Anonsters: He’s an Alabama Republican.

He’s a former Alabama Democrat, which explains his love of pork.

I am supposed to be impressed by HIPAA? I could practically care less about HIPAA to the extent that it is mere tinkering around the edges. To me, HIPAA represents a failure to achieve real reform. Under HIPAA, we still have tens of thousands of excess deaths linked to a lack of health insurance.

You are supposed to be impressed that Ted Kennedy wrapped up 90 votes and that the GOP Congress of 2000 didn’t repeal it immediately.

I understand it’s not to your liking but part of not being Emperor is occasionally accepting the contrary judgment of your fellow citizens.

You have obviously been reading too much postmodernist literature. Here are some objective measure for you. (1) Does the bill reduce excess deaths linked to lack of health insurance? (2) Reduce the number of uninsured. (3) Help control medical inflation. Maybe in your warped postmodernist mind, you think these criteria are my subjective personal preferences. After all, what is an “excess death” really, since we all die anyway?

That you are so wrapped up in your ideology you cannot see its subjective nature is truly terrifying.

I grant you that you have an objective measure as to particular goals but you pretend like “reduce excess deaths” is something that everyone must automatically agree is worth any price. I happen to believe that the optimal number of excess deaths is not zero (although it’s pretty low). I also happen to believe that while insuring every working American is a worthy goal (I really do), it’s not a goal that’s worth any price whatsoever.

This is policy, not ethics — you cannot simply appeal to some universal truth as an excuse not to engage with critics (well, you can — it’s just not that convincing).

I think these are objective measures that people should agree on, not my idiosyncratic personal preferences.

And I think everyone should agree with my policy preferences as well (gun rights, sexual freedom, gay marriage, …) because they are so obviously correct — but I at least have the common decency to acknowledge disagreement as legitimate. Politics is famously supposed to be the domain where reasonable people disagree.

So why mention the study at all ?

Why not? It is not as if the criticisms of the Institute of Medicine study that exist in the study that Nieporent linked to are applicable to the Harvard Medical School study. Unlike the Institute of Medicine study, the Harvard Medical School study does control for important differences between the insured and uninsured population. The study that Nieporent links to does not even address the Harvard Medical School study. Not only that, the Harvard Medical School study has corrected the flaws observed in the previous Institute of Medicine study.

Furthermore, it is true that there are typically judgment calls when it comes to any statistical study. I am assuming that this is true of the Harvard Medical School study as well. That does not mean that such studies are useless. You seem to be fluctuating to extremes, in perhaps implying that studies that measure quantitative problems should not be mentioned unless they are perfect. But if that were the standard, then we should never speak of the unemployment rate or the rate of inflation.

Why mention the study? Because it is relevant. Just like the unemployment and inflation rates are relevant to discussions of economic policy.

Finally, just because the idea that lack of insurance never results in death is implausible, that does not mean that the numbers are not also very important.

But so what? My point is that given that 51 senators very well might not represent a majority of the population, it’s odd to get worked up on “democracy” grounds about the fact that 51 senators can’t run roughshod over the other 49. There may be practical arguments against the filibuster, but the appeals to democracy don’t work.

Of course appeals to democracy work, in addition to practical arguments against the filibuster.

Remember the Senate is part of a carefully calibrated compromise between the more democratic Virginia plan and less democratic New Jersey plan. Now, while the Senate does reflect the less democratic New Jersey plan, it would have been objectionable for the Senate to move too far away from the more democratic Virginia plan. That disrupts the original deal. The United States is not meant to be a pure democracy, but it is not meant to move too far away from one either.

It is like the the 3/5ths plan in terms of counting slaves. It isn’t very democratic to count slaves for purposes of representation, because it is the slaves oppressors and not the slaves who are being represented. So, in order, it is most democratic to free the slaves and count them fully. But if they are going to be slaves, then it is more democratic that they not count at all and least democratic for them to be counted fully. You cannot say that just because counting slaves as 3/5ths of a person for purposes of representation is not fully democratic, that you cannot make a democratic argument against full representation.

Look, not even the House of Representatives was fully democratic at the founding due to slavery. So, are you going to say I can’t argue on democracy grounds when talking about the House? Of course I can.

It is the same with Senate. The Senate may not be fully democratic. But that does not mean that extreme shifts that make it even less so cannot be objected to on democracy grounds. You seem to have this idea that you can only argue for something on democracy grounds if the institution is “purely” democratic. But that can’t be right. Not one institution of the federal government was purely democratic at the founding (nor is even the House fully democratic now, given the existence of intentional gerrymandering where representatives choose their voters nearly as much as voters choose their representatives). That doesn’t mean that arguing on democracy grounds doesn’t make sense. These were supposed to be carefully calibrated compromises with checks and balances. If you tilt too far away from democracy, you are upsetting those compromises and those checks and balances. That is not good.

