Filibusters and Reconciliation

[leftysergeant]

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence to back up your timeline?

Unless they fall under anti-trust laws, there is no competitive advantage for the consumers. The corporations did not want to lose that anti-trust exemption.

Too bloody bad.

I never heard a Republican argue for ending the anti-trust exemption.

 

[FarmallMTA]

Unless they fall under anti-trust laws, there is no competitive advantage for the consumers. The corporations did not want to lose that anti-trust exemption.

Too bloody bad.

I never heard a Republican argue for ending the anti-trust exemption.

You've never heard of a lot of things, Lefty. Including that Democrats confirm lunatics like Thomas Eagleton to government offices.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then why am I only hearing Republicans advocating it? If the Democrats want it too, then why aren't they pushing that as a talking point?

They did. I don't think you kept up with the news on this.

House Democrats passed a bill that included an end to the antitrust exemption. The only Republican to vote for this bill was Rep. Cao (LA).

ETA: Here's the bill. Section 262, titled RESTORING APPLICATION OF ANTITRUST LAWS TO HEALTH SECTOR INSURERS starts on page 151. I could quote the section, but it's fairly long since it amends existing laws (so there's a lot of stuff like "change line number such and such to say 'this new text'" and so on). But the net effect is ending the antitrust exemption to health insurance companies that was part of the McCarron-Ferguson Act of 1945.

My understanding is a similar measure was in the Senate bill*, but had to be taken out to get enough votes from the Blue Dogs (or to appease the insurance industry lobbyists). Even with it in, I doubt any Republicans would have voted for the healthcare reform bill in the Senate.

*ETA: It seems it was never in the Senate version. Apparently Reid was trying to hold that out as something that could be added back in if the insurance lobby didn't go along with that version of the healthcare bill.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Interesting claim. Do you have evidence to back up your timeline?

What are you talking about? The House and Senate both passed healthcare bills with one of the main goals being to approach universal coverage. Both plans would have addressed the issue of the uninsured.

That happened a few months ago.

When did the Republicans do anything to address the uninsured? The Republican proposal I have seen would actually further restrict access to healthcare in an effort to reduce costs.

 

[Bob Blaylock]

why should health-care be a state and not a federal issue?

it seems to me that only the Federal government has the power and resources to deal with such a monster. wouldn't u agree?

If you were smart enough to spell the word “you”, then you might also be smart enough to understand the Tenth Amendment, which basically prohibits the federal government from claiming any power or authority that is not delegated to it in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Of course, it's probably rather pointless to try to explain such points of Constitutional law to someone who isn't even smart enough to spell the word “you”.

 

[tyr_13]

If you were smart enough to spell the word “you”, then you might also be smart enough to understand the Tenth Amendment, which basically prohibits the federal government from claiming any power or authority that is not delegated to it in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to take over the health care industry.
Of course, it's probably rather pointless to try to explain such points of Constitutional law to someone who isn't even smart enough to spell the word “you”.

Well it's a damn good thing no one is proposing that then! It's good to have your support for this bill Bob.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You've never heard of a lot of things, Lefty. Including that Democrats confirm lunatics like Thomas Eagleton to government offices.

Nice attempt to change the subject, but Ziggurat is claiming that this is a Republican idea. I've spelled out exactly where language that would remove the health insurance antitrust exemption was passed by House Democrats (plus one lone Republican).

And several of us pointed out that the Republicans never even addressed this issue when they controlled Congress. So, unless you have something tangible to offer, it seems you haven't heard of it either, and this is not a Republican idea.

They can't even claim to have jumped on the bandwagon because they've done just about everything in their power to prevent revocation of the antitrust exemption.

 

[Ziggurat]

Nice attempt to change the subject, but Ziggurat is claiming that this is a Republican idea. I've spelled out exactly where language that would remove the health insurance antitrust exemption was passed by House Democrats (plus one lone Republican).

Your numbers are off.
"The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption". That's a lot more than one lone Republican.

But you seem to think that eliminating this antitrust exemption is the be-all and end-all of allowing cross-state competition. It isn't. The activities antitrust laws prohibit (such as price fixing) are already outlawed under other laws, and the CBO predicts that the repeal will have "no significant effect on premiums".

The primary problem is state regulations which vary so much from state to state that even if an insurer operates in two states, they can't generally offer the same plan in those states. The cost of compliance with such vastly different regulations means that there's a huge threshold of customers that an insurer needs in order to break even. This is a gigantic barrier to entry for insurers, and the democrats are doing nothing about it. They haven't even talked about doing something about it. Republicans have. So I'm not buying your argument.

