Impeding changes to our Health Care system

[TheMercenary]

My point was that it was interesting.

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

My point was that it was interesting.

Ah....one of those "interesting" posts.

Not an attempt to infer anything or somehow make a connection between the current reform proposals in Congress and "European style" health care?

[TheMercenary]

Another interesting process...

Health Bill Elevates Senate Bureaucrat to Starring Role

WASHINGTON—The drama over health-care legislation is reaching a critical stage, and soon the spotlight may land on Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin.

Mr. Frumin is usually offstage, standing on the chamber dais whispering with the presiding officer about obscure points of Senate procedure. To lawmakers rushing to finish their long-stalled health bill, however, the $170,000-a-year Senate appointee suddenly has attained outsize prominence and power.

That is because Democratic senators, who unexpectedly lost their filibuster-proof majority in January, are relying on arcane congressional budget rules to complete the health-care revamp.

Those budget rules promise a huge procedural advantage by avoiding filibusters that require 60 votes to overcome.

But there is a big catch: Anything that is in a budget bill has to have a budget purpose. If not, the provision can be challenged under the "Byrd rule," named for Sen. Robert Byrd, a West Virginia Democrat.

And Mr. Frumin, as the parliamentarian, must decide whether the Byrd rule has been met.

Thus, in a series of tense private meetings known informally as "Byrd baths," it is Mr. Frumin who will determine what stays in the legislation and what goes, according to people who have taken part in the past. (Provisions that are cut become "Byrd droppings.") Mr. Frumin's decisions could dictate whether the health-care overhaul will gain momentum or collapse.

Byrd-bath meetings, which are held in the parliamentarian's cubbyhole office in the Capitol, can drag on for hours as lawmakers and staffers make their cases. Running debates can stretch over weeks.

"The whole [Byrd rule] process in my experience as parliamentarian is a rather wrenching one," said Robert Dove, Mr. Frumin's predecessor. "It's just long and grueling.…I don't envy him."

The parliamentarian and his staff "are under huge pressure," said Sen. Judd Gregg, a New Hampshire Republican. "There are 100 elected senators and one parliamentarian, and the parliamentarian can determine what the 100 can do."

Among the policies that could be bounced by the Byrd rule are a number of changes to how the insurance market operates. Mr. Dove expressed skepticism that the budget shortcuts were well-suited for such efforts.

"When [the budget process] is used to jam things through on a very narrow basis, that's when it runs into problems," he said. Still, "it's so handy for any party that doesn't have 60 votes.…so it's a very tempting tool."

Mr. Frumin, 63 years old, didn't respond to requests for comment.

Mr. Dove estimated that in one year—1995—he tossed out about 300 provisions based on the Byrd rule, including a restriction on federally funded abortions.

Senators aren't the only ones with a lot on the line. Parliamentarians, who are supposed to be nonpartisan, can find themselves out of a job if their decisions displease powerful lawmakers, as Mr. Dove did in 2001.

Then-Majority Leader Trent Lott fired Mr. Dove, according to several people familiar with the situation, over a couple of decisions he made.

continues:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...CareReform26_4

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

Another interesting process...

Health Bill Elevates Senate Bureaucrat to Starring Role

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...CareReform26_4

Agreed. The reconciliation process should be interesting. It certainly has been used often enough in the past.

What is not very interesting is the critics, particularly the hypocritical Republicans in Congress, characterizing it as some kind of “nuclear option” similar to their own threat to end filibusters several years ago by “changing the rules.”

Reconciliation doesnt change the rules and has its own strict requirements.

Sipping my tea....let the party begin!

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by Griff

... The politics forum is reflecting Washington right now and that is a shame. We used to be better than that...

It's not just the politics forum though, Griff. In the eathquake thread, I got stomped on for suggesting that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

[tw]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

It's not just the politics forum though, Griff. In the eathquake thread, I got stomped on for suggesting that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

classicman is now in the Technology forum posting more cheap shots and nothing useful or helpful in computer problem. He is doing exactly what Limbaugh and Beck have told him to do. Make things so nasty that the better informed will be hurt, take insult, and not challenge incessant posting and threats from extremists.

Nastiness in the Cellar comes from those who are doing exactly what Limbaugh and Beck encourage them to do. It works because so many remain silent as, for example, classicman attempts to turn another thread nasty.

[xoxoxoBruce]

Originally Posted by Spexxvet

It's not just the politics forum though, Griff. In the eathquake thread, I got stomped on for suggesting that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure.

No, you got stomped for saying it's our fault for not invading their country and making them do it our way.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by xoxoxoBruce

No, you got stomped for saying it's our fault for not invading their country and making them do it our way.

I didn't say that.

[lookout123]

OOH OOH, I know! was it because of those nasty stupid neo cons?

[tw]

Originally Posted by lookout123

OOH OOH, I know! was it because of those nasty stupid neo cons?

Which was a greater threat to America? Neocons or Saddam? Obviously Neocons. They even invented the Saddam myths.

[Urbane Guerrilla]

Originally Posted by tw

Which was a greater threat to America? Neocons or Saddam? Obviously Neocons. They even invented the Saddam myths.

Neocons have been successful freedom fighters -- when we followed their kind of foreign policy philosophy we took down two totalitarian regimes, both of them about as nasty a set of tinpot third-world dictatorships as may be found, and inside the space of a year to boot.

You have never been, nor ever can be, a successful freedom fighter, so STFU before better men than you before you get backhanded into next week, you offensive prototalitarian, antidemocracy octopus twat.

Oh, and you occasion some invective too.

[SamIam]

As usual, Urbane carries the day. The creature from the swamp has returned.

[Spexxvet]

Originally Posted by lookout123

OOH OOH, I know! was it because of those nasty stupid neo cons?

BUZZZZZZZ. Sorry, that is IN-correct.

[lookout123]

Have you ever noticed how predictable you are?

[piercehawkeye45]

Originally Posted by lookout123

Have you ever noticed how predictable you are?

Irony.