Look, if we were to take your argument seriously, then there would not be a serious argument against making the Senate a hereditary aristocracy. After all, the Senate isn’t fully democratic now, so why should we object if elections are done away with altogether. That the Senate isn’t meant to be fully democratic does not imply that democracy in the Senate is unimportant.

In the case of the Senate, I think that the practical argument against the filibuster is in fact more powerful. But I think the argument on democracy grounds is also weighty. (And I also think an argument that the Senate should be apportioned equally between the states is also quite powerful, on the same grounds that it upsets a carefully calibrated system of checks and balances.)

Mark Field: This is wrong. Because the US has a representative system, democracy works at two levels: the system of selecting representatives; and the actions of the representatives within Congress. You’re right that the Senate was not originally intended to be democratic in the first sense, but it was in the second sense.

But so what? My point is that given that 51 senators very well might not represent a majority of the population, it’s odd to get worked up on “democracy” grounds about the fact that 51 senators can’t run roughshod over the other 49. There may be practical arguments against the filibuster, but the appeals to democracy do’t work.

David Welker: You may quibble about the number of people who die or about the precise methodology of a study that attempts to measure that effect, but not with the definite fact that there exists some number of people for whom not having health insurance is going to be fatal because their diseases will go undiagnosed.

So why mention the study at all ?

(1) The laws of supply and demand have no effect on the willingness of people to go to the doctor.

OR

(2) Not going to the doctor never leads to diseases not being diagnosed until it is too late.

The idea that lack of health insurance does not kill some people because their diseases go undiagnosed is so absurd as to not be worth debating. You may quibble about the number of people who die or about the precise methodology of a study that attempts to measure that effect, but not with the definite fact that there exists some number of people for whom not having health insurance is going to be fatal because their diseases will go undiagnosed.

Any statistical study will create legitimate debate. Because any statistical study will have judgment calls that one can argue about. That is just the nature of that beast. But to deny that if you increase the price of going to the doctor, less people will go or that going to the doctor sometimes results in diagnoses of a disease early while it is still treatable is just plain ridiculous.

I know your smarter than this Nieporent. So quit with the BS. Advocacy of your philosophy is fine. But disregarding basic facts when you know better is not cool.

But of course, your always right?

In the meantime, I will concern myself with substance. Such as the following: According to a recent Harvard Medical School study, nearly 45,000 excess deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance.

And according to another study, there were no such excess deaths.

In the meantime, given all your posts on the VC, I will leave you with the words of Cromwell: “I beseech you, in the bowels of Christ, think it possible you may be mistaken.”

What exactly is an ‘excess’ death, for the purposes of this study? Everyone dies, the number of deaths is determined in advance.

An excess death is someone dying sooner than they otherwise would. My mother died when I was 10. I believe that this is linked to the health care she did not receive and the fact her heart condition went undiagnosed.

It is true that my mother would have died eventually anyway. But, there is a profound difference between her dying at the ate of 42 and 80. At least I perceive there to be a profound difference. She also experienced a lot of unnecessary pain due to her misdiagnosis. Her “excess death” had a profound impact on me and my entire family.

You really think that Republicans would have compromised if Democrats had agreed to partially federalized medical malpractice? That is BS. The importance of medical malpractice reform is definitely overstated. Most states already cap non-economic damages. For example, California caps non-economic damages at $250,000. This has not prevented rampant medical inflation in California. This may be some sort of pet issue for you, but it isn’t going to do much to control medical inflation nor would it be possible to get Republican votes in exchange for malpractice reform. You tell me, what Republican has said they would vote for the bill in exchange for medical malpractice reform? The answer is zero.

You sir, are living in a total fantasy land.

I am supposed to be impressed by HIPAA? I could practically care less about HIPAA to the extent that it is mere tinkering around the edges. To me, HIPAA represents a failure to achieve real reform. Under HIPAA, we still have tens of thousands of excess deaths linked to a lack of health insurance.

I think your right about getting 70-80 votes being a proxy for whether we have gotten good substance. Except it is the exact opposite of what you assert in the health care context. If 70-80 votes are gotten for a health insurance bill, that bill, like HIPAA, probably does not do much.

Your preferred policy is not a universal truth. It’s your personal judgment. You think you are right and others are wrong, others think they are right, you are wrong.

