From a speech on health care by Speaker Nancy Pelosi (caught by The Wall Street Journal’s Best of the Web). Here’s the context:
You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation — innovation begins in the classroom — clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.
It’s going to be very, very exciting!
Andrew says:
It’s going to be very, very expensive!
March 11, 2010, 7:20 pmruuffles says:
lolwut
http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20100311/pl_afp/uspoliticsobamahealthcare
March 11, 2010, 7:23 pmStruthius says:
Where, exactly, are these 4 MILLION jobs going to be? My guess is in the public sector, probably federal auditors ferreting out “waste and corruption” in Medicare. But they’ll be deficit neutral, for sure.
And just when did this bill become a job creation (or saving) bill? That seems kind of off the wall. I never heard, in the 12 months of debate, anything about creating 4 MILLION jobs, let alone 400,000 “very soon.”
What a steaming pile.
March 11, 2010, 7:23 pmSenatorX says:
I suspect “first among equals” is a concept close to her heart.
March 11, 2010, 7:24 pmuh_clem says:
The first pass at solving this problem is not going to be perfect. It’s probably not going to be all that good. But it’s a start.
Like the first draft of a paper, it may suck, but it’s better than doing nothing.
March 11, 2010, 7:28 pmShelbyC says:
$850 billion sounds pretty expensive, no?
March 11, 2010, 7:31 pmMalvolio says:
Interesting logic. Would you like your surgeon to take the same attitude?
Many, many things are worse than doing nothing. In fact, this legislation is an excellent example of that.
March 11, 2010, 7:33 pmDana White says:
Any one who believes that creating a new entitlement for 30,000,000 uninsured will cut the budget is a damn fool. As Rep. Paul Ryan said to Obama’s face at the health care summit, the CBO score of the senate bill is based on tricks, gimmicks and assorted smoke and mirrors. For example, the “doc fix” costs something $300,000,000. It ruined the score so the democrats moved it to another bill.
March 11, 2010, 7:35 pmElliot says:
Does this mean any change is an improvement? Is this a general principle that applies to all situations? Have all changes in history been beneficial? Impossible to make anything worse?
March 11, 2010, 7:39 pmAndrew says:
According to the CBO, they are only looking at “direct” effects:
Since the “indirect” effects on the federal budget, and on the whole economy, and on individual households would likely dwarf the “direct” effects, it’s difficult to put a whole lot of faith in this CBO report. For example, if anyone with a pre-existing condition can get treatment for it, why should anyone buy health insurance while they’re healthy? This seems like an indirect effect that could be extremely important.
March 11, 2010, 7:40 pmys says:
It reminds me of the most famous of many malapropisms of a former Russian prime-minister Chernomyrdin: “We wanted to act so as to make it better, but it came out as usual.”
March 11, 2010, 7:40 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
uh_clem,
The Politician’s Syllogism (courtesy of the BBC’s Yes, Prime Minister):
1. We must do something.
2. This is something.
3. Therefore, we must do it.
Malvolio,
Many, many things are worse than doing nothing.
Damn straight.
I agree with EV that the sentence he highlights is pretty astonishing, even for Pelosi, but there are some other odd ingredients in the “context.” Like this:
[...] healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention — it’s about diet, not diabetes.
Indeed? And since there are no deductibles for meals, your assumption has to be that all that stands between Americans and better eating habits is the deductible for the visit to the doctor where he tells you you should have, well, better eating habits. Which is information I’d wager every individual with poor eating habits in the US currently possesses.
March 11, 2010, 7:47 pmAndrew says:
David Brooks had some interesting comments in the NY Times about the bookkeeping used for this legislation:
These are only some of the hidden costs. Obviously, there are many steps the government can take to better regulate health care in the United States, and make it more affordable, but this particular plan seems like a boondoggle, IMHO.
March 11, 2010, 7:47 pmMike McDougal says:
Is Nancy now The Decider?
March 11, 2010, 7:54 pmsputnik says:
of course…
March 11, 2010, 7:57 pmIt is the only way the FOX -brain -raped people will know the benefits they will get(like with SS and Medicare-the socialism they are so fond of) after the bill will become the fact of life.
Otherwise constant lies about it by anti-humanist from radical RW will never stop con-fusing people…
D.R.M. says:
Let’s pass the Haliburton Enrichment Act!
See, it raises taxes by $2 trillion a year, while establishing an entitlement to pay Haliburton $2.5 trillion a year. But it starts collecting taxes in 2010, while it only starts paying Haliburton in 2014, so on the ten-year CBO scoring, it actually reduces the deficit by $5 trillion.
So, despite costing $20 trillion in taxes and $15 trillion in expenditures in ten years, by the ruuffles Progressive Accounting Method, this actually isn’t an expensive program. After all, it cuts the deficit by $5 trillion!
March 11, 2010, 8:00 pmnewrouter says:
well said comrade. did you work for pravada?
March 11, 2010, 8:07 pmDavid M. Nieporent says:
Uh, what about $875 billion doesn’t sound expensive to you?
And of course the 10 year thing is a trick — they don’t start most of the spending until 2014 so that they can make the 10 year timeframe look cheaper. (The taxes, on the other hand, start right away.)
In any case, the CBO is required to assume that a bill will do what it says, even when everyone knows it won’t. So when they pretend they’re going to cut Medicare, the CBO has to score it as if it cuts Medicare, even though everyone knows a separate bill will eliminate those cuts.
