Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.
On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping -- the bill survived Saturday's procedural test without a single vote to spare -- and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn't enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.
After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were "not the reason" for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. "My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform," she announced.
Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes -- and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got Reid to jettison a provision stripping health insurers of their antitrust exemption. Landrieu got the concessions for her money. And Lincoln won an extended, 72-hour period to study legislation.
And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill.
Republicans also knew that a single defection would kill the bill, so they tried to pressure the holdouts. "That's what we've got to choose today: Do we choose life or do we choose death?" declared Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). "We just need one vote, one vote on the other side."
But Landrieu had already made up her mind. She went to the floor during the lunch hour to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate -- but that she'd be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill.
"My vote today," she said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, "should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end." Among the concessions she'll seek: more tax credits for small business and a removal of the version of the "public option" now in the bill.
That turned all the attention to the usually quiet Lincoln, who emerged from the cloakroom two hours later to announce her decision. Her attire was school-principal prim -- blue suit with knee-length skirt, orange silk scarf tied tightly at the neck -- and she was clearly uncomfortable in the spotlight. She spoke with the diction of somebody giving a dramatic reading, and she stumbled more than once as she read, botching the crucial line: "I will vote to support, of, the, the, will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill."
She argued, a bit too strenuously, that "I'm not thinking about my reelection" in 2010. All the same, she made clear that Democratic leaders would have to give more if they want her to vote yes as the health-care debate continues. Specifically, she demanded removal of the public option. "I am opposed to a new government-administered health-care plan," she warned, further cautioning that "I will not vote in favor of the proposal . . . as it is written."
By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain. This is 300 million for one vote, this is not Harry Reids money it belongs to we the taxpayer, how much longer are we going to put up with the idiots in Washington?
Staffers on Capitol Hill were calling it the Louisiana Purchase.
On the eve of Saturday's showdown in the Senate over health-care reform, Democratic leaders still hadn't secured the support of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.), one of the 60 votes needed to keep the legislation alive. The wavering lawmaker was offered a sweetener: at least $100 million in extra federal money for her home state.
And so it came to pass that Landrieu walked onto the Senate floor midafternoon Saturday to announce her aye vote -- and to trumpet the financial "fix" she had arranged for Louisiana. "I am not going to be defensive," she declared. "And it's not a $100 million fix. It's a $300 million fix."
It was an awkward moment (not least because her figure is 20 times the original Louisiana Purchase price). But it was fairly representative of a Senate debate that seems to be scripted in the Southern Gothic style. The plot was gripping -- the bill survived Saturday's procedural test without a single vote to spare -- and it brought out the rank partisanship, the self-absorption and all the other pathologies of modern politics. If that wasn't enough of a Tennessee Williams story line, the debate even had, playing the lead role, a Southerner named Blanche with a flair for the dramatic.
After Landrieu threw in her support (she asserted that the extra Medicaid funds were "not the reason" for her vote), the lone holdout in the 60-member Democratic caucus was Sen. Blanche Lincoln of Arkansas. Like other Democratic moderates who knew a single vote could kill the bill, she took a streetcar named Opportunism, transferred to one called Wavering and made off with concessions of her own. Indeed, the all-Saturday debate, which ended with an 8 p.m. vote, occurred only because Democratic leaders had yielded to her request for more time.
Even when she finally announced her support, at 2:30 in the afternoon, Lincoln made clear that she still planned to hold out for many more concessions in the debate that will consume the next month. "My decision to vote on the motion to proceed is not my last, nor only, chance to have an impact on health-care reform," she announced.
Landrieu and Lincoln got the attention because they were the last to decide, but the Senate really has 100 Blanche DuBoises, a full house of characters inclined toward the narcissistic. The health-care debate was worse than most. With all 40 Republicans in lockstep opposition, all 60 members of the Democratic caucus had to vote yes -- and that gave each one an opportunity to extract concessions from Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid.
Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) won a promise from Reid to support his plan to expand eligibility for health insurance. Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) got Reid to jettison a provision stripping health insurers of their antitrust exemption. Landrieu got the concessions for her money. And Lincoln won an extended, 72-hour period to study legislation.