You have obviously been reading too much postmodernist literature. Here are some objective measure for you. (1) Does the bill reduce excess deaths linked to lack of health insurance? (2) Reduce the number of uninsured. (3) Help control medical inflation. Maybe in your warped postmodernist mind, you think these criteria are my subjective personal preferences. After all, what is an “excess death” really, since we all die anyway? I mean, if we sent someone to war in Afghanistan and they die, well, wouldn’t they have died anyway? If a tree falls in the forest and no one hears it fall, did it really make a sound? Blah blah blah. I don’t buy this ridiculous nihilism. I think these are objective measures that people should agree on, not my idiosyncratic personal preferences.

“My Mr. Welker, that you don’t want people to die at a young age or experience unnecessary pain and suffering is awfully idiosyncratic of you. You know, some people strongly disagree and we have no way of knowing who is really right.” Whatever. Go away.

here in MA, elections are decided at the Dem primary

Really? You mean like the election of Mitt Romney for Governor and Scott Brown for Senator. I didn’t realize that those elections were decided in the Democratic primary.

The bottom-line is this. Your views are extremely unhelpful. I disagree with you as much as I disagree with Republicans. Both you and Republicans are determined to prevent real health care reform that will save lives (a concept you apparently mock) and prevent unnecessary pain and suffering from earlier diagnoses.

I will tell you what though. If you really want to know what the Harvard Medical School study means by “excess deaths” why don’t you read it here.

Like I tried to say before, if you want to ram this through by a party-line, be prepared to have it repealed as soon as the GOP takes Congress (unless you seriously believe that will be ‘never’), then reinstated in the next Democratic Congress after that. I can just imagine how much worse healthcare can become with a new and different set of regulations coming into effect every 8-12 years — that will be a real money-saver too!

Part of the virtue of something that 70-80 Senators can support (again, HIPAA was written by Ted Kennedy and supported by 98) is that it more likely to survive to become relevant.

Yup, and the bill will have inched towards the political center.

huh? bunch of ideas have been added as i pointed out, and every *new* republican pet idea that hasn’t been added will be the “only thing that the republicans want”? that’s not negotiation, where i come from. this kind of goalpost moving is absolute bad faith. (and the death panel thing i pointed out is a great example of the level of lack of seriousness among the republicans about the consensus, not to mention limiting the deficit). just because the dems stopped at some point at constant redefinition of the “new normal” doesn’t mean the bill was a unilateral imposition. now, a lot of this is the democrats’ failure to disseminate a clear message of cost control and their tendency to get lost in the weeds, so they justifiably deserve blame for that, but to claim that tort reform is the one thing standing between this country and healthcare is tremendously silly given the track record and evidence i have pointed out (and to respond to that with, “but the only way to know that is to add tort reform to the bill” is also really quite silly again given the track record and evidence i have pointed out).

let’s not give Clinton excessive credit here. The balanced budgets of the late ’90’s were mostly the result of skyrocketing tax revenues caused by a strong economy.

this assumes that people did not drop tax rates out of proportion with the growth and govt spending, as some other presidents who shall not be named did.

what clinton did made perfect sense from a keynesian pov, as is obama’s stimulus spending in a recession, where govt does need to step in in the absence of private spending. sadly obama’s spending is severely curtailed by the fact that the previous govts managed to run up a sizable deficit even in a growth period. that is an impressive feat though, so kudos to them.

When tort reform, an idea that has miniscule cost benefits, is added, the goalposts will be moved again to add the next pet idea

Yup, and the bill will have inched towards the political center. Keep doing that and eventually we might have a bill with bipartisan support.

# Medical malpractice: The legislation says Congress should consider creating state demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to the current litigation system. Republicans had called for creating special malpractice courts and limits on damage awards.

Sorry, ‘Congress should consider’ is boilerplate language for ‘nothing at all’. Congress is already empowered to consider whatever it wants without an enabling statute.

Considering that left to their own devices Democrats might pass single payer, and failing that would certainly prefer a strong government option, I don’t see how the concessions made to avoid a filibuster aren’t concessions to Republicans. And before you say they were made to Blue Dogs, not Republicans, those aren’t mutually exclusive.

They would certainly not. Lieberman forbade it, Nelson probably would too if Joe didn’t cover for him. Landrieu wasn’t fond of the idea either.

The concession to the Blue Dogs form the fundamental definition of “what the Democrats want” — your notion of compromise is that we have to start from a position of what left wing Democrats and then make enough concessions for the moderate wing of the party and that should be good enough fro the GOP?

The starting point for compromise with the GOP is a bill that 59 Dems support. Otherwise, you are just playing word games.