March 11, 2010, 8:07 pmMalvolio says:
Are you sure that’s obvious?
March 11, 2010, 8:09 pmAndrew says:
Yup.
March 11, 2010, 8:11 pmBK says:
As someone who works in the insurance field, I am very, very sure that deductibles are never going to go away.
March 11, 2010, 8:26 pmAnonsters says:
The real question is: will you ever, ever go away? :P
[Where "you" = obnoxious insurance companies.]
March 11, 2010, 8:27 pmsputnik says:
pravada? spell check is tough for brain dead “cons” ?
No, I never did, but Rush and R.Ailes’ boys still do….
March 11, 2010, 8:30 pmSuccessfully borrowing all the pernicious methods and the manners of lies…
LarryA says:
Funny. I don’t remember any government program in history where “better” regulation made anything more affordable. Less regulation, on the other hand has a pretty good track record.
March 11, 2010, 8:31 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Anonsters,
Is there something peculiarly “obnoxious” about paying at least a little money out of pocket when you visit a doctor or pick up a prescription? I mean, public transit (for example) is generally heavily subsidized, but you still have to pay a fare to get on a bus in my neighborhood.
March 11, 2010, 8:34 pmAnonsters says:
I used an attributive, not a predicative adjective.
Slow your roll, chief.
March 11, 2010, 8:36 pmAndrew says:
One of the problems in the USA is a shortage of primary care physicians. The specialists make the big bucks, but primary care is where early diagnosis and prevention occur. Medical school has become very expensive, so many graduates are becoming specialists in order to repay their med school loans.
I would like to see the states get together and have an interstate agreement to tax specialists, and put the money into education and training and loan repayment for med students who commit to becoming primary care physicians instead of specialists.
March 11, 2010, 8:37 pmMike McDougal says:
Many graduates are becoming specialists because they like money.
March 11, 2010, 8:43 pmAndrew says:
Well, Mike, if you tax specialists like I mentioned, then there would be less financial incentive to specialize.
March 11, 2010, 8:46 pmjab says:
Wait… I thought Prof. Volokh was the one who frequently scolded us on purposefully interpreting something someone says in the most uncharitable way. Is there another way to interpret what she said?
Clearly she said it inelegantly, but from context she was NOT saying that in order to know what is in the bill, they have to pass it… from context, a charitable and more fair reading is that the American public has heard so much back and forth bickering about the potential effects of the bill… she is advocating for passing it so that we will see who is right… so that we will see that all the overblown horrors the Republicans are predicting will occur will be shown to be false.
Now, she may very well be wrong in that belief… I’m not commenting on whether she is right or wrong, but only on a possible interpretation of what she said…
March 11, 2010, 8:52 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Anonsters,
I used an attributive, not a predicative adjective.
Cute. No, really ;-)
Still, you snapped at BK for no other reason than that s/he works for an insurance company; since his/her comment was about deductibles, it seems reasonable (and, frankly, charitable) to assume that you have some objection to deductibles.
March 11, 2010, 8:53 pmcboldt says:
– Well, Mike, if you tax specialists like I mentioned, then there would be less financial incentive to specialize. –
March 11, 2010, 8:57 pmLet’s tax work!
As for Pelosi, the quoted snippet is incoherent blather.
Andrew says:
The fancy term is “occupational tax.”
March 11, 2010, 9:00 pmAnonsters says:
That’s actually exactly why I added the “obnoxious,” because I didn’t want to accuse BK of necessarily working for one.
Not all insurance companies are obnoxious.
Just most of them. ;)
March 11, 2010, 9:01 pmPerseus says:
“We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”
It’s the Cracker Jack health care bill. Pass it to discover the junky toy surprise inside!
March 11, 2010, 9:06 pmjimM47 says:
I’d really like to believe that this is cutting edge tongue-in-cheek Nondelegation Doctrine humor.
March 11, 2010, 9:07 pm(“We have to pass the bill, so the we can find out what the agency bureaucrats will construct from it.”)
Andy says:
Jab: that was one of the more intelligent and honest comments on this website.
March 11, 2010, 9:07 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
Anonsters,
Ah, I see. You saw the words “As someone who works in the insurance field”; you saw an opportunity to get in an enormously witty remark about “obnoxious” insurance companies; and the actual subject matter of the comment to which you replied was irrelevant. Just so we’re all on the same page here.
March 11, 2010, 9:09 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
But, jab, you don’t pass enormous pieces of legislation like this one just to see what will happen. For one thing, if you happen not to like the effects, it’s generally very difficult to undo them. What you call “bickering” is just what groups of people generally do do when faced with momentous and perhaps irrevocable choices.
Besides, I still want to know why she thinks there are zero deductibles in there (no one else that I know of has said that), and how in hell that’s going to change anyone’s diet.
March 11, 2010, 9:15 pmnewrouter says:
two minutes of hate
March 11, 2010, 9:16 pmjab says:
Michelle,
Again… that is NOT what she is saying… she is NOT saying that she doesn’t know what will happen, so we should pass it and just see, as in, let’s just try this experiment.
She is saying that she believes all the overblown rhetoric that the Republicans are using to predict the demise of the American economy and healthcare is not true… and if we just pass the bill, the American public will see that this is the case.
Again, perhaps she is wrong. But what she said makes sense from her point of view. Prof. Volokh has often said that we should be try to be charitable in interpreting what people say. What she said is not “stupid” or “incoherent” in that light.
