Washington — The 60 votes aren’t there any more.
With the Senate set to begin debate today on health care overhaul, the all-hands-on-deck Democratic coalition that allowed the bill to advance is fracturing already. Yet Democrats will need 60 votes again to finish.
Some Democratic senators say they’ll jump ship from the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Others say they’ll go unless a government plan to compete with private insurance companies gets tossed overboard. Such concessions would enrage liberals, the heart and soul of the party.
There’s no clear course for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to steer legislation through Congress to President Barack Obama. You can’t make history unless you reach 60 votes, and don’t count on Republicans helping him.
But Reid is determined to avoid being remembered as another Democrat who tried and failed to make health care access for the middle class a part of America’s social safety net.
“Generation after generation has called on us to fix this broken system,” he said at a recent Capitol Hill rally. “We’re now closer than ever to getting it done.”
His bill includes $848 billion over 10 years to gradually expand coverage to most of those now uninsured. It would ban onerous insurance industry practices such as denying coverage or charging higher premiums because of someone’s poor health. Those who now have the hardest time getting coverage — the self-employed and small businesses — could buy a policy in a new insurance market, with government subsidies for many. Older people would get better prescription coverage.
Most people covered by big employers would gain more protections without major changes. One exception would be those with high-cost insurance plans, whose premiums could rise as a result of a tax on insurers issuing the coverage.
The public is ambivalent about the Democrats’ legislation. While 58 percent want elected officials to tackle health care now, about half of those supporters say they don’t like what they’re hearing about the plans, according to a new Kaiser Family Foundation poll.
The Senate debate risks alienating more people because much of the discussion probably will revolve around divisive issues that preoccupy lawmakers.
“A large portion of the debate will be spent on issues that aren’t important to the workability of health reform,” said Paul Ginsburg, president of the Center for Studying Health System Change.
The debate should start off modestly, with each side offering one amendment. No votes are scheduled today.
But with more than 40 senators on the two committees that originated the bill, many more amendments are expected. Some likely subjects are limits on malpractice lawsuits, consumer choice, affordability, minority health and drug prices.
Reid wants to finish by Christmas; he may not get to.
He’s hoping that Democrats will stick together on procedural matters, where Senate rules require 60 votes to advance. That would allow for different views to be heard on the underlying questions. But such an accommodation might not always be possible.
Comments
LJWorld.com doesn’t necessarily condone the comments here, nor does it review every post. Read our full policy. Also, read about banned accounts and harassing comments.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Because states get 2 senators each, regardless of their population, the 40 Republican senators don't represent 40 per cent of the population of the US-- they actually represent fewer than 1/3 of all Americans. Combined with the filibuster, this makes the US Senate one of the least (small-d) democratic legislative bodies in the world. And it's further aggravated by the influence of wealthy special interests on the electoral system. It's no wonder that the primary purpose of US healthcare "system" is to deliver profits (including large campaign contributions,) not healthcare.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
"Some Democratic senators say they’ll jump ship from the bill without tighter restrictions on abortion coverage. Others say they’ll go unless a government plan to compete with private insurance companies gets tossed overboard."
Reid will sacrifice all of these things just to pass an empty and meaningless bill, so Obama/Reid/Pelosi can stand together and pat each other on the back and say they passed *something*. Pelosi already threw the abortion-rights contingent under the bus, you think Reid won't do the same with the public option?
******************************************
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
"Because states get 2 senators each, regardless of their population, the 40 Republican senators don't represent 40 per cent of the population of the US— they actually represent fewer than 1/3 of all Americans."
Well, boohoozo, except for the little detail that a majority of the American public does not want this legislation passed as is. Sounds like the majority of the Senators are representing a minority of their constituents.
http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...
>>> "The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed."
>>> "With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it."
>>> "While advocates say the plan is needed to control the cost of health care, 56% of voters now say it will have the opposite impact and push prices even higher. Just 17% believe passage of the plan will lead to lower costs."
>>> "Fifty percent (50%) believe passage of the legislation will lead to a lower quality of care while just 18% believe the care will get better."
Sounds like Herr Klowne represents a minority, also. Go figure.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
That darned Constitution just gets in your way, doesn't it, bozo?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Well, boohoozo, except for the little detail that a majority of the American public does not want this legislation passed as is."