I can only conclude that you are ignorant. The idea that Republican ideas have not shaped the health care bill is simply false. This is true even though they have refused to vote for it.

Which is why the bill includes tort reform and mandatory federal jurisdiction for claims against insurers from another state, right?

Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters and other obstructionism. That is another fact.

Agreed.

Finally, I don’t really care for your lack of substance. You aren’t asking for a specific policy. You are asking for 70–80 votes. There is no substance there. You apparently don’t care what passes, as long as it gets a lot of votes.

The number of votes is a good proxy for the content of the bill! Given the makeup of the Senate, a bill with 70-80 votes would be about where I stand.

You aren’t a member of either party because you don’t know what you believe.

I know exactly what I believe. It just so happens that it doesn’t happen to be congruent with the beliefs of either party. There are beliefs of both parties with which I agree and there ones with which I disagree. Forcing me to chose a particular “package” of beliefs together is absurd.

It boggles the mind that you think the entire universe of American political thought is captured by a simple binary party divide.

So, instead of a particular substantive results (which you wouldn’t know whether you liked or not anyway), you want bipartisan agreement (which seems like a great substitute for substance when you can’t make up your mind).

I’ve made up my mind, I could write a health care bill right now (more or less). I don’t know if it would get any votes but I can evaluate proposals against it.

I hate to break this to you, but… (1) if one party is determined to not play ball, you can’t have bipartisanship no matter how hard you try and (2) just because something is bipartisan, that does not mean it is good policy.

“Good policy” is a relative judgment — one that the citizens of this country are very divided on. You cannot pretend like we all want “good policy” and it just remains to write that down and vote on it. That’s the essence of what politics is — disagreement about what constitutes good policy.

In the absence of a fanciful situation in which that fundamental disagreement gets resoled somehow, the next best thing is to find a compromise that people with policy disagreements can get to.

You probably would benefit from figuring out exactly what it is that you believe in. In the meantime, don’t say you are my “would-be compatriot” before you even know what you believe in. Maybe you are better suited to be the “would-be compatriot” of a Republican. Try to make up your mind. And you know what. If you decide to be a Republican at the end of the day, I don’t have a problem with that.

First, there are a few planks of the GOP platform that more or less preclude me from ever voting for their candidates on a Federal level (and here in MA, elections are decided at the Dem primary).

Second, I’ve voted Dem consistently because they were the closest to what I’ve believed on the ticket (compromise, right?) so, like it or not, that makes the two of us at least coalition-members.

In the meantime, I will concern myself with substance. Such as the following: According to a recent Harvard Medical School study, nearly 45,000 excess deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance.

What exactly is an ‘excess’ death, for the purposes of this study? Everyone dies, the number of deaths is determined in advance.

And what YOU care about is whether there are 70–80 votes in the Senate? What I care about is adopting policies that will save some of these lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. It is too bad when cancer, or heart disease, or other diseases are diagnosed too late because of lack of health insurance. It is too bad for the individuals who suffer unnecessary pain and premature death and it is too bad for their family members who they leave behind. I don’t have a problem with bipartisanship, but it isn’t what primarily matters to me. What I primarily want to see is for progress to occur on solving this problem. If you knew what you believed in, you would care more about policy too.

Listen, I understand your policy. What you need to understand is that:

(1) Your preferred policy is not a universal truth. It’s your personal judgment. You think you are right and others are wrong, others think they are right, you are wrong.

(2) Given (1), I appreciate and applaud your opinion on the matter but we are not in a position to end the debate there and then. A little ideological humility goes a long way — recognizing as legitimate (if perhaps disagreeable) the policy preferences of others is the first step.

I absolutely WILL vote Republican in the next election unless Democrats make serious and substantive progress on health care in 2010. That is a promise. Democrats should have done something in 2009 rather than waste three months trying to negotiate with Republicans to satisfy people like you who, as you have shown, can’t be satisfied anyway. You really believe that Democrats haven’t reached out to Republicans enough? That is just crazy.

Again, show me a bill with mandatory federal jurisdiction for certain medical tort.

Either way, Shelby knows what’s going to be the best fit for our Air Force needs.

The essence of internet commenting: regardless of the facts, my side knows best.

I can only conclude that you are ignorant. The idea that Republican ideas have not shaped the health care bill is simply false. This is true even though they have refused to vote for it.

Republicans have engaged in an unprecedented number of filibusters and other obstructionism. That is another fact.

Finally, I don’t really care for your lack of substance. You aren’t asking for a specific policy. You are asking for 70-80 votes. There is no substance there. You apparently don’t care what passes, as long as it gets a lot of votes.

