The CBO themselves have come out and revised their earlier estimate upwards.

Their figures of $4 billion in savings and $1 billion in added revenue were adjusted to $43 billion in savings and $13 billion in added revenue; ten times as much.

Under the Pareto principle, it's likely that 80% of the costs are attributable to only 20% of the problems. There's a point of diminishing returns on federal spending.

The number of uninsured Americans equates to 15% of the total population; reform that involves throwing out the baby with the bath water is clearly a bad idea.

Tort reform will save money without diminishing the quality of patient care at all. This is because a lot of malpractice claims are filed where there was no evidence that medical errors have caused the injuries the patient suffered. That's from the CBO themselves. It's a reform that could help the 15% without hurting the 85%.

Democrats are opposed to Tort Reform because the trial lawyer associations are forcing Democrats to oppose Tort Reform..

And yet Anthony Weiner had the audacity to claim that the Republican Party is "a wholly owned subsidiary of the insurance industry". If the Democrats are so sure they're right, then what's the need for the mudslinging? It was Howard Dean who admitted that his own party are appeasing the trial lawyers over Tort reform.

President Obama ended Thursday's daylong White House summit with a bang, threatening to push for passage of health care reform without Republican support if a bipartisan agreement remained out of reach.

And that after Reid said:

No one from the Democrat side has mentioned 'reconciliation'...

If that's not reconciliation Obama's talking about, what is it?

(Again, not that I have a problem with it, but be straight about it.)

Hmmmmmmmmm

"Do things my way or else we will do them without you."

How exactly, is this "bi-partisan"???

Anyone??? Anyone??? Beuhler???

Michale.....

Perhaps it is..

But at least THAT coincides with the needs of the American people...

I have a LOT less problem with a position not taken in principle if it coincides with the needs of the many...

I can live with that...

Can you live with the opposite??

Michale......

It's just as easy to argue that the only reason Republicans are for tort reform is that they want to choke off money to Democrats.

Politicians will be politicians. Haven't we been through this before?

But the FACT is, Democrats are opposed to Tort Reform because the trial lawyer associations are forcing Democrats to oppose Tort Reform..

In other words, I can respect a position taken in principle...

But I will NOT respect a position taken because a special interest group FORCES that position taken.

If Democrats truly want a bi-partisan approach to CrapCare, then they need to tell the Trial Lawyers to "frak off" and do the right thing with regards to tort reform..

And THAT will happen when pigs fly... Because Democrats are much MUCH worse than Republicans when it comes to doing the right thing for the American people.

Michale...

Can we get back to the other 98%?
-David

" {A Majority Vote}... that's just not what the founders intended."
-Senator Obama, 2005

Another Joe Wilson moment...

Michale.....

Every time a Republican puts forth an idea that Democrats don't like, Obama makes some grandstand play about scoring political points etc etc etc...

President Obama needs to understand that people can disagree with him on the issues, not just because of political grandstanding..

Michale.....

Tort reform, Mr President... Tort reform...

Michale.....

"No one from the Democrat side has mentioned 'reconciliation'..."
-Senator Reid

Where is Joe Wilson when you need 'im!!?? :D

Whoaaa!!!!

Alexander just interrupted Obama! Woot!!! :D

Sounds like Obama is getting pissed...

Michale...

And, at the time, Democrats called reconciliation an abuse of power.

"What I worry about is, you still have 2 chambers of Congress in the House & Senate, but you have complete and absolute authoritarian rule of the majority and that's just not what the founders intended."
-Senator Obama, 2005

"{Reconciliation} is a bridge too far, Mr President. We can't go there. You have to restrain yourself, Mr President."
-Senator Clinton, 23 May 05

"We are on the precipice of a Constitutional Crisis. The checks and balances are about to be evaporated by the nuclear option. Checks and balances that say that if you get 51% of the vote, you don't get your way 100% of the time."
-Senator Schumer 18 May 05

"The right to extend debate is never more important than when one party controls Congress and the White House. In these cases, the filibuster serves as a check on the power of unlimited government."
-Senator Harry Reid 18 May 05

