It's hard to produce a bill when most of your caucus has no interest in actually governing and is so right-wing so as to make Chuck Hagel look liberal.

I sum it up like this: screwed if they do, screwed if they don't.

The third of the two alternatives is to choose neither, counting on Our Nation's Only Media not to notice.

::goes back to check linkies::

Oh wait. That story was FROM CNN. No -- it was from the New York All The News That's Fit To Print Times. Oh, oh, hold on, it was from the Washington Post. No, the L.A. Times. Bloomberg.

Ha ha.

Can GOP lawmakers come up with a proposal that covers the insured, offers consumer protections insurers don't like, doesn't raise taxes, lowers the deficit, and ensures exactly zero government intervention in the free market?

Of course they can. All they have to do is cut the taxes of the insurance corporations and millionaires (again) and the Supply-side Fairy will flitter across the countryside, sprinkling her magical pixie dust over the economy to ensure that no "real" American ever gets sick again.

At least that's the way St. Ronald told us that will work if people just believe hard enough.

Do Republicans keep their word, unveil a bad bill, and give Dems a giant bull's eye, or do they break their word and embrace the "Party of No" label?

It's nice to see the House Republicans continue to suck in the fumes of their own impotence and irrelevancy.

"Reform" connotes change, and there's the rub:

I've got a trophy wife, an even younger and hotter girl friend, a big house, and millions of dollars in cash. Why would I want to "reform"? ? ?

"Do Republicans keep their word...?" It'd be great if they would, probably even more fun than their 'budget.'

It's a little late in the day for the GOP to pull another health care reform bill out of its hat, even assuming they have a desire to actually do it.

GOP leadership has been embarrassingly stupid of late - at least, if they weren't so stupid, they'd be embarrassed. Of course, they if they'd have the capacity to be embarrassed, they wouldn't be so stupid.

Nonetheless, I'm not going that far out on a limb to predict their response:

We WERE putting the finishing touches on a comprehensive healthcare reform package, one that would've created millions of jobs and saved hundreds of billions of dollars without a socialized governmental takeover of the insurance industry. But the Democrats were SO hell-bent on socializing healthcare, pushing us ever closer to a communist state, that we just could not finish in time. Remember that when the public option bankrupts this once-great nation - Republicans had an alternative, and the Democrats "essentially" told us "don't bother, we want to screw the people."

Does this excuse completely cover them? No, not even close. But it IS the maximum of coverage they can possibly get on this issue at this time. And if we do get a decent reform package with a public option, and years from now that bill makes things better, doesn't bankrupt the nation, doesn't lead us to a road to communism, etc? Republicans will still say their plan was better, more effective and cheaper but the Dems wouldn't even let it be discussed on the floor. And the dittoheads will believe it, no matter how thin their ranks become. Furthermore, any ill that befalls our nation, they will claim the root cause is the public option. They will try to alter it and lessen it and more-privatize it like they have with Medicare and Social Security, and they will never stop.

Of course they don't want a comparison. It's much easier to attack when you have nothing to compare it to.

There is no need for an "alternative". Because from their perspective "we have the best health care system in the world".

Everybody in this country has health care. "Anyone can just walk into the emergency room 24 hours a day and they will give you health care".

And if you don't have any health care then, "Get a job!".

And finally, if none of the above applies then, "Die quickly, please!"

They won't produce any detailed plan, because the media won't notice (or won't care) that they didn't. They will, however, manage to become victims; shut out of the legislative process by the Democrats' rush to pass their socialistic reforms.

They just break their word. Their word has never meant anything. I don't know why it's even seen as a conundrum or a question.

My hope - in the fall of 2010, the Dems run commercial after commercial saying "We passed health care reform legislation that strengthened Medicare while the Republicans wanted to privatize Medicare."

As Cheney is fond of saying, I think the GOP leadership is "dithering"...nah...can't be.

Wha'? You mean those health insurance lobbyists haven't finished the Republican bill yet? Lazy, good for nothing... can't expect the Rs to do it themselves, they don't know how.