March 11, 2010, 9:24 pmArthur Kirkland says:
This entire thread appears to be based on prescriptivismizationess.
I thought that was bad, or at least I read it somewhere.
March 11, 2010, 9:25 pmMichelle Dulak Thomson says:
jab,
Yes, I understand that she’s not thinking of it as an experiment. She honestly thinks she knows what will happen. And that if only it passes, we will all be glad soon enough.
But — again — what can she possibly mean about no deductibles for preventive care vis-a-vis diet? I don’t see any way to read that line that squares with anything I know about the bill, or the medical system, or human nature. I can only guess that someone in her office thought juxtaposing “diet” and “diabetes” was clever, because what she actually said is nonsense.
March 11, 2010, 9:34 pmjab says:
Michelle,
I believe she probably meant to say “high” deductibles…
The Democrats have made it clear, though, that they do NOT want just a catastrophic insurance plan in which regular check-ups are neglected… that preventative medicine should be an integral part (e.g. if you find out that you are pre-diabetic due to regular screenings, then you can modify your diet and lifestyle and prevent or mitigate diabetes, which can be expensive to treat if is neglected for too long.)
Democrats believe that preventative medicine could potentially save money rather than treating disease at later stages.
Again, perhaps she is wrong. Perhaps the Democratic plan is not the best way at achieving these ends. These are differences of opinion, and we can debate them.
But what she said is not incoherent or stupid… I immediately understand what she was saying and what she intended… perhaps a little inelegant, but certainly comprehensible if you take half a second and have been following the debate.
March 11, 2010, 9:44 pmFedya says:
Fifteen years ago, during the whole “Hillarycare” debate, I recall suggesting that we ought to take the regulations that legislators, many of whom are lawyers, wanted to put on doctors, and put the same sort of regulations on lawyers. “Legal care alliances”, anybody?
If we’re going to tax people who provide “specialized” medical care, perhaps we ought to tax the people who provide “specialized” legal care, that being the people who aren’t spending their days drawing up wills for little old ladies in places like Watertown, NY.
March 11, 2010, 9:54 pmRicardo says:
Anyone with a pre-existing condition already can get treatment for it: emergency rooms aren’t turning away patients with acute symptoms but no money. The federal government already subsidizes this treatment to the tune of about $40 billion per year — the rest of us make up the difference through higher hospital bills.
And indeed it is no secret that many healthy people do not purchase health insurance. Uninsured rates peak at around 25 and then steadily decline with age. That’s one of the reasons individual insurance can be so expensive — insurance companies figure you are hiding something from them when you apply and adjust rates accordingly.
So it seems that your complaint applies also to the status quo. The bill could make this situation better or worse depending on the details but this is a long-standing problem.
March 11, 2010, 10:02 pmjccamp says:
I think that the House is going to be asked to vote on a former House bill, H R 3590, that the Senate has essentially dismantled and reassembled, and which contain language unacceptable to many House members, with the proviso that the Senate will then refine H R 3590 in the reconciliation process. So, Pelosi’s words may – emaphasize ‘may’ – be completely accurate, in that House members won’t know really what the final bill looks like until they (the House) pass the Senate’s Frankenstein version of the House bill, and then wait until the Senate amends the resulting House bill when it comes back to the Senate and is “reconciled”, requiring only a simple majority. House members are being asked to vote for a bill, which will supposedly suffer major or minor alterations by the Senate only after the House has approved it and can no longer directly influence the language.
“Trust me” says the Senator to the Congressperson.
Also, reading the CBO report, there is a reference to Postal Service cost savings…in the health bill. Anyone figure that part out? I can’t find anything on-line.
And, like all of our elected officials, I’m not about to actually read the stupid bill. it’s way too thick.
March 11, 2010, 10:04 pmAndrew says:
It’s worth noting that uninsured people get vastly inferior emergency-room treatment as of now, if you believe the studies. Also, many pre-existing conditions (e.g. cancer) cannot be treated in emergency rooms.
March 11, 2010, 10:14 pmAnonsters says:
Exactly.
Lighten up. Not everything is Serious Business.
March 11, 2010, 10:24 pmMaryG says:
How wonderful. Sounds like when they force me to buy their health care insurance, they won’t be charging me for “preventative services” that I probably won’t need to be accessing anyway.
And I already know how to cook healthy meals, choose (even grow some live) foods properly, and get the exercise my body personally needs.
Tell me again why we are penalizing young (enough) people who already practice preventative maintenance and prefer to pay out of pocket for any necessary medical expenses, from accumulated savings?
Oh yes, I could somehow not hear it coming to be able to get out of the way, and be hit by a bus out here in rural-land (and it would need to be my fault, so the bus liability insurance won’t cover it.)
Or I could trip and break my leg walking, even though I am still good on my feet, know how to adjust my steps on ice, and don’t practice any extreme sports.
I’ve got decent med. coverage for any auto accidents I might be in. And my living will makes it clear I want to be treated conservatively medically…
Why am I being asked to subsidize the people who daily consume factory foods like Doritos, sodas and frozen pizzas? Why do we penalize those who choose to treat conservatively again?
And if we do get the insurance instead of just paying the opt-out fine, will we then have incentive NOT to treat conservatively? I just don’t get why we burden those who do take care of themselves and pay their own way? Isn’t the whole point of insurance that it should be mandatory, and the premiums should be adjusted by risk?