You aren’t a member of either party because you don’t know what you believe. So, instead of a particular substantive results (which you wouldn’t know whether you liked or not anyway), you want bipartisan agreement (which seems like a great substitute for substance when you can’t make up your mind).

I hate to break this to you, but… (1) if one party is determined to not play ball, you can’t have bipartisanship no matter how hard you try and (2) just because something is bipartisan, that does not mean it is good policy.

You probably would benefit from figuring out exactly what it is that you believe in. In the meantime, don’t say you are my “would-be compatriot” before you even know what you believe in. Maybe you are better suited to be the “would-be compatriot” of a Republican. Try to make up your mind. And you know what. If you decide to be a Republican at the end of the day, I don’t have a problem with that.

In the meantime, I will concern myself with substance. Such as the following: According to a recent Harvard Medical School study, nearly 45,000 excess deaths per year are linked to lack of health insurance.

And what YOU care about is whether there are 70-80 votes in the Senate? What I care about is adopting policies that will save some of these lives and prevent unnecessary suffering. It is too bad when cancer, or heart disease, or other diseases are diagnosed too late because of lack of health insurance. It is too bad for the individuals who suffer unnecessary pain and premature death and it is too bad for their family members who they leave behind. I don’t have a problem with bipartisanship, but it isn’t what primarily matters to me. What I primarily want to see is for progress to occur on solving this problem. If you knew what you believed in, you would care more about policy too.

And make no mistake about it. There are very real costs to delay. These are real people, not just numbers.

I absolutely WILL vote Republican in the next election unless Democrats make serious and substantive progress on health care in 2010. That is a promise. Democrats should have done something in 2009 rather than waste three months trying to negotiate with Republicans to satisfy people like you who, as you have shown, can’t be satisfied anyway. You really believe that Democrats haven’t reached out to Republicans enough? That is just crazy.

1040: Arguably. That’s a nice word. The evidence of the past 3 decades shows 1 president who was actually willing to balance the budget during a time of prosperity.

As much as I’m annoyed by hypocritical Republican blather about “spending,” let’s not give Clinton excessive credit here. The balanced budgets of the late ’90′s were mostly the result of skyrocketing tax revenues caused by a strong economy. Budget stalemates between the White House and Congress got resolved by news like “tax revenues several hundred billion dollars higher than previously estimated.” It’s easy to balance the budget on news like that.

ArthurKirkland: If you thought that was going to cause even a pause for reconsideration . . . please read the immediately preceding message.

Not that it’s any of your business, but I don’t read all posts and those that don’t use my name easily escape notice. As far as which company Senator Shelby supports, here’s a letter from his website on the issue. Either way, Shelby knows what’s going to be the best fit for our Air Force needs.

http://shelby.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?FuseAction=PressRoom.Articles&ContentRecord_id=3aaa3334-802a-23ad-4728-890db8b09de9&Region_id=&Issue_id=&County_id=

David Welker: 1040:As Dick Cheney said to a then rather innocent and naive Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”But boy, can the GOP preach!

I’m a conservative and I agree that deficits don’t matter in the normal context of a growing economy where the deficit is lower than 20%. Unfortunately, we now have a shrinking economy and Mr. Obama’s spending binges have quadrupled the deficit. Unless Obama changes course, our deficit is projected to reach 99% of the GDP. We won’t even be able to pay the interest on the loans.

I believe you have the substantive issue exactly backward.

If you thought that was going to cause even a pause for reconsideration . . . please read the immediately preceding message.

jccamp: Swan Trumpet -I’m not disagreeing with the totality of your last post, but I think that the Northrop/Airbus tanker proposal — the one to be based in Alabama — includes making many or most of the parts in the U S. One of the main reasons that the Air Force does not want this plane is that it’s (large) size is not compatible with a great deal of the Air Force structures, the actual buildings and hangars, the parking space on ramps, etc. As for the Terrorist Explosive Device Center (whatever it’s called), although I can’t find anything on-line to confirm this, it seems as though the FBI doesn’t want this center located at Redstone Arsenal, where they are a guest of (and subject to some control of) the military. They probably want the same money for an exclusive FBI reservation.

I haven’t seen anything about the French Airbus being incompatible with many Air Force structures like hangars and ramps, but if so, that only adds to my point that Mr. Obama’s decision-making capacity is seriously impaired and harmful to our national defense.

The Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center (TEDAC) was first discussed in 2003. Its objective is to provide the DoD with high tech tools to deal with IEDs. The primary use is to assist in military force protection. A variety of government agencies including the FBI will be involved, but the FBI’s role is limited to providing the intelligence they gather. Ideas already being worked on are robotic devices to detonate IEDs before the military accesses an area as well as testing to develop more resistant tanks. The Alabama site – being the home of our rocket development program – is ideal for this purpose and already has the specialized personnel to take the positions that will be available.

