Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : A US National Health Care System? -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Lane3 who wrote (12535)	12/22/2009 4:07:51 PM
From: i-node	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 42652

And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses: This is downright bizarre. Is it not well-established that Congress cannot bind future congresses? It certainly is at-odds with Jeffersonian principles (Jefferson advocated the position that future generations should not be bound by our Constitution; surely, Congress binding future congresses is a more restrictive admonition!) Talk about constitutional challenges. This has to be fodder for a biggie... It almost seems like they are just begging for it.

To: Lane3 who wrote (12535)	12/26/2009 10:00:11 AM
From: Peter Dierks	Respond to of 42652

Real health reform beckons new start By June O’Neill Saturday, December 26, 2009 - Added 14h ago To ease concern over costs of health care reform, politicians point to Congressional Budget Office reports that label the legislation as deficit-reducing. But the cost estimates presented by CBO camouflage the true costs. While revenues in the Senate bill begin in the first year, costs do not kick in until 2014, resulting in 10 years of revenues and six years of costs. Once you look past this accounting gimmick, the gross cost of the Senate bill over a full 10 years of implementation is in excess of $2 trillion, more than twice the current estimate. And even those costs are low-balled. And while Congress has specified deep cuts in Medicare reimbursements for medical service providers, if implemented as intended the cuts in physician payments will induce more doctors to treat fewer Medicare patients. Conversely, if the cuts in doctor pay are rescinded, the new law will provide another huge addition to the national debt. And many of the proposed new tax increases may also prove politically infeasible. It is undeniable that health reform is needed. The funding of Medicare and Medicaid is near crisis levels and the programs in their current form are unsustainable. But the proposed Senate and House bills make no structural changes that would right either of these programs. A more sensible way to increase the efficiency of Medicare resources would be to convert Medicare into a defined contribution plan, providing vouchers to beneficiaries to buy approved private plans similar to the popular Medicare Advantage plans that also face the chopping block. With respect to reducing medical cost increases, the one provision with a germ of potential to promote more efficient choices - and it is only in the Senate bill - is the 440 percent excise tax on insurance plans that exceed $23,000 a year for a family and $8,500 for an individual. This provision is a backdoor way to reduce the value of the tax exemption granted to the health fringe benefit provided by employers. There is much to be gained by the reform process. But Democrats and Republicans must, as Dorothy Fields would say, start all over again. June O’Neill is professor of economics at Baruch College-CUNY and former director of the CBO bostonherald.com

To: Lane3 who wrote (12535)	2/4/2010 2:03:12 AM
From: Peter Dierks	1 Recommendation Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 42652

Republicans find loophole in budget ploy to push through healthcare legislation By Alexander Bolton - 02/03/10 06:00 AM ET As it turns out, Senate Democrats may not be able to force healthcare legislation through the chamber on a simple majority vote. Republicans say they have found a loophole in the budget reconciliation process that could allow them to offer an indefinite number of amendments. Though it has never been done, Sen. Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) says he’s prepared to test the Senate’s stamina to block the Democrats from using the process to expedite changes to the healthcare bill. Experts on Senate procedural rules, from both parties, note that such a filibuster is possible. While reconciliation rules limit debate to 20 hours, senators lack similiar constraints on amendments and could conceivably continue offering them until 60 members agree to cut the process off. Another option for Democrats would be to seek a ruling by the parliamentarian that Republicans are simply filing amendments to stall the process. But such a ruling could taint the final healthcare vote and backfire for Democrats in November. Or Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) could use a tactic similar to the so-called nuclear option to quash the GOP tactics. If those options failed, and Reid couldn’t convince a single Republican to vote with his 59-member conference, Democrats might be forced to consider withdrawing the healthcare bill. A Democratic leadership aide confirmed to The Hill that the options outlined in this articlee are correct. House Democrats have said they would not pass the Senate healthcare bill unless changes are made through reconciliation, which is necessary because Republicans control 41 Senate seats, enough to block legislation through the regular process. But Republicans may end up having that power even under reconciliation. “You could keep offering amendments until you don’t have any more to offer,” said a congressional aide, who said he did not know how long senators would be willing to stay in the chamber to move the reconciliation package. “What the body’s tolerance would be is unknown.” A former Senate Republican leadership aide said: “The limit is on debate, not on consideration of amendments.” DeMint said he’s ready to try anything. “You’ll see Republicans do everything they can to delay and stop this process,” DeMint said. “They need to get the message the track they’re on is the wrong track.” Reid spent significant time last year in close study of the Senate rules for fast-tracking healthcare legislation under special budget rules. Reid stayed away from the special process of passing healthcare reform with only 51 votes because he knew it would be messy. But since Republicans won a Senate seat in Massachusetts, thereby stripping Democrats of a filibuster-proof majority, it appears Democrats will need to invoke those rules to make crucial changes to healthcare legislation. DeMint said that using reconciliation rules to pass the House-requested changes to the Senate healthcare bill with only 51 votes is “tyrannical.” “I think you’ll see us offering amendments to get us into November, if we can,” said DeMint. Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the ranking Republican on the Budget Committee, said: “You could continue to offer amendments, I suspect. “You can offer an unlimited number of amendments on the budget after time is elapsed so it’s logical that you could also do it on reconciliation,” Gregg said. Democrats could try to persuade Republican colleagues to back down and withdraw their amendments after several hours or days of voting. With a unified Democratic conference, Reid would need just one GOP senator to cut off the process. The most likely candidate would be Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-Maine), who voted with Democrats to advance the Senate Finance Committee bill but has since opposed the healthcare measure on the Senate floor. Reid or another Democrat could make a point of order that using amendments to stall a reconciliation bill violates the spirit of the Budget Act of 1974, which sets up for expedited consideration of budget-related bills. Reid or another Democrat could argue that offering unlimited amendments violates the spirit of limiting debate. The parliamentarian has ruled that the limit on debate does not allow senators to filibuster the motion to proceed to a reconciliation bill. The parliamentarian could rule that the same concept applies to amendments. No one really knows, because a lawmaker has never tried to use amendments to filibuster a reconciliation package. “We haven’t ever tried it before,” said a congressional aide. Parliamentarian Alan Frumin could rule Republican amendments after a certain number out of order. But he could also allow the GOP amendments, since they are not expressly barred. If Frumin ruled with Republicans, Reid would be in a difficult position. He could either pull the bill off the floor or he could appeal the ruling of the parliamentarian. With a simple majority of 51 votes, Reid could overturn the ruling of the chair and set a Senate precedent that amendments must be limited to within reason. This tactic would be similar to the so-called nuclear option Senate Republicans considered using in 2005 to overrule Democratic filibusters of judicial nominees. thehill.com