March 11, 2010, 10:42 pmrpt says:
Most of the comments are ideologically based cute “let’s do nothing”, just like 2000-2006. Easy to make snarky criticisms of Pelosi, as so many are prone to do, but pretty useless for dealing with real world problems. Sort of like “don’t get sick, but if you do, die quickly”.
March 11, 2010, 11:17 pmegd says:
Reading comprehension much?
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it”
Admittedly, I went to a public school, but I think that the word “in” generally means “contents” rather than “consequences.” While Mrs. Pelosi may have a different view, it’s well understood by the vast majority of English-speaking people that words are used to convey meaning.
If she meant something else, she should have said something else.
March 11, 2010, 11:26 pmAlan K. Henderson says:
Nancy Pelosi just invented one-card monte.
March 12, 2010, 12:11 amNunzio says:
Pelosi makes Palin sound smart
March 12, 2010, 12:14 amNickM says:
So sputnik, what name were you banned under already for making repeated personal insults in lieu of argument. You remind me of several (though it’s possible that you were all of them).
Nick
March 12, 2010, 12:15 amDuracomm says:
rpt,
Most of the comments are ideologically based cute “let’s do something” just like 2000-2006.
Easy to make snarky criticisms about the opposition to this bill, as so many are prone to do, but pretty useless for dealing with the real world problems. Sort of like “don’t worry about this bill making healthcare worse, but if it does to bad for you”
March 12, 2010, 12:29 amgeokstr says:
Yeah, right. Check out the next post and see how charitably all the leftists interpret something said by their favorite whipping person, Sarah Palin. Hell, with her, like Limbaugh, they feel perfectly justified in making up stuff she said and then slamming her for what she didn’t really say, their logic being that they just know it’s accurate anyway even if it isn’t true.
March 12, 2010, 12:42 amlicrimlawyer says:
“We Have to Pass the Bill So That You Can Find Out What Is In It”
Gee, when did Yogi Berra become Pelosi’s speechwriter? Then again, maybe it was Lewis Carroll, or, perhaps, Joseph Heller.
March 12, 2010, 12:52 amcubanbob says:
Thats a great idea you got there! Doing nothing is infinitely better than this democrat monstrosity will inflict on the taxpayers.
March 12, 2010, 12:52 amMaryG says:
Isn’t the whole point of insurance that it should be NOT mandatory, and the premiums should be adjusted by risk?
Sort of like “don’t get sick, but if you do, die quickly”.
Right, because everyone knows that EVERYBODY runs up thousands and thousands (millions?) of dollars in their years of illness, even though it may just buy you a few more months or years of uncomfortable quality life. Hmm… never knew anyone to treat minimally with illness — more for pain if it’s chronic and incurable — and die peacefully at home, w/family members servings as “hospice” in the final days/hours.
Funny truth is, if you can steer clear of environmental and man-made toxins (by practicing that preventative maintenance and simple quality of life), you have better odds of avoiding cancers. And that’s one of the few things I can think of that can be successfully treated, even “cured”, w/expensive, sometimes invasive (ie/surgeries) medical treatment.
Other illnesses: lots of times, they can diagnose you, and just buy you a bit of time. Or for other illnesses … get you on some antibiotics to “kill” whatever it is you’ve got; those diseases that killed early so many of our ancestors. That’s not all that “catastrophic” to mandate insurance.
You know they say a lot of the prostate cancer they catch in old, old men is better left untreated? We’re all going to die someday; let’s just hope it’s when the parts naturally wear out, like a well-maintained, well-driven car.
*I hope I live old enough to go blind and deaf, actually. You know you’re old when those parts naturally wear out w/age. Not looking forward to the incontinence so much though… :-)
March 12, 2010, 1:06 amChris Travers says:
Maybe we have to pass the bill so Pelosi can find out what is in it ;-)
March 12, 2010, 1:13 amneurodoc says:
Stores in Colorado catering to tourists sell “Colorado air” in cans as a souvenir for them to take home with them. Pelosi’s bloviation makes me think of those cans. Her words, however, empty though they may be, are far more worrisome than those silly, but thoroughly innocuous cans.
March 12, 2010, 1:55 amRicardo says:
I’m not sure I believe that particular study. While they did control for race, age, gender and type of injury, it’s not clear they controlled for the hospital the person was admitted to. Indeed, the article suggests that uninsured people are more likely to be transferred once stabilized compared to insured people but doesn’t cite any data to back this up — it instead relies on anecdotal evidence.
What I’m getting at is that we already know that quality of care can differ greatly between hospitals and the hospitals the uninsured are more likely to end up in could be worse than the hospitals insured people go to. But since most hospitals (any that accept Medicare or Medicaid patients) will accept uninsured patients, it may have to do with the areas uninsured people tend to live in and which hospital is closest to them rather than their lack of insurance per se.
If they can show that uninsured have much worse outcomes that the insured at the same hospital then that’s quite a finding. It looks like they did not test this, though.
March 12, 2010, 2:19 amfgmorley says:
There are still some that believe this POS is about Health Care or Insurance. It’s about control of many trillions of dollars and a significant portion of the U.S. economy. But more importantly, it’s about more government control of every individual’s life from birth until death. It will be more encroachment into your ability to choose or decide for yourself. It will become unlawful to resist or even complain about whatever is deemed proper and beneficial for the common good, as defined by some government operative.
March 12, 2010, 2:58 amEvilDave says:
To quote Mark Steyn:
Which is why the Democrats are Hell bent on passing this even if it costs them the next election. While it may be a short-term electoral disaster, it is more likely a long term means of gaining permanent power.