Once again, Mr. Obama’s refusal to fund the already approved site is playing roulette with our national security.

Oren_: In order to find out if they are willing to play ball, you have to offer something. Why don’t we turn this around, what concessions (above and beyond those required to get all 59 Dems on board) are you willing to offer the GOP on health care? Can they get anything at all?

Considering that left to their own devices Democrats might pass single payer, and failing that would certainly prefer a strong government option, I don’t see how the concessions made to avoid a filibuster aren’t concessions to Republicans. And before you say they were made to Blue Dogs, not Republicans, those aren’t mutually exclusive.

Senator Shelby –along with many who have knowledge of our national defense –see it as a major national security concern. Outsourcing our Fuel Tankers to France — who makes an inferior product — also poses problems obtaining maintenance parts.

I believe you have the substantive issue exactly backward. Shelby is supporting the “French” company (actually, Northrop/EADS). The bid process favored the American company (Boeing). Northrop/EADS has a plant in Alabama which would benefit if Shelby were successful.

For months and months the GOP asked for some reform of medical tort law as part of a health care package. Amendments to that end would get 70 votes in the Senate.

That’s misleading. As I understand it, the Republicans did agree to vote for such individual amendments, but they would not agree to vote yes on the final bill even if it included their favored amendments. That’s not actual cooperation.

In order to find out if they are willing to play ball, you have to offer something. Why don’t we turn this around, what concessions (above and beyond those required to get all 59 Dems on board) are you willing to offer the GOP on health care?

Really? We are still playing this game of pretending that the health care bill has no Republican ideas? There’s a few below, in the Baucus bill. And let’s not even forget the lies and fear mongering about death panels – an idea that apparently became nuclear when it was added to the bill even though it was initially proposed by a Republican. When tort reform, an idea that has miniscule cost benefits, is added, the goalposts will be moved again to add the next pet idea, or the proclamations of “No republican ideas” will ring loud again. What a joke. And for that reason, real and substantial savings were shut down in a snit.

# Cross-state sales of insurance to individuals and small businesses: The Baucus bill would allow two or more states to form “compacts” that would allow individuals to buy policies from insurers in the other states. The insurers would be subject only to the laws and regulations of the states in which the policies were written. In a separate measure, insurers could create national policies with uniform, federally set benefits that could be sold in any states in which the companies are licensed. The policies would be exempt from state benefit rules.

# Medical malpractice: The legislation says Congress should consider creating state demonstration programs to evaluate alternatives to the current litigation system. Republicans had called for creating special malpractice courts and limits on damage awards.

# High-risk pool for people with pre-existing medical conditions: Within a year of the enactment of the legislation, a high-risk pool would be set up for people with pre-existing conditions. The pool would continue until 2015, when the new state insurance exchanges would be up and running and insurers would be required to sell policies to all who apply, regardless of their medical conditions.

# Prevention and wellness incentives: Medicare beneficiaries would become eligible for annual “wellness visits” with their doctors, paid for by the government program. They no longer would have to pay out of their pockets for certain tests and treatments, such as flu vaccinations or diabetes screening. Financial incentives also would be offered to beneficiaries who completed certain “healthy lifestyle” programs targeting risk factors such as high cholesterol, diabetes or smoking. This isn’t just from the Republicans; Democrats embrace the idea as well.

As the sweet and innocent JHA might say, “this is precisely the sort of thing that leads voters to doubt GOP sincerity about controlling government spending.” For example, when they prevented the government from spending money on an essential stimulus package for ostensibly this reason :)

First, the entire strategy of the GOP has been to obstruct. If you don’t recognize that, I have a hard time believing your a Democrat.

You are correct, I’m not registered to the party. It just so happens that every time I’ve voted, I’ve voted for the Democrat (save for one abstention).

Second, whether or not this is an “entire strategy” is kind of a trick question, since we do not know how the GOP would have reacted to various other policy proposals that were not aired.

If the GOP wanted to compromise, they could have. They were reached out to. Democrats tried to work with them for months and months on healthcare and months and months on financial reform.

For months and months the GOP asked for some reform of medical tort law as part of a health care package. Amendments to that end would get 70 votes in the Senate.

It isn’t merely a matter of Republicans not voting on a bill they don’t agree with. First of all, no one gets everything they want in politics. That applies to both Democrats and Republicans. Should Democrats take into consideration Republican ideas and preferences? If they are willing to play ball, then yes. Should Democrats allow Republican ideas and preferences to totally dominate when Democrats have a 59–41 majority? Do you think that is reasonable for Republicans to be running the game when they are in the minority?