Well, knothead, of course they don't. The current bill is just a big wet kiss to Big Health.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"That darned Constitution just gets in your way, doesn't it, bozo?"
Some aspects of it get in the way of not just me, but the vast majority of Americans, snap. But I'm sure the quasi-fascists elements in the constitution are your favorite parts.
neuhofel (W. Ryan Neuhofel) says…
bozo says, "Some aspects of it get in the way of not just me, but the vast majority of Americans, snap. But I'm sure the quasi-fascists elements in the constitution are your favorite parts."
Wow, at least you are honest about your disdain for our founding document. Can you enlighten us to which parts are "quasi-fascist"? and what you consider "fascist" (other than a generally negative epithet)?
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
bozo,
I'm with neuhofel. Which elements of our Constitution are "quasi-fascist" and which are fully fascist?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"Can you enlighten us to which parts are “quasi-fascist”?"
I already did, if you had been following the thread. See my first post.
"Fascism, pronounced /ˈfæʃɪzəm/, is a political ideology that seeks to combine radical and authoritarian nationalism with a corporatist economic system."
As I have pointed out, the Senate is under the firm control of those who support a corporatist economic system.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
We'll all come down to the bus station to wave 'good-bye' when bozo leaves for the workers' paradise.
neuhofel (W. Ryan Neuhofel) says…
Bozo,
You believe the very foundation of our legistlative body, a bicameral, Federalist system is "quasi-fascist"?
Your description of our system as not "fully democratic" is actually by design, so I guess you are correct in that respect. The majority of the founders explicited said that did not want a fully "direct democracy" which they saw as enivetably leading to mob rule. Thus we were founded as a Constutional Republic. I'm sure you can appreciate this distinction and value in social issues (as can I).
Specifically, the US Senate was designed to represent the individual states (elected by their legistlative bodies) . . . until preverted by the 17th admendment.
I agree that many of our elected officials are erecting "corporatist economic system", but this is in direct opposition to the Constitution. Do you think there are any coroporate interests and profit-motive invovled in the drafting the current "health care" legistlation? (see GE)
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"You believe the very foundation of our legistlative body, a bicameral, Federalist system is “quasi-fascist”?"
Aspects of it certainly are, especially the allocation of 2 senators to each state, regardless of population. This provision was included specifically for southern, rural states who were concerned that northern states would have too much power because of their larger populations. Their specific concern was that this would quickly lead to an abolition of slavery. A parallel provision also counted slaves as 3/5's of a person in determining the number of representatives in the House and in the Electoral College.
"Do you think there are any coroporate interests and profit-motive invovled in the drafting the current “health care” legistlation? "
I have said so many times, including in this thread. Any true "reform" is mere window-dressing to make it palatable to a critical number of moderately progressive members.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
I'm throwing a quasi-Godwin flag.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Not applicable, snap.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
bozo,
Even if "the Senate is under the firm control of those who support a corporatist economic system," that in no way makes any element of the Constitution "quasi-fascist."
Except for this merry-go-round of logic, you give no evidence that there exist "quasi-fascists elements in the constitution."
You need to go back to reading Nader - I don't think you've got his ideas on "corporatism" nailed down just yet.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
STRS-- There's really nothing I can do about your inability to understand the meaning of "fascism" or to recognize what it looks like in practice, particularly with respect to corporate control of both government and the economy.
snap_pop_no_crackle (anonymous) says…
bozo, there's really nothing I can do about your inability to understand the meaning of “quasi-Godwin” or to recognize what it looks like in practice.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Cute, in a four-year-old sort of way, snap, but clearly, you don't have any better understanding than STRS.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
Per his 11:09 a.m. post, bozo appears to have rescinded his claim that the Constitution contains "quasi-fascists elements."
He has shifted his focus instead to what he sees as an overwhelmingly fascist United States Senate. My, my, my.
I suppose trading an unfounded claim about fascism in our Constitution for one about fascism in the Senate is easier than just admitting a mistake.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (Anonymous) says…
"Well, knothead, of course they don't. The current bill is just a big wet kiss to Big Health."