This bill isn’t about “health” it is about power.
March 12, 2010, 3:01 amA. Zarkov says:
We had the old Pravda “There’s no news in “The Truth,” but now we have the new Pravda, which sometimes makes more sense than most American newspapers.
From American Capitalism Gone with a Whimper.
March 12, 2010, 4:05 amLT says:
That’s kind of a misleading title by Volokh. Anyone can see what’s in the bill by reading it, and its content has been discussed ad nauseum.
Ms. Pelosi’s point is that once it’s passed, you’ll get to reap the benefits of its content.
March 12, 2010, 6:38 amA. Zarkov says:
March 12, 2010, 7:06 amMaryG says:
All I know is, it’s gonna cost me.
And I’m not going to be getting much more in terms of my health, but will instead lose the option of deciding how best to spend my money taking care of myself.
Why are they penalizing me again, and rewarding those who consume and consume and consume with no thoughts of paying for their actions? Carrying their own weight, so to speak?
It just doesn’t make sense if we truly want a healthier country.
March 12, 2010, 9:12 amyankev says:
That’s a pretty apt description of the UK, where they already have governmental mandatory universal health coverage.
March 12, 2010, 9:17 amyankev says:
On a linguistic level, I agree with you completely. Taken at face value, Speaker Pelosi’s statement epitomizes the point of view that those in Congress are not our servants and representatives charged with enacting the will of the people, but are rather our platonic guardians to discern, in their superior wisdom, what is best for us and for the world, and to enact it whether we like it or not.
But on another level. it is also well understood that politicians do not mean what they say, and use words that they think will please the electorate.
So — what does it say about Speaker Pelosi’s opinion of us that she thinks these words would make us happy? That we WANT to be dictated to rather than consulted? That we are gullible, greedy and irresponsible?
One shudders.
March 12, 2010, 9:23 amyankev says:
Spaceballs!
March 12, 2010, 9:25 amjccamp says:
LT –
The bill as being considered is clearly not the final version. The Senate version of the House bill is a separate and distinctly different version of the original House bill. If the House passes the Senate version, a Senate-House committee will reconcile the two versions, which will then be passed by the Senate. The House members are being asked to vote for a bill, the final language of which they must trust to their House leadership and the Senate, because they will not have a chance to view and vote on the final amended version.
As an example, the Senate version of the House bill would allow some publicly funded abortion, which had been eliminated in the original House bill. House members opposed to such are being asked to vote for a version which includes public funding, and to trust the reconciliation process to eliminate the public funding from the final version.
So Speaker Pelosi’s statement “You can’t find out what’s in it (the final reconciled version) until you vote for it (the Senate version of H R 3509)” is literally accurate.
March 12, 2010, 9:43 amSarcastro says:
This thread has some mighty good poop throwing! Allow me to join in.
Ima gonna declare that health care is gonna cost us money, and ignore any cost savings. Thus, it’ll break our budget!
Also, slavery and socialism. Possibly Nazis.
March 12, 2010, 9:49 amAlexia says:
I don’t watch Fox, so my brain must be fine. Fond or not, both those programs are bankrupt.
My kids would eat candy and ice cream all day every day if I let them, because they are so fond of those programs.
Sometimes, it’s best to let the grown-ups make the decisions.
March 12, 2010, 9:56 amOctavian says:
Nancy Pelosi detracts from the sum knowledge of mankind every time she utters a word.
March 12, 2010, 10:01 amStuart_the_Viking says:
I can’t see the logic in rolling the dice by massively changing one sixth of our economy in one gigantic bill. Have none of these people never heard of unintended consequences? They happen all the time. With a more gradual approach that doesn’t change everything all at once, those unintended consequences would be smaller and more easily mitigated. Health care reform isn’t the national emergency that they are making it out to be. Sure, it isn’t perfect, and without some form of reform it will get worse, but it isn’t THAT bad yet.
March 12, 2010, 10:01 ams
A. Criminal says:
Here comes some Nazi stuff…
Pelosi: Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.
Kristallnacht! Invest in glass because they’re going to be breaking a lot of windows. “[L]et’s call it Acme Insurance.”
March 12, 2010, 10:13 amSarcastro says:
A. Criminal
Oh, hells yes. This is ripe for some analogy fun.
Dreams from my Father is Mein Kampf (note that this makes Ayers the real Hitler, and Obama like some sort of body double/empty suit)
Hillary is France. Easy success, but possibly difficult to keep pacified.
Michael Moore is Riefenstahl, clearly.
Obama’s Birth certificate is like that suitcase bomb.
Health Care Reform is totally Russia, all socialist and quagmire-ey. That makes Brown Stalingrad, I think.
March 12, 2010, 10:24 amAnonsters says:
Is that more like a Dirty Sanchez or a Cleveland Steamer?
March 12, 2010, 10:51 amDesiderius says:
“It reminds me of the most famous of many malapropisms of a former Russian prime-minister Chernomyrdin: ‘We wanted to act so as to make it better, but it came out as usual.’”
20th century statist-style Progressivism in a nutshell…
March 12, 2010, 10:53 amcboldt says:
– If the House passes the Senate version, a Senate-House committee will reconcile the two versions, which will then be passed by the Senate. –
March 12, 2010, 11:04 amNo. If the House passed the Senate version, then both chambers will have passed the same bill, and it can be sent to the president for his signature.