And the big shakedown is yet to occur: That will happen when Reid comes back to his caucus in a few weeks to round up 60 votes for the final passage of the health bill.
Republicans also knew that a single defection would kill the bill, so they tried to pressure the holdouts. "That's what we've got to choose today: Do we choose life or do we choose death?" declared Sen. Sam Brownback (R-Kan.). "We just need one vote, one vote on the other side."
But Landrieu had already made up her mind. She went to the floor during the lunch hour to say that she would vote to proceed with the debate -- but that she'd be looking for much bigger concessions before she gives her blessing to a final version of the bill.
"My vote today," she said in a soft Southern accent that masked the hard politics at play, "should in no way be construed by the supporters of this current framework as an indication of how I might vote as this debate comes to an end." Among the concessions she'll seek: more tax credits for small business and a removal of the version of the "public option" now in the bill.
That turned all the attention to the usually quiet Lincoln, who emerged from the cloakroom two hours later to announce her decision. Her attire was school-principal prim -- blue suit with knee-length skirt, orange silk scarf tied tightly at the neck -- and she was clearly uncomfortable in the spotlight. She spoke with the diction of somebody giving a dramatic reading, and she stumbled more than once as she read, botching the crucial line: "I will vote to support, of, the, the, will vote in support of cloture on the motion to proceed to this bill."
She argued, a bit too strenuously, that "I'm not thinking about my reelection" in 2010. All the same, she made clear that Democratic leaders would have to give more if they want her to vote yes as the health-care debate continues. Specifically, she demanded removal of the public option. "I am opposed to a new government-administered health-care plan," she warned, further cautioning that "I will not vote in favor of the proposal . . . as it is written."
By the time this thing is done, the millions for Louisiana will look like a bargain. This is 300 million for one vote, this is not Harry Reids money it belongs to we the taxpayer, how much longer are we going to put up with the idiots in Washington?
Health Care Reform Support for Health Care Plan Falls to New Low Monday, November 23, 2009
Just 38% of voters now favor the health care plan proposed by President Obama and congressional Democrats. That’s the lowest level of support measured for the plan in nearly two dozen tracking polls conducted since June.
The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone survey finds that 56% now oppose the plan.
Half the survey was conducted before the Senate voted late Saturday to begin debate on its version of the legislation. Support for the plan was slightly lower in the half of the survey conducted after the Senate vote.
Prior to this, support for the plan had never fallen below 41%. Last week, support for the plan was at 47%. Two weeks ago, the effort was supported by 45% of voters.
Intensity remains stronger among those who oppose the push to change the nation’s health care system: 21% Strongly Favor the plan while 43% are Strongly Opposed.
Rasmussen Reports is continuing to track public opinion on the health care plan on a weekly basis. Next week’s Monday morning update will give an indication of whether these numbers reflect a trend of growing opposition or are merely statistical noise.
(Want a free daily e-mail update? If it's in the news, it's in our polls). Rasmussen Reports updates are also available on Twitter or Facebook.
Only 16% now believe passage of the plan will lead to lower health care costs. Nearly four times as many (60%) believe the plan will increase health care costs. Most (54%) also believe passage of the plan will hurt the quality of care.
As has been the case for months, Democrats favor the plan while Republicans and voters not affiliated with either major party are opposed. The latest numbers show support from 73% of those in the president’s party. The plan is opposed by 83% of Republicans and 70% of unaffiliated voters.
Other recent polling shows that Democrats consider health care reform to be the top priority for the president. Republicans and unaffiliated voters see deficit reduction as most important.
Among the nation’s senior citizens, 34% favor the health care plan and 60% are opposed. A majority of those under 30 favor the plan, but a majority of all other age groups are opposed (Premium Members can see full demographic crosstabs).
Support for health care has declined along with President Obama's approval ratings. For the first time in the Obama era, the Rasmussen Reports daily Presidential Approval Index has been in negative double digits for nine straight days.
Despite the decline in support for the health care plan, 50% still say it is at least somewhat likely to become law this year. That figure includes 17% who say passage is Very Likely.