Qwerty wrote:

They will, however, manage to become victims; shut out of the legislative process by the Democrats' rush to pass their socialistic reforms.

If I hear another teabagger whine about how health care reform is "being shoved down our throats," I'm gonna puke. Health care reform was one of the two or three main issues in the presidential election, and was heavily debated, argued and hashed out over a period of almost two years. The specifics of it were one of the main points of contention between Candidates Obama and Clinton all through the primaries. The promise of health care reform is one of the key things that got Barack Obama elected president by the widest popular and electoral margin in more than two decades, and strengthened the Dems' majorities in the House and Senate. We, as a nation, elected them to do this.

Look, it sucks to be out of power, not to have the political strength to stop something you oppose. As a Democrat, I know this. But this isn't tyranny; it's the way representative democracies work.

This is the Republican Plan:

1. Don't get sick
2. If you do get sick, die quickly

Lather, rinse, repeat...

I nominate Broun's bill as the Republican alternative:
http://mediamattersaction.org/blog/200910220005

You know if most of them were honest this is what they would be pushing, with the caveat that this voucher thing would also have to be eliminated in a few years once it fails. Leaving us with no government healthcare at all.

Republicans do know how to shout 'Tort Reform!' and 'Shop across State lines!' every time healthcare is discussed.

But then the CBO on Oct 9 showed that Tort Reform saves only 0.5% of healthcare spending, and policy analysts showed shopping across state lines will start a regulatory race to the bottom between states (like the financial race that South Dakota and Delaware won).

So yes, it's back to 'Die Quickly'.

They need to come up with something soon or that "Don't get sick" plan will stick to them.

Snarky is right. Every time, EVERY time, one of the wingers/baggers starts whining about tyranny or crying 'I want my country back', etc. we counter with, "Um, we did have an election in November 2008. You seemed to believe in those when you were winning."

And the Dem politicians had also better think about what those election results meant if they want to win next year and stay in power.

Hmmm. try this.

Tax Return based vouchers.

You turn in your taxes you get a book of 12 vouchers for every social security number on there ( you and your dependents ).

The voucher is for a base amount -- I am going to use $172 as an example only ( the number of working hours in a month ).

Insurance companies are required to offer a basic package for that amount. Period. Government sets the coverage and the limitations and the co-payments.
The amount goes up annually at a small percent ( say 2% ) so year 2 would be $175.40
* This makes insurance companies need to get their cost curve in order because in 10 years they will be losing money if they do not.

Who is in control?
Washington? Nope.
The insurance companies? Nope.
The person with those little vouchers in their hand?
Yep.

See if an insurance company says "Sorry that $1500 test is not covered." I say, "okay I will pay for it myself but at the end of this month I am taking my vouchers to a different company. MY vouchers, my wife's, my kid's, I will recommend to my parent's and siblings to do the same too. Hope you enjoy losing $1000-3000 per month in premiums for a one time $1500."

Many other good things come from this.
* No death panels or crap like that -- the government only defines the minimum acceptable coverage.
* No mandate to buy insurance. I mean you got this book of vouchers in the mail with your tax return ... why not?
* Illegal aliens? Wait ... they filed a tax return and paid their taxes? Fine. They get a book of vouchers.
* Pre-existing conditions disappear within two years even without legislation ( if you have been covered solidly for 2 years you have no pre-existing conditions ).
* Don't worry about things like rescission ... well not exactly.
See for things other than coverage, practices you want to see occur or stop occurring? You make insurance companies follow in payment term tiers.
No rescission -- vouchers redeemed in 3 days. ( Net3 )
Rescission -- vouchers redeemed in 90 days. ( Net90 ).
Interesting how loss of interest on millions of dollars for 1/4 of a year can motivate companies.

And THAT is the role of government.
Not DICTATING to companies and individuals how to behave.
MOTIVATING them how to behave.

( read $1 Billion prize for 10 prizes to create green energy ... i.e. a Farm tractor that runs completely on electricity ... versus Cap and Trade ).

