Filibusters and Reconciliation

[Ziggurat]

You're moving the goalposts. You claimed it was a Republican idea. I said that's false.

That's because you keep equating removing antitrust exemption with opening up competition across state lines. They are not synonymous. I never said that removing the antitrust exemption was a Republican idea. But it's also less important to opening up competition across state lines than reducing the regulatory barriers. That HAS been a Republican idea, not a Democratic one, and you have not addressed that. I haven't moved any goalposts, I've had a different one than you from the start.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Yes, but that's not your claim. Your claim is that the Republicans didn't start touting this idea until AFTER the Democrats included it in their bill. Where's your evidence for that?

I just repeated it. What kind of silliness are you playing?

By the way, you claimed the White House opposed this idea. I'd like to see evidence of that claim.

__________

Above, in post number 83, I forgot to include the link where I intended to (where I said "Here's the bill"):

http://docs.house.gov/rules/health/111_ahcaa.pdf

See pages 151 and following. The repeal of the antitrust exemption here is longer and more specific than the later one. Both of these bills were sponsored by House Democrats and passed with the only votes against coming strictly from Republicans.

 

[AvalonXQ]

I just repeated it. What kind of silliness are you playing?

I'm waiting for evidence.
You're claiming Event A (the Democrats including healthcare anti-trust reform in their legislation) predates Event B (the Republicans touting the benefits of inter-state healthcare accessability).
You apparently believe that showing that Event A occurred at some point is evidence of your claim. It's not. You need to establish the timing of Event A and Event B, which you haven't even attempted to do.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

That's because you keep equating removing antitrust exemption with opening up competition across state lines. They are not synonymous. I never said that removing the antitrust exemption was a Republican idea. But it's also less important to opening up competition across state lines than reducing the regulatory barriers. That HAS been a Republican idea, not a Democratic one, and you have not addressed that. I haven't moved any goalposts, I've had a different one than you from the start.

And the House healthcare reform also included measure to increase competition, including a public health insurance option (at the federal level--which is, of course, "across state lines"). These ideas met with fierce opposition from the Republicans.

Sorry, you can't now claim that taking measure to improve competition among insurers was a Republican idea. Most of the Republican proposals (which, by the way, only happened after the Democrats brought the issue of healthcare reform back to the national stage following Obama's election) seek to resolve all these issues at the state level.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I'm waiting for evidence.
You're claiming Event A (the Democrats including healthcare anti-trust reform in their legislation) predates Event B (the Republicans touting the benefits of inter-state healthcare accessability).
You apparently believe that showing that Event A occurred at some point is evidence of your claim. It's not. You need to establish the timing of Event A and Event B, which you haven't even attempted to do.

Already answered--repeatedly.

I'm waiting for evidence of your claim that the White House spoke against these measures.

 

[AvalonXQ]

By the way, you claimed the White House opposed this idea. I'd like to see evidence of that claim.

I don't have any. Like I said, I remember someone from the Obama administration on September 9, 2009, after Obama's speech, arguing against it as part of the rival Republican plan, using a States' Rights argument. I think it was Emanuel speaking.
Even if my memory is correct, I have no idea how to get hold of this transcript. Any help out there?

Already answered--repeatedly.

Apparently I've missed it each time.
When did Event A occur?
When did Event B occur?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

On this site, you can select various reform proposals and compare them on various topics.
I just selected all the plans, and compared them on the topic "changes to private insurance".

The only plan to include a repeal of the antitrust exemption is one the House passed.

http://www.kff.org/healthreform/sidebyside.cfm

For grins, I selected all plans and all topics. The only plan to include the words "competition" was the House version, and it only referred to enhancing competition in the pharmaceutical industry.

I don't believe there has been any Republican-proposed bill to repeal the anti-trust exemption, and this is certainly a requirement to improving interstate competition. (For the record, this exemption allows some states to set up effective insurance monopolies and to prohibit interstate competition.) As far as I know, there isn't some other federal regulation that is obstructing interstate competition among insurers. If there are either of these things, it should be easy for you guys who claim this is a "Republican idea" to provide some examples.