Of course, dipstick, people don't like the bill for the same reasons *YOU* don't like it. It couldn't possibly be because they don't trust the government to run their healthcare. They all share your inate desire to get the jack-booted heel off the throats of the proletariat. Riiiiiiight.
"Aspects of it certainly are, especially the allocation of 2 senators to each state, regardless of population. This provision was included specifically for southern, rural states who were concerned that northern states would have too much power because of their larger populations."
How many of the heavily populated states would it take to, oh, say, start dumping their nuclear waste in West Lawrence, boohoozo? Maybe there are reasons why the small states get an equal vote in one house of the legislature?
*************************************************
snap_pop_no_crackle (Anonymous) says…
"We'll all come down to the bus station to wave 'good-bye' when bozo leaves for the workers' paradise."
Ah, such a glorious day, all the red flags waving ...
*******************************************************
under-the-porch_(alleged)person (Anonymous) says…
"I think it's cynical to create a circus with “death panels”"
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/...
"Report: Bill would reduce senior care"
Yep, that pesky old CMS talking about death panels. Shocking.
neuhofel (W. Ryan Neuhofel) says…
bozo,
There were certainly people who promoted a Federalist system with racial motivations, but this is certainly not the primary reason for the creation of the Federal system or our Senate. Many if not most Federalists (John Adams) were also ardent abolishinists - who supported State representation (Senate) within the federal legistlature. So your superficial theory just doesn't hold water.
Your description of the Dred Scott case (3/5th provision) is 180-degrees out of step with history. Many Northern state citizens actually wanted slaves NOT counted as people at all to curtail Sourthern influence (despite being against slavery). The Southern states wanted blacks counted as full-persons in the census to gain more seats in the House. Bitter irony? The 3/5th of a person was a 'compromise' by the Supreme Court and epitomizes positivism by the courts.
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
porch person,
Will the government - to which you want to lay prostrate, to which you want to surrender all - also provide us with housing, transportation and meal "options"?
Where does it stop? When will it be enough?
ksdivakat (anonymous) says…
It wont, as was mentioned above, the Government cant MANAGE the Housing crisis, the banking crisis, and the credit crisis, along with the other crisis that are going on internationally, and you want me to believe they can run the health care industry?
Tell me why the Government is in any position to run this health care proposal???
SettingTheRecordStraight (anonymous) says…
"...a government which is going to put restraints on their ability to profit..." - porch person
This statement reflects your frightening desire to place more and more and more control in the hands of government.
A limited, restrained government is great. Your vision, however, is straight out of an Aldous Huxley novel.
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Seems Americans want some kind of health care reform, just not the democratic plans on the table. As a matter of fact, most Americans strongly oppose this plan.
Source: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/publi...
Health Care Reform
41% Support Health Care Legislation, 53% Oppose
Monday, November 30, 2009
The U.S. Senate is now formally beginning debate on a plan to reform health care in America, but most voters remain opposed to the plan working its way through Congress.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 41% of voters nationwide favor the health care reform plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. Fifty-three percent (53%) are opposed to it. Those figures include 22% who Strongly Favor the plan and 40% who are Strongly Opposed.
Support for the legislation is up three percentage points from a week ago. However, last week’s results were the lowest level of support ever recorded for the plan. With the exception of a few days following nationally televised presidential appeals for the legislation, the number of voters opposed to the plan has always exceeded the number who favor it.
While advocates say the plan is needed to control the cost of health care, 56% of voters now say it will have the opposite impact and push prices even higher. Just 17% believe passage of the plan will lead to lower costs.
Fifty percent (50%) believe passage of the legislation will lead to a lower quality of care while just 18% believe the care will get better.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
Careful, leedavid - poochie will start screaming about Rasmussen's bias - and post numbers from CBS (laughter) to prove it (even though those numbers will be about something else - poochie doesn't know the difference between public option and single-payer).
******************************************************
porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"Did your source say that senior care would be reduced? No, it said that it “might” / “could” / etc be reduced as more patients are allowed to enter the health care system. When you are presented with more patients, yes, there will be a lag until more health care providers are produced, but that will change. More demand will result in more supply. Claiming the lag between those two events is the equivalent of denying supply is dishonest. "
Well, poochie, at least with your head buried in the sand, you're in the perfect position to get what you're begging for.