BTW -- for all of you who love to throw out terms of "wingers, baggers, Rethugs, etc. " I really wish President Obama would send you to France and Iran as diplomats. because then we could see the Progressive method of working with people in action.
"Hey you sand-Ni**er towel heads need to stop making nukes!"
"Hey you BRAIN DEAD Frogs need to get onboard and pass what we tell you to!"

If you do NOT believe in calling your allies Brain-dead Frogs or other countries foul names as a method of diplomacy?
Why the hell do you think calling Blue-Dogs "brain dead" and republicans "Rethugs" is going to get you anything but hate back?

Hypocrits?

Chromehawk: I don't see how your voucher program will work. What if the next insurance company refuses to cover your $1500 test, too? The status quo doesn't change just because you have more options. Assuming that the public option does cover the test, then that would be a more reliable "carrot" to bring the other carriers along.

And also, FWIW, the long-timers here don't characterize the opposition with cheesy or derogatory names. The subject comes up every now and then, and most people here get it.

Republicans blather on about is tort reform which would be used to increase the medical insurance industrial complex profits by gutting the ability of American citizens to be represented by the third branch of government (our courts) and a jury of their peers (more American citizens).

Actually, the voucher DOES do it. And by the way vouchers is a lot closer to single payer than public option is.

So the next company refuses to cover that test. They are not the ones who said no.
Other people change for that reason.
Pretty soon insurance companies realize that maybe covering that test will get THEM customers coming to them.

Pretty soon you have a situation like banks and ATM charges.
Yes you have a few that charge you everywhere other than THEIR machines ( i.e. BofA and Wells Fargo ) but you have a whole bunch that offer NO charges anywhere.
And the banks that offer that no ATM charge ... or free checking with automatic deposit, etc, become the norm and Wells Fargo and BofA end up only Banking for the value of the name.

*winks* called market competition.

Well, I'm not an expert on the voucher option. But if it's such a great idea, then the Republicans should propose it as a counter-option to the public option the Democrats are pursuing.

The *real* problem is that Republicans don't want any reform, as that would bolster the Obama administration. The Republicans had their chance and they blew it.

As Snarky said earlier, the people voted in the Democrats to get health reform done. If Harry Reid can get 60 votes on cloture for the public option versus vouchers, then that's what we'll get. Nobody on the Democratic side will be complaining.

WHAT BILL?

Is the *real* problem that Republicans do not want any reform?

Or is it that Madam Speaker has made clear that their proposals are dead on arrival.
That "We won, you lost -- so shut up!"

Furthermore ... what was the first word out of her mouth concerning Health Care Reform? Oh yeah, Reconciliation.

Basically from two seconds into the start of the debate Nancy Pelosi declared she was going to get what she wanted, did not want Republicans on board and frankly couldn't care less about the moderates so long as she got the 7 in the Senate needed to create a VP tie breaking vote.

So is it the *real* problem is the republicans or the *real* problem that Nancy Pelosi DOES consider ALL republicans "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" and all moderates Blue Dogs "Useful idiots"?

Vouchers: Are you saying that the vouchers would be used to buy insurance on a monthly basis? An annual basis? Or are the vouchers used to purchase health care itself?

Seems to me that the person/entity in control is the one who is setting what the vouchers are worth and/or what they can be used for... not the person who is using the vouchers.

So is it the *real* problem is the republicans or the *real* problem that Nancy Pelosi DOES consider ALL republicans "knuckle-dragging Neanderthals" and all moderates Blue Dogs "Useful idiots"? [sic]

I think the "real problem" is that Nancy Pelosi is treating Republicans the same way that previous Repulican House Speakers treated Democrats. (I'm looking at you, Newt.) She's not following the script, and that is oh-so-wrong.

Chromehawk, Nancy Pelosi has the votes in the House for a strong public-option bill. What exactly is your beef? We won, you lost -- exactly right. But no one is making you shut up, so why are we hearing nothing whatever from the Republicans?

First,
If Nancy HAD the votes for a strong public-option ... she would have brought it to a vote already.

That IS how Nancy works ( and correct ... the instant you see 218 you vote NOW before one of them changes their minds ).

The fact that she hasn't means despite what she says, she doesn't have the votes.
Probably because the moderates refuse to be placed on the record only to have it gutted because it won't pass the Senate.