We need to sit down with each other and work things out. That's why the rules exist. That's why we're here. Why have a bicameral legislative body? Why have two chambers? What were the framers thinking about? They understood that there is a tyranny of the majority.
-Senator Dodd 18 May 05

If Republicans use the nuclear option, the US Senate becomes ipsofacto, the House Of Representatives where the majority rules supreme and the party in power can dominate with absolute power.
-Senator Dianne Feinstein

"{Reconciliation}.. is a fundamental power grab. I say to my Republican colleagues, you may own the field right now, but you won't own it forever. I pray God when the Democrats take back control we don't make the kind of naked power grab you are doing."
-Senator Biden, 2005

Maybe ole Joe should have prayed a little harder.. :D

Michale.....

And it is at that point that the rebuttal goes along the lines of "Ah, but there is no truly open and free marketplace at the moment" and trumpet the benefits of Congress actually doing its job and regulating interstate commerce, telling the states to get out of the way and let companies do trade across state lines freely.

Only when that occurs can you accurately talk about a "free market".

Let's see, if I spend $1,000 on health care this year, with that rate of increase, in ten years I will be paying $19,370

Assumes facts not in evidence. There are no cold hard facts that prove that this rate will remain the same (and past performance is not a reliable indicator of future results). Your assumption may be valid, but it's certainly not factual.

It's also a sweeping generalisation of the industry as a whole.

Private companies exist to make money. And the laws we have today allow them to do this.

And it's these same private companies that make money that provide the jobs that the country so badly needs right now. That's a fact, not rhetoric.

If the laws in place today didn't allow companies to make profit, America would not be the superpower it is, a superpower that actually outlived the country that gave the world an ideology (Communism) that vilified profit.

We want to change the health industry in this country so that our children aren't faced with half-million-dollar health insurance costs in two decades. Because that is the path the private marketplace is on, and if you succeed in killing any health reform that is precisely where it will lead us.

Are there CBO figures to back up that half million figure? Otherwise we're back to rhetoric again. If there are then fine, but extrapolation isn't "cold hard facts".

That, in other words, is the status quo "free marketplace" that you are defending.

Again with calling the status quo a free marketplace when it isn't. And when it was clearly the intent of the Republican proposals to free up the marketplace to ensure proper competition (rather than "creating" competition via exchanges).

You can't accurately call what exists at the moment a free marketplace.

They are not used to being confronted by facts which don't fit their world view.

So far you've yet to put forward any facts that don't fit in with this "world view".

Incidentally, may I ask, do the Democrats not have a "world view"? Isn't that a nice rhetorical way to make an ideology sound scary? And Democrats seem to show no greater love of facts that dispel their notions of how the world should be either.

They are used to audiences which cheer and give adulation

Maybe because they're right?

Democrats should come armed with reams of figures from the C.B.O.

So was that earlier half million figure a CBO one?

Besides, the CBO were the ones who pointed out that whilst HR 3962 would save $109 billion from the deficit, HR 3961 would increase it by $210 billion, meaning the House bills were far from "deficit neutral" as originally claimed.

Yes, the Senate bill is estimated to save $127 billion, but how much of that will remain once the House democrats insist on "fixes" through reconciliation?

The C.B.O. is seen as neutral, and if Republicans blatantly try to cast their figures as false, it won't help their cause at all.

The CBO initially underestimated the effect of Tort reform by a factor of ten. Nobody's calling their figures "false", but "inaccurate" is certainly fair.

I mean, call me old fashioned, but I see a big difference between $5 billion and $54 billion. It's a mighty shame my bank doesn't make mistakes like that. ;-)

45,000,000 uninsured people in America.

Counter-fact; that's less than 15% of the population.

You want tort reform? Well, the C.B.O. says that'll fix maybe two percent of the problem. We trust the C.B.O.'s figures.