Reconciliation is a tool that is alternative to conference committee. And even conference committee language is at risk or subject to amendment after emerging from conference.
Daniel Chapman says:
Michelle: You’re making a mistake responding to Anonsters. What’s the point? Trust me… you don’t have to correct his mistakes, and you’re not going to convince him of anything. It just makes it more difficult for others to ignore him.
March 12, 2010, 11:31 amPubliusFL says:
I honestly wonder what she means by that. How do you cut the costs of health care AND create (net) a substantial number of new jobs? What’s being done now with the money that will be saved?
One of the biggest complaints about health care is how rapidly the cost has been rising. Your proposal will only work if the market will not bear any higher costs, because otherwise the specialists you tax more will just charge more. But if the market won’t bear any higher costs, then we don’t have much of a problem (at least prospectively) of rising health care costs, do we?
March 12, 2010, 11:39 amAnonsters says:
Particularly when he was just being playful, not talkin’ Serious Business.
Jesus, people need to lighten up.
The difference between the serious comments I post and the not-serious comments I post is pretty damned transparent, if you ask me. And in this thread, not least because I attached an emoticon to my playful comment.
But I understand that some commentators around here feel duty-bound to “correct [the] mistakes” of others.
March 12, 2010, 11:58 amyankev says:
By replacing high cost/high value doctors, technicians and researchers with low cost/low value bureaucrats to write and enforce guidelines and process paper. And by writing those guidelines to deny care to people who are too old or too infirm. Perhaps we can even add some UK-style restrictions against hydration and nutrition, as well as anti-biotics, for older patients with treatable infections, declaring them de facto terminal and restricting them to pain-killers as we let them die of dehydration.
That’s much more humane, apparently, than what we do now.
March 12, 2010, 12:01 pmSpitzer says:
I’ve had a peek at the bill, and I can tell you that it is going to save or create 4 trillion jobs, but cost only about $890.00. And it will ensure high quality medical care for all, from Cradle to Lastday, when we all report to the Sleepshop. Awesome!
March 12, 2010, 12:39 pmPKSully says:
Health care will continue to eat up a larger percentage of income until the pricing mechanism is restored to the market. People have no idea how much health care they are actually consuming, at least not in my little corner of the world. Any changes to the system that make consumers pay their own way will lead to lower costs and any government programs that increase subsidies will cause inflation. Even Paul Krugman agrees that when you subsidize something, you get more of it. And on a lighter note, I think a Brown Leningrad involves a shot of vodka and a very thin Russian exotic dancer. Oh, that was a Brown Stalingrad. ;)
March 12, 2010, 12:47 pmBruce Hayden says:
It is an alternative to a conference committee because the Democrats know that anything that comes out of conference can be (and likely would be in this case) be filibustered.
But one big problem with reconciliation is that there is no guarantee that the Senate would pass it. Why should they? Their bill would already be law. Right now, there doesn’t appear to be any way to force 51 Democrats to vote for whatever the House sends them in a reconciliation bill, esp. with their parliamentarian’s recent ruling.
So, you have the Democrats in the House facing voting for such things as the Louisiana Purchase, as well as possible government funded abortions, without any guarantee that they won’t be voting ultimately for all the flaws in the Senate bill being enacted into law.
Another small problem with a conference committee is that the Republicans would get chairs at the table. They haven’t so far. Indeed, they haven’t been invited to most of the meetings in which the two versions were hashed out.
March 12, 2010, 1:28 pmyankev says:
I just found another source for the new jobs. Per Mona Charen:
Think of all the new jobs making sure that approved minorities are properly represented, and that Asians and Jews are not overrepresented.
March 12, 2010, 1:50 pmFederal Dog says:
“It is the only way the FOX –brain –raped people will know the benefits they will get”
I hope you don’t use such frivolous language around people who have actually been raped.
March 12, 2010, 2:10 pmSarcastro says:
Brain rape is no joke.
March 12, 2010, 2:28 pmSeaDrive says:
It sounds to me like she’s expressing frustration that media coverage is focused on some parts of the bill to the exclusion of others. After all, if anyone wants to know what’s in the bill, they can read it.
One of the brave aspects of the Dems push to pass this bill is they’ve got to know there is a train wreck around the corner. There is going to be an enormous increase in demand for medical care which will lead to delays and disappointments and increased costs due to high demand and low supply.
March 12, 2010, 2:31 pmBrach says:
The content of the statement is, to me, less telling than the delivery, what a complete ditz, who in the hell voted for some of these people?
March 12, 2010, 2:52 pmRPT says:
Glenn Beck says that Rasputin predicted the apocalypse would come when the health care reform bill is passed and churches taught social justice instead of punishing the Samaritan for pulling the guy out of the ditch! Don’t you remember when Social Security, the minimum wage, Medicare, Brown v. Board of Education, affirmative action, integration of the armed forces, etc, etc. brought the last apocalypse. Wow. Don’t forget to buy some gold at goldline.com
March 12, 2010, 3:21 pmjccamp says:
cboldt -
I find this very confusing, but H R 3590 was a House bill about housing and tax credits or something else. it passed and went to the Senate. The Senate has changed it into the new health bill and plans to send it back to the house for a new vote there. Because it claims to be a budget or revenue bill, it must originate in the House – which is why the Senate took an exiting House bill on a completely unrelated subject and magically transformed it into a health bill. Once the House passes this version, a joint Senate-House committee will negotiate the differences between the Senate-hacked House bill and the separate Senate-originated health bill, and then the Senate can pass the fixed version using the reconciliation process so only a majority is needed. The House is getting to vote on a version written by the Senate (but which originated in the House as something different), with a promise that the negotiation process will remove those parts which appear in the Senate version but were already voted out of the separate, now-defunct House health bill (not H R 3590).
