by Mark Silva
The early line on the question of congressional Democratic leaders taking any end-run around the Massachusetts election that has cost the party its super-majority in the Senate appears to be: Bad idea.
Last night, Sen. Evan Bayh of Indiana suggested that any talk of ramming the Senate health-care bill through the House or voting on a leadership compromise before the Senate seats its newest Republican could be catastrophic for his fellow Democrats.
Today, the House's Rep Barney Frank called it "a mistake.'' He also suggested that the version of the compromise that his party's leaders were likely to take to the Senate and House before this week's special Senate election is "dead.''
"I think the measure that would have passed - that is, some compromise between the House and Senate bills ... which I would have voted for, though there were some aspects of both I would have liked to have seen changed - I think that's dead,'' Frank said in an interview aired on satellite radio's P.O.T.U.S -- "Politics of the United States'' -- channel, Sirius 110 and XM 130.
The Massachusetts Democrat allowed that some of his Democratic colleagues "have been thinking about ways to get around the results by working in various parliamentary ways - looking at the rules and trying to get a health care bill passed that would be the same bill that would have passed if (Massachusetts Democrat) Martha Coakley had won (the Senate seat of the late Sen. Edward M. Kennedy), "and I think that would be a mistake.
"I will not support an effort to put through a House/Senate compromise bill despite an election,'' Frank said. "I'm disappointed in how it came out, but I think electoral results have to be respected.
"I think it would be a mistake from several perspectives: From the standpoint of respect for the procedures and from the standpoint of the Democrats' own interests to try to push this bill through now despite the election,'' he said. "I mean, I wish we didn't have minority rule in the Senate, where you need 60 votes to pass something. But that's been the rule, and I'd like it to be changed going forward, but not in the middle of this process.''
Comments
Healthcare reform is dead because of the powerful insurance and pharma cartel's hold over our elected representatives. Money talks and basically you work for who pays you.
This means that we no longer have a government for and by the people but rather for and by the powerful corporations and their waterboys in congress.
The democrats had a once in a lifetime opportunity to reform the horror of healthcare in America and they dropped the ball; the blew it.
At least the r-cons have guts.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | January 20, 2010 3:38 PM
Posted by: writerofwrongs | January 20, 2010 3:38 PM
SMOKER OF BONGS. NICE TRY. DO TRY AGAIN, I'M SURE YOU WILL.
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | January 20, 2010 5:57 PM
Good move Barney - no need to "roll the dice" on this gov't fiasco.
Posted by: Terry | January 20, 2010 6:04 PM
Healthcare does not have to be "dead." We already have two entitlement programs in this country, Medicare and Medicaid. By allowing those 55 and older to buy into Medicare and those under 55 to buy into Medicaid, we have solved the healthcare crisis. Yes, new rules need to be drafted for the buy ins to occur but why do we need to create another nightmare government sponsored heath plan?
Posted by: Susan | January 20, 2010 6:23 PM
Posted by: writerofwrongs | January 20, 2010 3:38 PM
SMOKER OF BONGS. NICE TRY. DO TRY AGAIN, I'M SURE YOU WILL.
Posted by: Bobby Mobbie | January 20, 2010 5:57 PM
~~~~~~~~
and your point is ...?
Posted by: writerofwrongs | January 20, 2010 7:37 PM
Barney is singing this tune because his distric went for Brown. Barney is scared of losing.
Posted by: John D | January 20, 2010 7:40 PM
Susie,
And those two entitlements, along with Social Security, have got this country on a path towards bankruptcy. Adding more people to a program going towards bankruptcy is not the answer.
Posted by: Terry | January 20, 2010 7:42 PM
terry:
Susie,
And those two entitlements, along with Social Security, have got this country on a path towards bankruptcy. Adding more people to a program going towards bankruptcy is not the answer.
~~~~~~~~~~~~
if America were not engaged in 2 pointless wars in the middle east, bailing out the banksters and wasting gazillions, there would be enough in the treasury to do the right thing for America and the economy and have socialized medicine like Germany and other countries have.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | January 20, 2010 9:24 PM
Barry the frank smugler finally got 1 right
Posted by: Libtard | January 20, 2010 10:03 PM
Massachusetts went Red?!!! Virginia went Red?!! The people have spoken. The change Obama promised isn't there. Let's get real here! Americans need jobs!!! Period.
Posted by: nina | January 21, 2010 4:55 AM
Still Writing Wrongs,
According to the National Center for Policy Analysis, Medicare and Social Security have an unfunded liability of $107 Trillion dollars. First, the liability has been unfunded before Afghanistan or Iraq were invaded. Second, do you think the Trillion dollars spent on this war would make a ripply in this unfunded liability?
Learn the numbers. Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak out and remove all doubt.
Posted by: Terry | January 21, 2010 11:06 PM
terry:
try as you may to dazzle me with your statistics, the fact remains that one trillion dollars
can buy a lot of healthcare for uninsured Americans.
the total estimate cost of these pointless wars for the care and rehabilitation for injured soldiers is anyones guess.
Posted by: writerofwrongs | January 22, 2010 11:43 PM
Still Writing Wrongs,
The Trillion was spent over 8 years - avg $125 billion per year. Slightly larger than what BO CLAIMS health care will cost. Difference is the spending of a Trillion dollars on the Iraq and Afghanistan wars will some day end. A gov't entitlement lives on forever. As I have shown you above, it is the gov't entitlments that will bankrupt this nation.
Hopefully this information doen't just dazzel you, but it sinks into your head.
Also, I thought you libs said the Afghan War was the "Good War", not a pointless war?
Posted by: Terry | January 23, 2010 7:54 AM