Bill Flanigen | July 23, 2009
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) has conceded that the Senate won't be able to meet President Obama's August 7 deadline for a healthcare reform bill:
President Barack Obama's drive for healthcare reform suffered a setback on Thursday when Senate leaders said they would not be able to pass the measure before leaving for a monthlong August recess.
The day after Obama's prime-time news conference to sell the healthcare proposal, congressional leaders struggled to ease doubts about the plan and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said the full chamber would not take up the bill until after its monthlong recess that begins on August 7.
"We'll come back in the fall" to work on the bill in the full Senate, he told reporters.
Given the way Obama has framed the healthcare debate—as one of almost apocalyptic urgency—Reid might as well admit that he's comfortable being chauffeured to work over the dead bodies of uninsured children strewn about in the streets. It'll be interesting to see how Obama responds to the news that this can't-wait-another-month reform will...have to wait another month.
Check out Reason's healthcare archive here.
Help Reason celebrate its next 40 years. Donate Now!
Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.
Unfortunately, Senator Reid misspoke today. He meant to say "We'll come back after The Fall."
Crap. Doesn't this mean the end of the world. Or something
like that?
I think it means we'll have an economic crisis worse than the Great
Depression, and unemployment will rise to 8.5%. Or am I mixing up
my crises? They're so hard to keep track of nowadays.
Reid might as well admit that he's comfortable being
chauffeured to work over the dead bodies of uninsured children
strewn about in the streets.
That's not true. Reid is VERY comfortable being chauffeured over
the bodies of dead children.
We can get Mexicans to drag the dead uninsured children to the curb for four bucks an hour.
We can get Mexicans to drag the dead uninsured children to
the curb for four bucks an hour.
No we can't. They won't come here because our economy is in the
shitter and they won't get free healthcare w/o this bill.
Reid might as well admit that he's comfortable being
chauffeured to work over the dead bodies of uninsured children
strewn about in the streets.
Don't be ridiculous. The suspension isn't made that doesn't get a
little jouncy rolling over dead children, so he'll probably spill
his latte. Then he'll be sorry.
hmm : perhaps you haven't taken a look at the Mexican economy lately... seen that peso exchange rate lately?
The suspension isn't made that doesn't get a little jouncy
rolling over dead children
Pshaw - get in a fifty-ton chassis with tracks and a Horstmann
suspension, and I bet you wouldn't notice live
children.
hmm : perhaps you haven't taken a look at the Mexican
economy lately... seen that peso exchange rate lately?
Our turd is falling as fast or faster so it all evens out.
What about quality of legislative life? It's heartbreaking to
this poor, drooling, brain dead bill lying there like a vegetable,
kept "alive" by committee respirators and media IVs.
For the love of God, somebody pull the plug. I'll fetch the
pillow.
Uh Oh. Obama's going to do more of his channeling of Sammuel L.
Jackson:
Enough is enough! I have had it with these motherfucking
tonsils on this motherfucking plane!
Zeus: And who do we not want to help us?
Dexter, Raymond: White people.
Zeus: That's right. Now get on outta here. Go to school.
Healthcare, motherfucker, do you speak it?
Obama has cried wolf one to many times. Even the other Democrats in DC are getting tired of it.
Check out Reason's healthcare archive (aka hysterical right-wing blather) here.
# jtuf | July 23, 2009, 6:53pm | #
# Obama has cried wolf one to many times.
# Even the other Democrats in DC are getting
# tired of it.
And it's still the middle of the first quarter, with three quarters
left to go! This does not bode well for America's Quarterback!
Or perhaps a b-ball allusion would be more fitting. I just find the image of QB Barack running the wrong way in a 1930s-era collegiate football uniform, amusing for some reason.
Bill Flanigen asked how Obama will respond. I heard the response
on the radio on the way home. In his "Town Meeting" in Shaker
Heights, Obama announced, to enthusiastic applause, that he wants a
bill on his desk "by the end of the year!"
More magical thinking - we just pretend the August deadline never
existed.
The spin in the mainstream media is that BO is OK with the delay
because it affords time to "get it right."
Of course, "getting it right" would mean abandoning the dominance
and centrality of "health insurance" or any insurance-like scheme
(e.g., single-payer "public option"), and returning to a situation
such as we enjoyed prior to WWII: People were able to afford
routine doctor visits, drugs, and procedures -- even short hospital
stays -- out-of-pocket or from modest savings. Health "insurance"
tended to be for catastrophic coverage and was purchased by only a
relative few. Access to health care did not depend on being
employed, insured, or even, in very many cases, on ability to pay,
as there were a fair number of charity hospitals, or charitable
organizations that would defray costs for the indigent.
No, it wasn't a perfect world back then, but the health care system
worked pretty well by any standard, and MUCH better than the
monstrosity that we developed after WWII, which is proving to be
ultimately dysfunctional. The shock of war jolted us off the main
road and we never found our way back. We need to do so now. How
long must we wait to TRULY "get it right"?
Reid might as well admit that he's comfortable being
chauffeured to work over the dead bodies of uninsured children
strewn about in the streets.
What sticks out to me in this comment is that the dead children are
uninsured. I realize it's supposed to be like they're dead because
they WERE uninsured, but at the same time, I wouldn't put it past
Congress to try to retroactively insure dead people to fudge their
numbers on how many people their public option insures.
"Oh yeah, all those people who died without insurance in the past
fifty years? ... We're insuring them now: BY DECLARATION OF
CONGRESS."
...returning to a situation such as we enjoyed prior to
WWII: People were able to afford routine doctor visits, drugs, and
procedures -- even short hospital stays -- out-of-pocket or from
modest savings. Health "insurance" tended to be for catastrophic
coverage and was purchased by only a relative few.
Correct. How much would an oil change for my car cost me if it was
covered by insurance, with a couple of government-run programs
piggybacking on top of it? This (paying out of pocket for minor
things) would necessarily push health care costs much lower. Also,
prior to the last 30-40 years, it was called
hospitalization insurance because it covered only
the more catastrophic occurrences, which usually required a
hospital stay. The major, but usually overlooked, source of health
care cost is the sheer number of things covered.
From my perspective as a hospital lawyer, we're not going to
drive inefficiency out of the system without:
(1) Getting back to catastrophic insurance by repealing insurance
mandates. This will also make insurance much more affordable.
(2) Tort reform to drive defensive medicine (clinically unnecessary
tests) out of the system, as well as reduce cost of malpractice
insurance.
(3) Returning control over what patients are seen and what care is
provided to actual health care providers by getting rid of
insurance mandates and reforming "patient abandonment" laws to
allow providers to "fire" patients.
Oops. (3) should say "emergency room mandates" rather than "insurance mandates."
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245