Trust them. Their figures say Tort reform will save $54 billion from the deficit. Sure, if the Senate bill goes through unscathed it'll save $127, but we're hardly talking about chump change here. Besides, the CBO has revised its earlier stance:

tort reform would lower costs for health care both directly, by reducing medical malpractice costs, and indirectly, by reducing the use of health care services through changes in the practice patterns of providers...Previously, the agency had found that tort reform would lower health care costs only by reducing medical malpractice costs, and it had estimated significantly smaller effects of tort reform

The main reason tort reform proponents have kept on it hasn't been to reduce the cost of medical malpractice, but to try and put an end to "defensive medicine".

At the time, Republicans -- including a few sitting around this table today -- called reconciliation 'the normal rules of the Senate.'

They are. Just like their use of the filibuster, which you termed "abuse", is also well within the "normal rules of the Senate". There are no limits placed on how often the filibuster can be used, precisely because it may be required more often.

This tactic is called democracy. It is called majority rule.

Majority rule wasn't actually something the founding fathers wanted. The point of the electoral college, for example, was that it ensures that the largest states don't dominate and that the smaller states get to have a say in nation-wide elections.

I don't have a problem with Democrat use of reconciliation, but let's not posit "majority rule" as a core concept of the US political system, because it's not.

The will of the people does not equate to the will of the majority.

A BAD healthcare bill (which is what CrapCare is) will simply make things worse than it already is..

Are ya'all so blinded by partisanship, so intent on a Democrat "win" regardless of the cost to every day Americans, that you cannot see this??

As always, it comes down to the age old question..

Are ya'all Democrats first or Americans first??

Michale.....

...Stan

Are you sure???

Things seem pretty toxic these days...

or "when Republicans finally killed health reform."

Awww, com'on CW!!

Republicans have had little to do with CrapCare.. You can't blame it's demise on the GOP...

This is all the fault of the Democrats...

If Democrats counter Republican rhetoric with hard, cold facts, it may not guarantee success for their objective; but it certainly will go a long way toward showing who is serious about fixing the problem, and who is not.

And if Republicans counter Democrat rhetoric with hard cold facts???

What then?? :D

because government screws up everything it touches

Considering this is the same thought that 90% of Americans think, how far off can it be??

I ask you again -- it's a simple yes-or-no question -- are you OK with an insurer raising their rates thirty-nine percent in one year? Because that's what your vaunted free market just delivered, so I'm sure your constituents would like the answer to that question.

Oh seriously..

This is ONE myopic instance that was approved by the STATE GOVERNMENT of California...

Democrats bring up this and the GOP responds with...

TORT REFORM!!

Watch the Democrats scurry after THAT little bombshell, eh?? :D

When Republicans think they've got a winner of an idea, return again to the facts. Tort reform? You want tort reform? Well, the C.B.O. says that'll fix maybe two percent of the problem. We trust the C.B.O.'s figures. Two percent. So let's talk about the other ninety-eight percent of the problem after we talk about the two percent, OK?

Ancient history...

Tort reform will bring a LOT of quality doctors back into the field..

With an over-abundance of QUALITY medical persons, costs will go down..

ESPECIALLY if said medical persons don't have to carry a gazillion dollars in mal-practice insurance to stay in business..

Citing the old (very old) CBO study is a red herring..

Democrats won't address TORT REFORM because trial lawyers won't let them..

So much for NOT being beholden (IE enslaved) by special interests, eh??

.' That is all we are asking for now -- an up or down vote."

Seems a far cry from all the rhetoric that Democrats spewed in 2005 when Republicans exercised reconciliation..

The difference between then and now is that the GOP used it for issues as it was intended..

Democrats are using it as an end run around the will of the people...

This Kobuki Theater was supposed to be an attempt at BI-PARTISANSHIP....

But Democrats have made it clear that it is nothing but an attempt to ramrod legislation thru, "by hook or by crook" that the American People have already said "HELL NO" to...

This time tomorrow, Democrats that support CrapCare will be eviscerated...

Hay...

Waitaminute...

I thought we all agreed that CRAPCARE was...well.. crap...

Now ya'all WANT this abomination to pass???

Michale.....