While Senate Democrats this weekend assembled enough votes to begin debate on the plan, many challenges remain. All Republican Senators and several Democrats, for example, have expressed opposition to the so-called “public option.” Sixty-three percent (63%) of voters nationwide say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance coverage is a higher priority than giving consumers the choice of a "public option" government-run health insurance company. Most liberal voters say giving people the choice of a "public option" is more important. But most moderates take the opposite view and say guaranteeing that no one is forced to change their health insurance is the top priority.
Overall, 46% favor the creation of a government-sponsored non-profit health insurance option that people could choose instead of a private health insurance plan. However, if the plan encouraged companies to drop private health insurance coverage for their workers, support for the public option falls to 29%, and opposition rises to 58%.
As Scott Rasmussen, president of Rasmussen Reports, wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “The most important fundamental is that 68% of American voters have health insurance coverage they rate good or excellent. … Most of these voters approach the health care reform debate fearing that they have more to lose than to gain.”
Other challenging issues in the Senate debate include abortion and illegal immigration. Ever since the House's passage of the Stupak Amendment which says the "public option" would not cover elective abortions and that recipients of federal insurance subsidies could not use them to buy abortion coverage, the divide among Democrats has been visible.
Earlier polling showed that 48% nationwide favored the abortion ban, but most supporters of health care reform didn’t want to address the issue. Just 13% of all voters wanted abortion coverage mandated in the legislation.
On immigration, 83% say that proof of citizenship should be required before anyone can get health care assistance from a government program. Most Democrats while claiming the plan will not cover illegal immigrants are opposed to including a proof-of-citizenship stipulation.
Other polling shows that 47% trust the private sector more than government to keep health care costs down and the quality of care up. Two-thirds (66%) say an increase in free market competition will do more than government regulation to reduce health care costs.
While voters are skeptical of the plan working its way through Congress, 54% say major changes are needed in the health care system. Sixty-one percent (61%) say it’s important for Congress to pass some reform.
Only 31% believe Congress has a good understanding of the proposed health care reform.
These polls are showing a certain switch from dems to reps. There was a poll that when asked, more people would vote for a rep next time. MAINLY because they want the 'checks & balances' back again.
When the INSANE are running the ASYLUM In individuals, insanity is rare; but in groups, parties, nations and epochs, it is the rule. -- Friedrich Nietzsche
“How fortunate for those in power that people never think.” Adolph Hitler
Plan to Restrict Health Accounts Will Hurt the Disabled, Critics Warn By Judson Berger - FOXNews.com
Families with special-needs children and people with chronic illnesses stand to lose hundreds, if not thousands, of dollars in tax benefits under proposed health care reform legislation, critics say, warning that a plan to cap the amount of money people can put into special "flexible spending" health accounts will have "cruel" and "unintended consequences...................>>>>.................>>>>...................http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/25/plan-restrict-health-accounts-hurt-disabled-critics-warn/
Thanks for the laugh I got from your Nov. 21 headline, “GOP: Guidelines may start rationing.” Rationing has been going on for a long, long time in this country. Over 40 million of us are rationed to having only emergency room care. Every time an insurance company denies coverage, we are being rationed. While the GOP’s notion that health care reform will start rationing is laughable to people who have been rejected for pre-existing conditions, it is not funny at all. To people going bankrupt because they can’t pay medical bills, it’s not funny either. That tens of thousands of Americans die each year from lack of health insurance — this is downright tragic. The bill going through Congress will not solve all our health care problems. To really reduce job-killing health care costs, we would need to expand Medicare to allow anyone to join. But many of the provisions of this legislation — such as creating a public option to give insurance companies some competition, and insuring tens of millions presently uninsured — would be great steps in the right direction. The insurance companies have defeated health care reform for decades. We are very close to ending their stranglehold on our economy and our health. If you want health care reform, call your senators and congresspersons and let them know!