Um, poochie - how do you propose they'll cut $500 *billion* from Medicare without cutting services?
And if you had bothered reading the Post's story (and were old enough to read the big words), the salient point wasn't the increased numbers of people being covered - it's the cut in funding, which is *NOT* going to lead to more doctors, poochie. It is going to lead to less doctors who will accept Medicaid and Medicare, numbers which are *already* dropping.
"You (and the Republicans) are “requesting a report” which is meant to scare Grandma and Grandpa into believing that if they don't stick with the status quo, they'll have less health care. "
Ah, yes, poochie - anything that doesn't suit your delusions must be Republican biased. Yes, poochie, the Republicans requested the report (because the Democrats were apparently satisfied to pass the legislation without wanting to know what the effects would be). It was prepared by the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services, an agency of the Department of Health and Senior Services, part of the administration's own branch of government, and currently run by chatty Kathy herself.
I suppose you're going to accuse the Washington Post of being a right-wing mouthpiece next, poochie?
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
"There were certainly people who promoted a Federalist system with racial motivations, but this is certainly not the primary reason for the creation of the Federal system or our Senate."
There were small northern states who wanted the Senate as it is, and large southern states, such as Virginia, who wanted a legislature proportional according to population. But the fact is that the non-proportional makeup of the Senate (and the electoral college) favored the slaveholding South, and that's a primary reason it is what it is.
"The 3/5th of a person was a 'compromise' by the Supreme Court and epitomizes positivism by the courts."
No, it's been in the constitution from the start.
Article 1, Section 2, Paragraph 3
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Porch...a little dishonest aren't you? I mean if you could just show me saying the public option is a republican idea that would be one thing. But see the thing is....you can't. I never said it.
Now as far as the "overwhelming support" for the public option. The darnest thing...see that is a part of the present legislation and according to the poll, 53% are against it, 40% disagree strongly...poof!!!! There goes your point.
Then of course there is the Gallup poll, lets see... yep Americans don't approve of the present bill with the public option in it.
Source: http://www.gallup.com/poll/124496/Ame...
Americans Still Leaning Against Healthcare Legislation
Majority disapprove of Obama’s handling of the issue
by Jeffrey M. Jones
princeton, nj -- Americans currently tilt against Congress' passing healthcare legislation, with 49% saying they would advise their member to vote against a bill (or they lean that way) and 44% saying they would advocate a vote in favor of the bill (or lean toward advising a yes vote).
My goodness, were do you get your information?
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Awe gee Porch deflicting again....here are some more polls for ya.
http://www.pollingreport.com/health.htm
And people like the public option in some polls only if the person does not have health insurance. They darn sure don't want a public option instead of their present insurance.
The majority of people do not want this healtcare bill. Poll after poll.
Geez, that has got to sting...I feel for ya....
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Porch apologized....WOW....human afterall. I apologize for being a smart alleck
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
under-the-porch_person (Anonymous) says…
"What's hilarious is you arguing that health care legislation which will increase access to health care is actually going to decrease services."
Sorry, pooch. What's hysterical is that you are one of the very few people remaining in this country who are stupid enough to believe this legislation will increase access to healthcare.
Oh, for *some* people, it will pay their way. But at the expense of others. See, pork_person, the term 'death panels' never referred to a group of clandestine old men in black robes with hoods pulled over their heads and big rubber stamps saying "DIE" in their hands. It's about rationing and reallocation. It's about stealing from an entire generation of Americans who were paying their dues long before your daddy got the hots for your mommy so they can use the money to provide cheaper insurance for pi**ants like you, in case you catch a sniffle while you're still freeloading in mommy's basement.
And I'm not 'arguing' the fact, pookie. The information I cited came not from Fox News, but from the Washington Post, in turn citing a report developed by CMS, which answers to our former governor as part of the Obama administration. Sorry you don't understand monetary amounts that don't have Lincoln's head embossed on it, pooch, but if you had ever bothered to inform yourself on the issue, you'd know that doctors are bailing on Medicare and Medicaid in droves, and cutting their funding will only accelerate the process. And those folks who depend on Medicare - you know, those who, unlike you, are too old to be kept on mommy's insurance - will be the ones to suffer. Maybe that's why the elderly are even more opposed to the current legislation than the general public, and why they're even displeased with AARP for supporting it.