They can't even claim to have jumped on the bandwagon because they've done just about everything in their power to prevent revocation of the antitrust exemption.

Except, of course, most of them voted for it.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your numbers are off.
"The vote was 406-19 to repeal the exemption". That's a lot more than one lone Republican.

I was talking about the healthcare reform bill that passed the House with only one Republican voting in favor. (It too, as I've said, included elimination of the antitrust exemption.)

At any rate, even from this vote, it clearly wasn't a "Republican idea".

But you seem to think that eliminating this antitrust exemption is the be-all and end-all of allowing cross-state competition. It isn't.

I agree. But you can't achieve any meaningful cross-state competition (across the country) as long as the antitrust exemption is in place.

And you certainly can't claim this reform is a Republican idea. That's preposterous.

 

[AvalonXQ]

What are you talking about? The House and Senate both passed healthcare bills with one of the main goals being to approach universal coverage. Both plans would have addressed the issue of the uninsured.

That happened a few months ago.

Your claim was that the Republicans came up with this idea after the Democrats included these measures in their bills.
That's the timeline I asked if you could defend with evidence.
I find this unlikely, because I remember a White House representative arguing against these reforms on Fox News the night of Obama's health care speech last year.
If you're right that the Republicans only came up with this after the Democrats were already doing it, back it up with evidence.

 

[AvalonXQ]

And you certainly can't claim this reform is a Republican idea. That's preposterous.

Again, where's your evidence that it was the Democrats, not the Republicans, who first pushed this idea? Because, again, I remember the White House opposing this idea on the night of Obama's health care speech last year. This is just my memory, of course -- not real evidence -- but I'm looking for your evidence that the timeline is as you claim.

 

[Ziggurat]

I was talking about the healthcare reform bill that passed the House with only one Republican voting in favor. (It too, as I've said, included elimination of the antitrust exemption.)

Then you cannot reasonably consider the vote as indicative of Republican disapproval of that specific idea.

At any rate, even from this vote, it clearly wasn't a "Republican idea".

Ending the limited antitrust exemptions isn't. But again, that's not the primary problem.

I agree. But you can't achieve any meaningful cross-state competition (across the country) as long as the antitrust exemption is in place.

I disagree. As I've pointed out, other laws which they were never exempted from already prohibited much of what the exemption allowed for, and the repeal will have very limited effect. Lowering the regulatory barriers would have a significant effect with or without the antitrust exemption (which was always limited to begin with). I'm not arguing for keeping the exemption, merely for recognizing that it's state regulations which create the biggest barriers to competition between insurance providers.

And you certainly can't claim this reform is a Republican idea. That's preposterous.

I'm not. I'm saying that lowering the regulatory barriers between states is a Republican idea. And I stand by that.

 

[ZirconBlue]

You are naive. You act as if the Democrats have never done this. Do you really want to change the rules? The Democrats won't be in power forever, you may need these tools in the future. Filibusters are as American as apple pie. Davy Crockett even filibustered. Now you think reconciliation is OK here's what the Democrats thought about it just 4 or 5 years ago. Completely opposite of what they think now.

http://www.breitbart.tv/obama-dems-...ogant-power-grab-against-the-founders-intent/

The Republicans are using the filibuster a lot more than it has historically been used. At least, according to this guy:

Ira Shapiro is a former Senate staffer, later a Clinton administration official and now a Washington lawyer who has written about the Senate a great deal. And first Ira Shapiro, just to validate or dismiss a widely held impression, are Senate Republicans in fact forcing a lot more cloture votes now than ever before?

Mr. IRA SHAPIRO (Lawyer, Former Clinton Administration Official): Robert, its clear that since the Senate went back to Democratic control, there has been a large spike in cloture votes. They are much higher since 2006 than they had ever been before, and by orders of magnitude higher.

SIEGEL: Orders of magnitude, meaning you used to get how many cloture votes?

Mr. SHAPIRO: Used to be you would have seven or eight in a Congress and now you can have as many as 80 in a year. Its a fundamental change. And frankly put me among those who think it is making the Senate dysfunctional.

Source:
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=123287741

 

[leftysergeant]

If you were smart enough to spell the word “you”, then you might also be smart enough to understand the Tenth Amendment, which basically prohibits the federal government from claiming any power or authority that is not delegated to it in the Constitution. Nowhere in the Constitution is the authority given to the federal government to take over the health care industry.

Wel, DUH! like they were going to include referrences to a business that did not yet exist?