So far all we've seen is that the only people voting against repeal of the anti-trust exemption have been Republicans, and the only sponsors of a repeal have been Democrats.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

I don't have any. Like I said, I remember someone from the Obama administration on September 9, 2009, after Obama's speech, arguing against it as part of the rival Republican plan, using a States' Rights argument. I think it was Emanuel speaking.
Even if my memory is correct, I have no idea how to get hold of this transcript. Any help out there?

I think that's your burden. It's your claim.

ETA: And I suspect you're misremembering what was said. I can't imagine anyone saying they're opposed to reform that would encourage interstate competition. (By the way, there is no states' right argument that would promote interstate competition. States' rights arguments tend to see states as sovereign units that can pass any legislation they want--including laws that establish effective monopolies for insurers.)

Apparently I've missed it each time.

Apparently.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Apparently.

And yet you continue to provide zero evidence. Well-done.
Since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to the date the Republicans began advocating an increased-competition reform to healthcare, I conclude you have no idea when they began advocating it. Your claim has no support. You fail.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Here's your timeline, since you seem unable to understand what I've been saying.

During the 108th and 109th Congress (2003 and 2005), the Republicans controlled the White House and both houses of Congress. No legislation was introduced on this subject.*

During the 110th Congress, Democrats had a slim majority in both houses, but the White House was Republican. No legislation was introduced on this subject.*

During the 111th Congress (2009 through now), Democrats controlled both houses and the White House. They made health insurance reform a big issue at the national level. They got bills passed in both houses, but ran into a Republican filibuster preventing further progress (short of reconciliation, the nuclear option or the House giving in and passing the Senate version). The House version which passed included the repeal of the antitrust exemption, and all but one Republican voted against it. Later, House Democrats introduced a smaller bill that would only repeal the antitrust exemption. It too passed in the House with opposition only coming from Republicans.

None of the Republican proposals introduced during the current (111th) Congress (see the kff link above) include a repeal of the antitrust exemption (a bare minimum if anything is to be done to increase interstate competition among insurers). And these proposals were only started after Democrats forced the issue into national prominence.

*With the exception of the perennial Dingell health reform proposal. The Dingell bill called for a true universal healthcare system. I don't think it proposed insurance reforms so much as a true overhaul, but it also never had much support.

I have made all these points already, but used language that referred to "the House bill" and "when Republicans controlled Congress" and so on, assuming you knew the dates of these events.

 

[AvalonXQ]

So, you admit that you've provided no information as to when Republicans started advocating inter-state healthcare competition, and how that relates to when antitrust reform enters into the Democrats' bill? Only information as to the fact that Republicans never introduced legislation with their policies?

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Since you have yet to provide a single piece of evidence as to the date the Republicans began advocating an increased-competition reform to healthcare, I conclude you have no idea when they began advocating it.

This is absurd reasoning.

To my knowledge, Republicans have never advocated it, at the national level. At best, their proposals would kick those issues back to the states (as I mentioned, this is tantamount to saying they're fine with the status quo at the national level). Even so, none of these proposals were introduced before the Democrats made this in an issue (again--they first did so during the Clinton administration when they were roundly smacked down by Republican opposition) in the current session of Congress.

 

[Ziggurat]

And the House healthcare reform also included measure to increase competition, including a public health insurance option (at the federal level--which is, of course, "across state lines").

Considering that the federal government can game the system as it pleases, that's hardly competition. And it does NOTHING to create more competition between insurers.

Sorry, you can't now claim that taking measure to improve competition among insurers was a Republican idea. Most of the Republican proposals (which, by the way, only happened after the Democrats brought the issue of healthcare reform back to the national stage following Obama's election) seek to resolve all these issues at the state level.