As it stands now ... both Leiberman and Blanche have said they will join in a filibuster of the "opt out" compromise Reid put up. So basically the public option is now officially dead in the Senate short of a outright declaration of war by the progressives on the moderates.

And the We won you lost ... *winks* you may try looking at my posts. I capitalize Blue Dogs and leave republican lower case. That is about as far as I go in demeaning them.
And hint -- since 2006? 90% of all Democratic gains have been *gasp* Blue Dog!
Without the Blue Dog pickups the Republicans would hold the Senate and nancy would only have just become Speaker with a 220 majority ... and that would still include about 50+ of the 90 or so moderates.

Is the *real* problem that Republicans do not want any reform?

Yes, that is what I said. If Republicans would compromise somewhere, then the final bill would be a lot more inclusive. Max Baucus spent months in the Senate Finance seeking any kind of agreement with Republicans, but eventually came away with just Cynthia Snowe still on the fence.

Or is it that Madam Speaker has made clear that their proposals are dead on arrival.
That "We won, you lost -- so shut up!"

It's not about Nancy Pelosi or any other individual. It is about a popular mandate to pass health care reform.

And you can dance around the issue all you want, but the Republicans are clearly trying to obstruct anything the Democrats do in general and health care reform in particular.

Weren't the republiscum all waving bits of paper at Obama's last speech in order to claim that they had a health plan, when in fact they don't? What's the word for that...... umm, oh yeah, lying. Now where did I hear that word recently.....?

** It is about a popular mandate to pass health care reform. **

Where was this mandate?

As I remember the 2008 election, I and many like me had two choices.
Hold our nose and vote for Pres. Obama.
Or puke our guts out and vote for Bush III.

Obama won the NOMINATION on health care and such.
For the General election he ran and won on "I am not BUSH ... but that loony senile old fool there is."

The mandate was enough Bush. And that is all.

*Sighs* I have seen this before. 1976.
In 1976 the Liberal Wing ( Today's Progressives ) of the party was the majority in party. They declared a filibuster proof majority in the Senate and huge margins in the House was PROOF they had a mandate to finish what Johnson started.

The Moderate wing ( Southern Democrats and what was known as Neo-Conservatives ... today's Blue Dogs ) where going "WHOA All they said was Nixon was a crook and Ford pardoned him!"

The Liberals put there foot down and declared any moderate who didn't stand with them and push the mandate was dead politically. After all, they had such a large margin they could lose a couple seats. Besides, they had a MANDATE to pass this stuff.

1980 comes along and the L-word wing of the party ( YEP! It wasn't Reagan who declared the L-Word and insult, it was us fellow Democrats ).
And the war had a conclusion. But it wasn't a conclusion that the liberal ( progressive ) wing expected.
In addition to Reagan becoming president. The republicans SWEPT the Senate. They won EVERY Senate seat.

Now why?
Cause you see when you declare war and boot those Blue Dogs ... and declare you are just following an imaginary mandate?
Those nasty Blue Dog politicians take their voters with them. ALL their voters.

So Barbara Boxer has to try to win re-election, knowing the Blue Dog voters are going to punish HER for HER progressive supporters punishing Blue Dogs elsewhere.
Lo and behold, Barbara Boxer does NOT have enough supporters to win without the moderates.

There is only ONE mandate. Make it work. Whatever your policies are. They need to work.
Even one hiccup in Health Care, and the people will shut down the progressive moment.

Pass via reconciliation -- whatever is passed via reconciliation can be canceled via reconciliation. And the benefits of these plans do not occur until AFTER the 2012 election. Only the fees and taxes ( the pain part ).

I agree that the GOP has had difficulty crafting an alternative to Obamacare. The realities of the Dem bills in Congress, however, are deeply flawed. We all know that the cost will be far more than they say. We know that their plan(s) will not cover all of the uninsured. We know that the benefits of their reform plan will be less than they have promised. Yes, there will be more taxes and a cutting back on medical services. The elderly are wary and for good reason. See www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com for physician views on reform and medical quality.