Defenders of health care’s status quo must become more honest
There are legitimate issues about medical care and the pending health care legislation that we should be discussing. However, people using demagoguery are trying to poison the debate so that rational discussion becomes impossible. Many of these people are elected officials who should understand the issues, yet they often argue passionately for two contradictory positions in the health care debate, as if they are more interested in finding fault with any changes, rather than finding rational solutions. People who claim to be opposed to the requirement for universal health insurance do not object to the requirement that health insurers cannot deny coverage based on pre-existing conditions, even though they know that we cannot allow people to buy coverage only after they get sick. People who argue that we should have unfettered access to medical care also complain about possible increases in premiums, as if there were some magical pot of money to pay for increased access. People who warn that the new guidelines regarding mammograms for women under 50 are “the start of rationing” are conveniently forgetting that we have insurance company-controlled rationing right now. People who claim they do not want a “government bureaucrat” between the patient and the doctor seem to be perfectly comfortable that health insurance company clerks play that role right now. People who claim we have the best health care system in the world ignore the 46 million people in this country who do not have health insurance, and get little to no medical care. People who argue that there should be no limits on diagnostic tests as long as the tests could potentially save at least one life, and simultaneously complain about the high and growing cost of medical care, conveniently forget that medical tests cost money and the costs for these tests must be paid by patients, through insurance premiums or through taxes. We need to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of our present health care system and ways we can improve it. We don’t need fear mongering and intentional misinformation confusing this discussion.
The ideological “right” is resorting to exaggerations and falsehoods to block health-care reform. Unfortunately, these tactics have swayed some Democratic congressmen that represent conservative districts, like our own Scott Murphy. Murphy’s vote against the recent House health care reform bill demonstrates their propaganda’s unsavory influence. In the “right’s” ideological fantasy land, the government can only make things worse, and the private sector is always superior. The health care crisis exposes this falsehood. Close to half of all health care entails a substantive government involvement. This smaller half includes Medicare, Medicaid, VA [Veterans Administration] and the military. The larger half is mostly private. Virtually all our health care problems originate in the private half. The existence of 50 million uninsured Americans, having the highest health care costs proportionally of any nation, and a ranking of 38th in the world in healthy outcomes is all the direct result of private-sector policies. It’s not government that denies health insurance to Americans with “pre-existing conditions” or terminates coverage due to protracted illness. Government doesn’t rely on legal loopholes to renege on paying the medical bills of Americans who have for years diligently paid their premiums. This explains why a push to address private-sector abuses has no public-sector equivalent. Even the anti-government protesters who attended Rep. Murphy’s town hall meetings booed him when he presented them with an opportunity to advocate for the elimination of Medicare. They viewed it as a ploy to lessen their credibility. This should have told both them and Murphy something important: It’s the government, not the private sector, that has done the superior job. It’s time to expose “rightist” ideological propaganda for the nonsense it is. Likewise, we must hold Rep. Murphy accountable and demand that he redeem himself on his next health care vote.
According to the Guttmacher Institute, 87 percent of typical employerbased insurance policies in 2002 covered abortion care. Unfortunately, on Nov. 7 the U.S. House of Representatives used women’s reproductive health as a pawn in the health care reform debate. In a dramatic change from current policy, the Stupak-Pitts Amendment would prevent many women from using their own funds to choose a health plan that meets their reproductive health care needs. This is an unprecedented restriction on women’s access to abortion care and if included in the final version of health care reform, could endanger the lives and health of American women.
Abortion battle could derail health bill By: Carrie Budoff Brown December 4, 2009 06:51 PM EST
In the past week, abortion has flared up as a major impediment to passage of a health care reform bill in the Senate, taking a similar path as it did during the House debate — from obscurity to obstacle in a matter of days.
After months of trying to craft a 60-vote coalition based on the finer points of health care policy, Senate Democrats are growing increasingly worried that abortion will upend what had become a clear path to approving the overhaul bill.
Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) sparked a fresh round of concern this week when he repeatedly and definitively vowed to filibuster the health care legislation unless it included abortion restrictions as tough as the so-called Stupak amendment in the House bill.
“I don’t ordinarily draw a line in the sand, but I have drawn a line in the sand,” Nelson said Friday. Nelson certainly has a long history of agitating his party by withholding his vote until he wrings out every last concession from Senate leaders. But on the uncompromising issue of abortion, Democrats fear he may really be serious this time.
“There is a worry that Sen. Nelson means business,” said a senior Senate Democratic aide, who spoke on the condition of anonymity to discuss strategy. “Unlike with public option, there is very little ground liberal Democrats are willing to give on this issue. Abortion, not the public option, may be the cause of our first official defection.” ..................>>>>.............................>>>>......................http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30224.html
Logged