Of course, it's probably rather pointless to try to explain such points of Constitutional law to someone who can't get his head around the concept of "regulate interstate commerce."

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Your claim was that the Republicans came up with this idea after the Democrats included these measures in their bills.
That's the timeline I asked if you could defend with evidence.

And I did.

Sorry, you're just wrong on this.

If you're right that the Republicans only came up with this after the Democrats were already doing it, back it up with evidence.

I did.

You can keep pretending I didn't, but that doesn't change things.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

Then you cannot reasonably consider the vote as indicative of Republican disapproval of that specific idea.

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

ETA: If you're addressing my position that Republicans haven't jumped on the bandwagon (based on their voting against the comprehensive healthcare reform bill the House passed), I will rescind that statement. I fully admit that some Republicans have jumped on the bandwagon on this issue. But it's certainly not a "Republican idea".

Let's consider the bill the House passed whose only votes against were 19 Republicans and no Democrats (the one you referred to).

Here are the bill's sponsors:

N THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

February 22, 2010

Mr. PERRIELLO (for himself, Ms. MARKEY of Colorado, Ms. SLAUGHTER, Mr. DEFAZIO, Mr. ANDREWS, Mr. BOSWELL, Mr. BOUCHER, Mrs. CAPPS, Mr. CAPUANO, Mr. CARNAHAN, Ms. CHU, Mr. CONNOLLY of Virginia, Mrs. DAVIS of California, Ms. DEGETTE, Ms. DELAURO, Mr. ELLISON, Mr. GARAMENDI, Mr. GENE GREEN of Texas, Mr. GRIJALVA, Mr. GUTIERREZ, Mr. HALL of New York, Mr. HARE, Ms. NORTON, Mr. HOLT, Mr. JOHNSON of Georgia, Mr. KILDEE, Ms. KILROY, Mr. KISSELL, Mr. KLEIN of Florida, Mr. LANGEVIN, Mr. LUJAN, Mrs. MALONEY, Mr. MARKEY of Massachusetts, Mr. MASSA, Ms. MCCOLLUM, Mr. MCDERMOTT, Mr. MICHAUD, Mr. MORAN of Virginia, Mr. NADLER of New York, Mr. OLVER, Mr. OWENS, Mr. PASCRELL, Mr. PERLMUTTER, Mr. PETERS, Ms. PINGREE of Maine, Mr. POLIS of Colorado, Mr. QUIGLEY, Mr. RYAN of Ohio, Ms. LINDA T. SANCHEZ of California, Mr. SCOTT of Georgia, Ms. SHEA-PORTER, Mr. SHERMAN, Mr. STUPAK, Ms. SUTTON, Mr. TAYLOR, Mr. TEAGUE, Mr. TIERNEY, Ms. TITUS, Mr. TONKO, Mr. VAN HOLLEN, Ms. WASSERMAN SCHULTZ, Mr. WELCH, Ms. WOOLSEY, Mr. WU, Mr. BARROW, and Ms. HIRONO) introduced the following bill; which was referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

Notice a party trend?

I'm saying that lowering the regulatory barriers between states is a Republican idea. And I stand by that.

Despite the evidence to the contrary.

Again, what did the Republicans do about this when they controlled Congress? And don't imagine healthcare reform hadn't already been raised to the national stage in a big way. That happened under the Clinton administration.

 

[AvalonXQ]

If you're right that the Republicans only came up with this after the Democrats were already doing it, back it up with evidence.

I did.

You didn't.

 

[JoeTheJuggler]

You didn't.

Did so!

Please read the thread. This measure was part of the comprehensive healthcare reform the Democrats have been trying to pass since Obama was elected. Republicans consistently opposed it.

More recently, as Zig pointed out, House Democrats introduced a specific bill that focused narrowly on just this issue (repealing the antitrust exemption for health insurers). The only votes against the measure were Republicans.

Republicans did not introduce any such legislation when they controlled Congress.

You can live in your own fantasy world where Republicans have been trying to reform health insurance if only those obstructionist Democrats would cooperate, but that's not the real world.

 

[AvalonXQ]

Did so!

Please read the thread. This measure was part of the comprehensive healthcare reform the Democrats have been trying to pass since Obama was elected. Republicans consistently opposed it.

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?

 

[AvalonXQ]

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

You keep saying that -- and yet you still haven't produced evidence showing when Republicans started talking about this idea, and comparing that to when Democrats first introduced legislation about it.
In other words, you have yet to present sufficient evidence to figure out who promoted the idea first.