Because it is a budget bill, it has to originate in the House, so the House can’t vote on a bill originating in the Senate. Thus, the House gets to vote on a House bill, sent to the Senate, transformed completely, and now back for another House vote because of the changes but still maintaining a fig-leave of House origination. Pelosi is not allowing further debate and/or change to H R 3590. It’s a take-it-or-leave-it vote, although she is promising changes in line with previous House votes only after the House approves a version without the changes.
Anyway, the House has to vote first, maintaining that “started in the House’ requirement. BTW, (some) Republicans are claiming that since it’s not strictly a budget bill, it can’t be reconciled (and it doesn’t need to originate in the House). I don’t think their opinion really matters.
March 12, 2010, 3:52 pmcboldt says:
– I find this very confusing, but H R 3590 was a House bill about housing and tax credits or something else. it passed and went to the Senate. The Senate has changed it into the new health bill and plans to send it back to the house for a new vote there. Because it claims to be a budget or revenue bill, it must originate in the House — which is why the Senate took an exiting House bill on a completely unrelated subject and magically transformed it into a health bill. –
March 12, 2010, 4:40 pmIt’s easy to get confused. Check HR 3590 Bill Summary to see the point I’m making. This is the House-originated (the bill is “HR”) bill, gutted by the Senate, modified with what is known as a substitute amendment, then passed by the Senate and sent back to the House. Procedurally, this is a House-originated bill, amended by the Senate. If the House passes it, then both chambers will have agreed to the language of HR 3590, and the thing is ready for presentment.
Totally agreed that the subject matter was changed in the course of making the substitute amendment. The bill was “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009,” and became “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.” That’s the way Congress sometimes works, by parliamentary shenanigans.
If the House passes what is now “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” without amendment, then “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act” becomes law. It is not sent to committee to somehow merge “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009″ with “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
The reconciliation package is yet-to-be-unveiled set of amendments to “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act,” and those amendments would have to be passed by both chambers in order for them to effect changes to “Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.”
Meanwhile, “Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009″ is out of THIS picture, but might be combined with yet another bill. There are sufficient number of bills introduced in each session of Congress, that “dumping” one is inconsequential. The Detainee Treatment Act appeared in two separate bills (exact same language in both bills, as originated), so loss of one (in that case, due to inaction) was literally inconsequential.
cboldt says:
Maybe a simpler way to say it, “origination” follows the bill number, not the bill title/contents. As long as the bill number originated in the House, Congress considers the origination clause satisfied.
March 12, 2010, 4:44 pmLarryinLA says:
jccamp-
Still… No. The Senate took the house bill, gutted it (completely, I assume) and inserted the Senate Health Care bill. The House will vote on that bill, which, having then been approved identically in both chambers will go to the President, who will sign it.
Next, the house will create a new bill, which makes changes to various budget related aspects of the then already passed Health Care Law. The contents of this bill are currently being negotiated between the House and Senate Democratic leadership. Once the House passes this, it will go to the Senate Budget Committee, which will then proceed to use the Senate Budget Reconcilliation process to move the bill through the Senate (note reconcilliation procedures and the Senate Parliamentarian’s ruling on only reconciling passed Laws applies only to the Senate, not the House). The parliamentarian will rule on the various provisions of this bill. If they all pass muster, then the Senate will debate the bill for 20 hours, vote on all proposed ammendments that are not ruled dilatory by the chair (VP Biden), and then pass the bill. If it is unchanged from the House version at this point, it will go to the President who will sign it. If it is changed by the Parliamentarian or any ammendments are accepted, it will go back to the House, which will have to vote on the altered version.
March 12, 2010, 4:54 pmcboldt says:
HR 3962 – Affordable Health Care for America Act is the House-passed version of health care. That bill is sitting idle in the Senate. In order for a conference to occur, both chambers deal with the same bill number, then one side or the other announces that they insist on their version, and requests a conference. The other chamber can reject the request, and instead agree to the amendments, or propose their own.
Unrelated to health care, but the formalities associated with calling for a conference committee appear in HR 2194 – Iran Refined Petroleum Sanctions Act of 2009
That the House-passed and Senate-passed health care bills are under separate bill numbers doesn’t preclude calling for a conference, but in order to get to that point, the House would have to amend HR 3590 (thereby undoing senate passage), then insist on its amendment.
March 12, 2010, 5:01 pmkris says:
you need to British convention that a Bill must be read three times before it becomes law.
March 12, 2010, 5:47 pmFrank Drackman says:
Heres how American Medicine works now…
March 12, 2010, 7:53 pmSaw a Lawyer who had sudden pain in his arm playing tennis saturday morning…X rayed his arm so he wouldnt sue me, I mean cause we’re taught in evil medical school to “X-ray everything that hurts” cause you NEVER get sued for X-rayin somebody unless there pregnant…and patients think your cheatin em if you don’t expose them to some ionizing radiation…
Instead of the normal humerous i expected, he had what I knew was a benign bone cyst, but because theres a 1/100,000 it could be metastatic prostrate cancer (oh yeah, he had his prostate removed the year before) set him up to get a Bone Scan on Monday. Which came back benign.
How much did it all cost?? Beats me, I get paid $125/hr.