You're simply wrong. Republican plans have indeed tried to address problems at the federal level.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/politics/main5510731.shtml
"Instead, the Republican plan increases incentives for people to use health savings accounts, caps non-economic jury awards in medical malpractice cases at $250,000, provides various incentives to states with the aim of driving down premium costs and allows health insurance to be sold across state lines."
You can find the plan referred to here:
http://thehill.com/images/stories/whitepapers/pdf/ainsfloor_01_xml.pdf
Page 126:
"The covered laws of the primary State shall apply to individual health insurance coverage offered by a health insurance issuer in the primary State and in any secondary State, but only if the coverage and issuer comply with the conditions of this section with respect to the offering of coverage in any secondary State."
There's more if you care to read it, but that there is EXACTLY what I'm referring to. And the Democrats have proposed nothing of the sort.

As for the Republican's failure to do this earlier, see post #80. There's really no point in trying to bring that up with me any more.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

So, you admit that you've provided no information as to when Republicans started advocating inter-state healthcare competition, and how that relates to when antitrust reform enters into the Democrats' bill? Only information as to the fact that Republicans never introduced legislation with their policies?

No. My position is that Republicans have not been advocating reforms at the national level that would improve competition among health insurers. At best, some of them have hopped on the bandwagon (somewhat reluctantly at that). Most have actively opposed efforts by Democrats to pass these reforms.

Now, the evidence for your claim that the White House opposed reforms to improve competition?

 

[Ziggurat]

This is absurd reasoning.

To my knowledge, Republicans have never advocated it, at the national level.

Then you need to get better informed.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You're simply wrong. Republican plans have indeed tried to address problems at the federal level.
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/11/03/politics/main5510731.shtml

The first sentence in this article:

After months spent criticizing Democrats' health overhaul plans, House Republicans have produced a draft proposal of their own.

So again, this is a "Republican idea"? Or did some Republicans jump on the bandwagon?

And when I search the comparisons in the kff site, I don't see any of the Republican proposals either repealing the antitrust exemption or saying anything about encouraging competition across state lines.

The proposal you're citing is actually an amendment to the Democrat-proposed healthcare reform plan. That is, it's an amendment to HR3962.

 

[Ziggurat]

So again, this is a "Republican idea"? Or did some Republicans jump on the bandwagon?

It's a Republican idea, Joe, because the Democrats have never advocated for it. It is completely different than the removal of antitrust exemptions.

And when I search the comparisons in the kff site, I don't see any of the Republican proposals either repealing the antitrust exemption or saying anything about encouraging competition across state lines.

I GAVE you the proposal, Joe. I told you what page number to look on. Read a page or two, and if you still can't understand why that would open up competition across state lines, come back and ask.

The proposal you're citing is actually an amendment

And it's a Republican proposal, Joe. That they tried to get it tacked onto a Democratic bill doesn't change that.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

And it's a Republican proposal, Joe. That they tried to get it tacked onto a Democratic bill doesn't change that.

It's a Republican proposal of an amendment to the Democratic bill in an attempt to obstruct passage of the Democratic bill.

 

[AvalonXQ]

It's a Republican proposal of an amendment to the Democratic bill

So you finally admit that this idea is the Republicans' idea? Good.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

It's a Republican idea, Joe, because the Democrats have never advocated for it. It is completely different than the removal of antitrust exemptions.

You can't get increased interstate competition as long as you allow the antitrust exemptions to remain in place. States are free to pass their own laws that set up effective monopolies (and bar purchasing insurance across state lines).

You're trying to pretend you can address interstate competition without the repeal of the antitrust exemption, but you cannot.

So, it seems you're ceding the point that repeal of the antitrust exemption was a "Democratic idea".

What did the Republicans propose to do to increase interstate competition while allowing states the right to pass monopolistic laws?

That is, if these are two distinct issues, how can you tackle the one you say is the "Republican idea" without first doing what you seem to be ceding is a "Democratic idea"?

And again, the Republicans didn't address any of this until it was forced onto the national stage by the Democrats following Obama's election.