In order to find out if they are willing to play ball, you have to offer something. Why don’t we turn this around, what concessions (above and beyond those required to get all 59 Dems on board) are you willing to offer the GOP on health care? Can they get anything at all?

Yet you think that it is feasible to reach 70–80 vote super majorities in the Senate? That is an extremely foolish and naive belief.

Easily, if we would consider centrist reforms. Clinton got HIPAA, AEDPA, PWORA, Lautenberg amendment. All of them passed by huge margins.

HIPAA — 98:0
AEDPA — 91:1
Lautenberg — unanimous iirc

So not only is it feasible to reach 70-80, Clinton proved you could get better than 90 if you are willing to compromise and move to the center. You only have to ram the bills through when they have no bipartisan support at all.

I’m not disagreeing with the totality of your last post, but I think that the Northrop/Airbus tanker proposal – the one to be based in Alabama – includes making many or most of the parts in the U S. One of the main reasons that the Air Force does not want this plane is that it’s (large) size is not compatible with a great deal of the Air Force structures, the actual buildings and hangars, the parking space on ramps, etc.

As for the Terrorist Explosive Device Center (whatever it’s called), although I can’t find anything on-line to confirm this, it seems as though the FBI doesn’t want this center located at Redstone Arsenal, where they are a guest of (and subject to some control of) the military. They probably want the same money for an exclusive FBI reservation. I’m guessing that the location in Alabama was a political decision, made during Bush’s administration without input from the FBI, and now they are balking (probably for re-location in a Democratic senator’s home state. Let’s not get misty-eyed about what’s happening.)

I think Shelby’s interest in rushing both of these issues – tanker and bomb center – are more politically motivated, as financial benefits to the hosting state, than as a genuine national security motivation. If Shelby was really more concerned with the lack of an up-to-date air-to-air tanker, would he be insisting on a re-write of the RFP crafted to fit the Airbus design? Or would he be saying “Get the tanker the Air Force wants”?

However, I think your point about the present administration is well taken, Sen. Shelby and Alabama aside. They’re both playing politics.

As Dick Cheney said to a then rather innocent and naive Treasury Secretary Paul O’Neill: “Reagan proved deficits don’t matter.”

But boy, can the GOP preach!

The GOP is (arguably) a bit less unrestrained about spending than the Democrats are

Arguably. That’s a nice word. The evidence of the past 3 decades shows 1 president who was actually willing to balance the budget during a time of prosperity. I don’t think he was Republican. And then a stimulus package that was critical to jumpstart the economy is held up as wasteful govt spending. While a healthcare proposal that the non partisan OMB says will reduce the deficit is shut down, while things like Medicare part D approved during the time of Bush further increase the risk of driving the govt into bankruptcy.

It is a truly, DEEPLY, laughable notion that the GOP cares a whit about fiscal responsibility.

No, it’s quite material. They’re not “pretending” it’s a rule of procedure; it is a rule of procedure.

Yes, this distinction is quite material! Just like the distinction between the government owning formal title and renting out the property for practically nothing. The Constitution can be selectively evaded with meaningless err… I meant “material” distinctions. Mwahahahaha!

Oh, by the way. The Constitution says that it takes a two-thirds vote to ratify a treaty. But the Senate Rules can just change it to a 1/5th vote. After all, it is a rule of procedure. And when it is a rule of procedure, you don’t have to follow the Constitution anymore! Mwahahahaha!

Also, if the Senate wanted, it could make a rule that says that votes are only scheduled if 100% of Senators agree. Because this would be only a rule of procedure and it only regulates WHEN votes are taken. And it can also make a rule that says that 100% of Senators are required to change the rules. It is no problem changing the Constitution back into the vision adopted by the Articles of Confederation. Mwahahahaha! After all, those Founders were awfully stupid and the Constitution is a joke.

It is not like the main purpose of our Constitution was to establish procedural checks and balances and procedures for political competition. So we can manufacture the most far-fetched distinctions to evade it. Mwahahahaha!

Look, the Founders may have intended to establish a republic, but what they really established was a libertarian despotism. Mwahahahaha!

The second reason for Shelby’s hold is that President Obama has placed a hold on the funding of an already approved Terrorist Explosive Device Analytical Center to be built in Alabama.

Obama’s policies are damaging to our military’s technological superiority and readiness capabilities. Mr. Obama has already demonstrated an alarming distaste for national security by announcing he was abandoning the Bush procedures then failing to put together a High -Value Interrogation Group until after the Christmas Day attack. According to Charles Krauthammer, Obama now has a team but they aren’t operational as they still haven’t located any office space.