"But then, you're not that bright. You've lost the “single payer / public option” argument so many times, every time I review what happened, you go psychotic and get your posts removed."
pooch-head's version of 'Mission Accomplished.' Sadly, he even thinks he's right. Do I really need to re-post the link to one of your more embarassing moments, poochie (and for you, that's saying a lot)? How about to where you tried to pass off one of Pilgrim's posts as one of your own to try to twist the argument to fit your delusional state?
"I'm in a hurry to get somewhere."
Mommy making you walk the dog again, little one?
leedavid (anonymous) says…
What Rasmussen....you mean the most accurate polling method for the last three presidential elections? That one...what about it?
neuhofel (W. Ryan Neuhofel) says…
bozo,
Sorry for my misspeak on the 3/5th issue. I'm aware it was in the Constitution, but I was referring to the Supreme Court's upholding of the clause and the North/South positions (which is opposite of your original explanation of the rational for existence of the Senate).
But, we digress . . . I'm still not clear how equal state representation in the federal legislature (Senate) is "fascist"? As a union of states with very diverse geography, culture and economies, it seems a reasonable measure of protection for smaller states. In what way is it "radical", "authoritarian" or "corporatist"?
Are you also against the 'republican' structure of the constitution?
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Porch....that is to bad really because I have present over eight polls that clearly indicate Americans do not want health care in its present form. The present form has a public option. When people liked the public option they only wanted it people that do not have health insurance today and that is a limited few. Clearly they did not want it for themselves if they had insurance. You take that data and say that Americans are overwhelmingly behind the public option. From there you claim others to be dishonest.
I don't know what else I can do to help you understand this. I'm making a picture book for you now with pop-ups. When I get it done someone will get you out of class and take you to the gifted room and read it to you.
notajayhawk (anonymous) says…
leedavid;
In case you're wondering what pooch-head is ranting about, a while back I replied to a post from Pilgrim talking about single-payer with some information from polls on single-payer. Our deluded little single-minded pooch replied (as he did here) with polls about public option, then claimed (several times) he had disputed my post, until I pointed out his polls were about something else. Then he started this whole 'conflated' thing, and said Pilgrim and I were talking about public option in the first place - apparently we just didn't know it.
Recently, when I brought it up, he re-posted Pilgrim's comment that I had replied to, in its entirety but without Pilgrim's tagline, and claimed it was *his* post and I had been replying to *him*.
(All the posts are still up, be happy to post the links.)
I'm sure you've noticed, as has everyone else, that the pooch is nothing more than an adolescent lying troll. I bait him because it's amusing when I'm really bored, just don't expect to get anything resembling logic or the truth out of him.
Oh, and have you noticed that while he disparages Rasmussen, all the polls he cites come from CBS? Speaking of poll results outside the RCP average. And he also, no matter how many times we've explained it, can't understand the difference between the poll results for likely voters, registered voters, and all adults.
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Ah Notajayhawk...that explains it. I think of Porch as many KU professors, or possibly a high school teacher. Years of babbling but no experience doing anything. Way out in left field and no idea there's a game going on.
Thanks for that.
just_another_bozo_on_this_bus (anonymous) says…
Neuhofel--
Perhaps you should read my first post again--
"Because states get 2 senators each, regardless of their population, the 40 Republican senators don't represent 40 per cent of the population of the US— they actually represent fewer than 1/3 of all Americans. Combined with the filibuster, this makes the US Senate one of the least (small-d) democratic legislative bodies in the world. And it's further aggravated by the influence of wealthy special interests on the electoral system. It's no wonder that the primary purpose of US healthcare “system” is to deliver profits (including large campaign contributions,) not healthcare."
So my complaint is about a combination of factors, not just that the Senate is not a proportionally allocated legislative body, although that certainly led to its becoming the undemocratic body it is today.
leedavid (anonymous) says…
Morning Porch.....so there is legislation with a public option in it....thought so, that is why I said it. if you had just a little meat in you sandwich you would have read that I was talking about the polls. Not my opinion. And the polls clearly stated, because of the structure of the question asked; Americans are in favor of a government option for those not insured.
Watch your drool, you can ruin a keyboard with that.