Seriously, I think he was only out whatever his ER copay was.
Michelle Dulak Thomson says:
Frank Drackman,
“Prostrate cancer” is pretty much how all cancer ends up, nyet?
March 12, 2010, 9:37 pmjccamp says:
cboldt & Larry -
Thanks. I think I have it now. So the provisions of H R 3590 are essentially set, but, for instance, the hoopla over funding (yea or nay) for abortions remains to be settled via a new House bill relating to funding issues only (?), and that is the bill which will be allowed to be considered passed by a simple majority in the Senate, as it is a budgetary bill only?
Or, in other words, House members will be voting for a bill with provisions they may not wish to vote for, with the understanding from Speaker Pelosi that the objectionable provisions will not (actually, may not) be funded in the subsequent House-orignated funding bill and Senate-House conference?
I wonder if any one person actually understands the bill in its entirety as written, considering the funding provisions may actually change the impact of contained provisions anyway.
I’m getting a headache. I’d better call my doctor.
March 12, 2010, 9:57 pmElliot says:
” she is advocating for passing it so that we will see who is right”
Reminds me of two guys arguing about whether a gun is loaded. Pelosi recommends they just put it up to their head and pull the trigger to find out who is right. That would certainly work.
On the other hand, they could just check the gun to see if it contains ammunition.
We can also check the bill without passing it. It’s not that hard to do.
March 12, 2010, 10:17 pmElliot says:
Is there any treason for the Senate to bother with reconciliation if the House passes the bill? If so, what’s the reason?
March 12, 2010, 10:18 pmAndrew says:
Following is some medical advice from “Dr. Fuji Feelgood,” making the rounds on the internet. Apologies in advance….
This is awful advice, and I hope no one follows it.
March 12, 2010, 10:27 pmcboldt says:
– House members will be voting for a bill with provisions they may not wish to vote for [HR 3590, currently in the House: and if the House approves it without modification, it becomes ready for presentment to the president to be signed into law], with the understanding from Speaker Pelosi that the objectionable provisions will not (actually, may not) [would you trust the US Senate?] be funded in the subsequent House-orignated funding bill [what is allowable subject material in a reconciliation package is a hotly contested issue; but in any event, even if one utters "limited to funding," the proponent for the measure will argue that "this is funding"] and Senate-House conference? [No "conference." The reconciliation package is "just another bill," passed by the House, then sent to the Senate. It is "special" in that it is associated with the budget, and there is a set of statutory procedural rules, such as 20 hour time limit for debate (without unlimited debate, there is no
mechanism to object to taking the vote, and this is how the simple majority passage comes into being)] –
The House-passed other bill, now sitting in the Senate, presents an alternative vehicle.
March 13, 2010, 6:34 amAnd not that a conference committee is impossible under the existing procedural stance, just that the Democratic leadership is seeking a way to take advantage of what was a hard-fought passage in the Senate. If they tinker with HR 3590 via amendment, then they LOSE what was passage, and have to obtain agreement AGAIN.
PersonFromPorlock says:
Um. “Your mandatory diet review has been scheduled for Monday, June 25th at 3:30 PM. Please make a complete list of what you eat and bring it with you to your assigned clinic.”
March 13, 2010, 9:40 amrpt says:
Well, DC, your guys had clear sailing from 2000-2006. They offered nothing, tried nothing and accomplished nothing in this area. Thus there is no equivalence. In the meantime, people do suffer and die for lack of action. This may be a good result for me, not for me. Pretty simple.
March 13, 2010, 6:30 pmChris Travers says:
OTOH, my experience with software engineering suggests that such a bill, if passed will in the short run lead to a lot more suffering and death than the current system. We can assume that for at least a few years, a shiny new beaurocracy will underperform what it replaced at least in large parts of the country.
So here are the questions:
1) Will this *eventually* be better than what we have? Supporters seem to think so, opponents don’t. I don’t know.
2) Assuming “yes” to #1, how long will it take to be better than what we have? 5 years? A decade? Two decades?
3) What will it really cost long-run?
I remain unconvinced on point one, but even my optimistic assessments suggest there must be better ways. “We must do SOMETHING” is a recipe for all manner of bad things. I seem to recall similar rhetoric about McCain-Feingold and I am now glad that has been reduced in scope even though I supported it at the time.
The Democrats could have a filibuster-proof majority in the Senate if they weren’t so filled with hubris (Sen. Snowe has been negotiating with them but the house Democrats think the Senate is already too far right for their tastes). You can’t just blame “the republicans.” The reason why no single Republican has been willing to vote for it is that even those who have been willing to consider negotiating their position have been told to get lost.
Hubris antes nemesis.
March 13, 2010, 7:23 pmyankev says:
What we are asking is this: will the proposed bill make things better or will it make things worse? Stated another way, what will be the increase in suffering and premature death (everyone dies eventually, no matter what laws Congres thinks they can pass to the contrary and no matter what Emperor Ming decrees about no one dying in the palace save by his command) if Congress takes ill-considered and counterproductive action? Saying “Well, you guys did nothing and people died” is not an answer to that question.
March 14, 2010, 11:56 amDuracomm says:
rpt,
You must have loved the way bush and the republicans governed from 2000 to 2006. Because you are setting up a system to put the next bunch of republicans in charger of your health care.
I’m amazed that after all of the bitching you folks did about bush you want to put him in charge of your healthcare.
Good luck with that.
March 14, 2010, 10:52 pm