Mr. Obama’s reneging on the pledge to supply Poland and Czechoslovakia with land-based MD is another example, as is his announcement of a policy of unilateral nuclear disarmament. He doesn’t have American support behind him. Unless he rapidly reverses course (dismissing many of his current cabinet and advisors,) he may be looking at a Republican-controlled House of Representatives next year. And if Americans suffer an attack that could have been prevented with the right policies in place – a Republican House will probably pass articles of impeachment.

Lastly, Senator Shelby’s hold is simply a procedural maneuver that requires the Senate to get a 60 vote majority to approve a nominee. Clearly, nominees who aren’t problematic will easily get through. Republicans, including Shelby, are just as eager to confirm well-qualified and capable nominees.

I don’t know where you got the idea that the Senate adopting rules for when they will hold a vote is “unconstitutional.” I am damn sure that you didn’t get that idea from the Constitution.

I am sure that the Senate could make such rules regulating when votes are held. But not if those rules were reasonable and did not act to prevent majority rule. But if the only time that a majority can vote is “never,” that clearly is an unconstitutional rule.

You wouldn’t argue that, if the Constitution were interpreted to prevent takings for the sole use of a private party, that the government could evade the Constitution by merely taking title of the property and renting it out to the private party for a nominal sum, would you?

In general, you are not in favor of making the substantive provisions of the Constitution so easily evadable by empty formalities when you are in favor of the Constitutional provision in question, are you? So stop with that B.S. argument about how the filibuster is merely something that regulates WHEN a vote is held. In reality, if a filibuster regulates WHEN a vote is held, it does so by ensuring that it is NEVER held. In other words, it prevents a majority from ever voting and therefore frustrates majority rule.

Is is a dialogue in two scenarios that illustrates your argument:

Scenario 1
———-
A: I have 51 votes, I want a vote on the legislation I sponsored.
B: Fine, but nothing stop us from adopting rules that affect when you have a vote.
A: Okay, when can we have a vote.
B: Never. But, rest assured, we are not preventing majority rule in the Senate. We are merely regulating WHEN you have a vote.
A: But what is the difference between preventing majority rule, and never scheduling a vote?
B: Nothing! Oh, but it is all an empty formality. Don’t you see that the Constitution can be ignored if you are clever enough? Mwahahahaha!

Scenario 2
———-
A: Hey, wait, you cannot take my property and transfer it to a private party. Takings must be for public use!
B: Oh, but don’t worry, the government has title to your property and is merely renting it out for $1 a year.
A: But the government isn’t using the property, that private person is.
B: But surely, one use that the government can get out of a property is the collection of revenue.
A: Yes, but….
B: And we are collecting 1 dollar a year in revenue from renting it out to a private party, so the government is using the property.
A: But what is the difference between transferring the property to the private property altogether, and renting it out for $1 a year where government merely maintains formal title?
B: Nothing! Oh, but it is all an empty formality. Don’t you see that the Constitution can be ignored if you are clever enough? Mwahahahaha!

The bottom-line is that you would never accept the argument of B in scenario 2. Therefore, you shouldn’t accept the argument of B in scenario 1 either. It is a BS argument that proceeds by saying that the Constitution can be easily evaded by empty formalities and meaningless distinctions, except for when I really LIKE the provision in question. That is the exact opposite of principled constitutional interpretation.

Thanks for playing that card though. It is very revealing. When it comes to Constitutional interpretation, you obviously start with the result you want and work backward.

Senator Shelby represents the people of Alabama. He is advancing their interests.

I hope Democrats use this opportunity to demonstrate that Shelby isn’t advancing their interests, by making Alabama pay a steep price.

The Democrats could use a political kickstart. I hope they arrange a series of precision-targeted, humiliating votes that would put every Senator on record concerning a series of Alabama-related earmarks. The Republicans could leave Shelby hanging, or they could place themselves on record voting for pork in the context of one senator holding up a series of government appointments because he wanted a bigger serving of pork.

I see no downside.

yankee: The Constitution contemplates majority voting in the Senate; this is why the Vice President is given the ability to break ties. Where a supermajority is required, the Constitution specifies the circumstances (impeachments, treaties, constitutional amendments) and the majority required.The Senate does not have the power to impose a rule that says legislation may only be passed through supermajority vote; the fact that such a requirement is imposed by pretending it’s a rule of procedure rather than a change in the required majority for passage of legislation is immaterial.

No, it’s quite material. They’re not “pretending” it’s a rule of procedure; it is a rule of procedure.