

Since you ‘just have to know’ (I can’t see why you would so insistent in knowing), Yes, I believe that my freedom and liberty where under assault prior to January 20, 2009. Almost every piece of legislation proposed in government (local, state, and federal) seeks to regulate a portion of my life. Almost no piece of legislation grants individuals more freedom. Almost every regulation and law imperils our freedom.

I’m anxiously waiting for your surprising and enlightening answers.

Bill in WI says:

Angus:

Excuse me if I perceived that you were conflating the nuclear option with Budget Reconciliation. I’ve heard so many Republicans making that false equivalency recently; it seemed that is where you were going. Glad to see you understand the difference. It’s not that I didn’t support Reconciliation; I didn’t support the underlying legislation. To me it was more ‘trickle-down’ economics, which have simply failed for the economy at large. I actually benefit now (slightly) from the Bush tax cuts, but I firmly believe that when there is such a concentration of wealth in the hands of so few, it’s economically unsustainable. Witness the Great Depression.

The Health Care bill is budget related, as it affects a sizable chunk of the Federal budget. In fact most of the recent health care legislation in this country has been passed via the reconciliation process.
For example, the law that lets people keep their employers’ health insurance after they leave their jobs is called COBRA, not because it has anything to do with snakes, but because it was included as one fairly minor provision in a huge reconciliation bill. The reason it’s called COBRA is because it was contained in the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985; and that is how we came up with the name COBRA,” she says.

Other Health Care legislation done through reconciliation:

The so-called Emergency Medical Treatment and Active Labor Act (EMTALA), which requires hospitals that accept Medicare or Medicaid payments to at least screen patients who arrive for emergency treatment, regardless of their ability to pay.

The expansion of health insurance coverage for low-income children known as SCHIP.

The original CHIP done in 1997.

Via a series of budget reconciliation bills, beginning in 1984, Congress began expanding Medicaid coverage.

So literally we’ve changed everything about insurance coverage for children and families, and we’ve changed access to health care all across the United States all as a result of reconciliation.
In 1982, the reconciliation bill that year added the hospice benefit, which is very important to people at the end of life. Over the years, budget reconciliation bills added Medicare benefits for HMOs, for preventive care like cancer screenings; added protections for patients in nursing homes; and changed the way Medicare pays doctors and other health professionals.

Over the past three decades, the number of major health financing measures that were NOT passed via budget reconciliation can be counted on one hand. And one of those — the 1988 Medicare Catastrophic Coverage Act — was repealed the following year after a backlash by seniors who were asked to underwrite the measure themselves.

You question the Constitutionality of the individual mandate, a Republican idea since 1993 since they did not want to mandate employer coverage. Massachusetts has had an individual mandate now for three years, with no Constitutional challenge. Besides, you could consider this as covered under the Commerce clause. Finally the mandates will be administered via the IRS and the Income tax. You may not like it, but it is supported in the Constitution.

Personally, I don’t like the individual mandate, and hope that is something that ultimately goes away. I favor a single payer system, like the rest of the civilized world. Doctors, hospitals, drug companies, would all still be private entities. They would not be government agents or institutions. The US Government would simply be the payer, with much lower overhead, fairer payment schedules to vendors, and most importantly no profit motive. It’s the insurance companies profit motive that is the current cancer in our health care “system.”

HR 676 proposed single payer. As I recall the incremental costs were an additional 3.3% in employer and employee employment taxes, and surtax on the wealthiest 2% of our population. I’d gladly replace my premiums for an additional 3.3% withholding, I think employers would rather do that as well. I believe the surtax was 10% on all income over $1million. A complete deficit busting proposal, but then there would be no insurance companies, and I guess we can’t have that.

About God, if you want to believe that you got ‘liberty’ and ‘freedom’ from God that is great. I’m happy for you. But we live in a human society, not one made of deities. Your interpretation of God and “God’s will” could be radically different than mine. That was my point about Muslims and Jews, as their interpretation of God and “his will” are radically different. It’s odd considering all three major monotheistic religions say it’s the same God, the God of Abraham. Calling up your interpretation (or any individual’s) and writing that large on society is not what our society is supposed to be about. That is exactly why we have separation of Church and State.