Why Reconciliation is Essentially Impossible
- Thread starter Mr_Ed
- Start date
- Thread starter
- #2
al,
the bottom line is that reconciliation only works when the legislation does not add to the deficit in the next 10 year budget period. that is why the repubs have used reconcilation to pass spending cuts.
most of the features in the senate healthcare reform bill will add to the deficit in the 2020-2029 budget period. Therefore, if they are passed by 51 votes, the Senate parliamentarian will throw them out of the bill. The Senate parliamentarian has no choice but to throw them out of the bill, because his job is to follow the rules of the senate. the only way to override the Senate parliamentarian's decision is with 60 votes. (which the democrats no longer have.)
Even if a bill is passed in the house and the senate (through reconciliation) most of the provisions in the bill will be thrown out because they add to the deficit.
Probably the only thing left in the bill will be the CLASS Act, because that might just be "deficit neutral" from 2020 to 2029.
I am a proponent of the CLASS Act, so I'd be thrilled if it passed.
PS Television news is just entertainment. It rarely contains meaningful substance.
the bottom line is that reconciliation only works when the legislation does not add to the deficit in the next 10 year budget period. that is why the repubs have used reconcilation to pass spending cuts.
most of the features in the senate healthcare reform bill will add to the deficit in the 2020-2029 budget period. Therefore, if they are passed by 51 votes, the Senate parliamentarian will throw them out of the bill. The Senate parliamentarian has no choice but to throw them out of the bill, because his job is to follow the rules of the senate. the only way to override the Senate parliamentarian's decision is with 60 votes. (which the democrats no longer have.)
Even if a bill is passed in the house and the senate (through reconciliation) most of the provisions in the bill will be thrown out because they add to the deficit.
Probably the only thing left in the bill will be the CLASS Act, because that might just be "deficit neutral" from 2020 to 2029.
I am a proponent of the CLASS Act, so I'd be thrilled if it passed.
PS Television news is just entertainment. It rarely contains meaningful substance.
Last edited:
Health insurance reform must first pass the House. They don't have the votes to pass the Senate version, just barely had the votes to pass the original House version and 3 who voted for the House version are no longer there.
Obaba wants to Rahm through the giant health care bill but even he won't be able to pull it off. Even Newt said they needed to break it up into manageable pieces but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Also, reconciliation is to be used to amend the budget, not create new legislation. Conceivably they could pass health care reform legislation, but not fund it, then come back via reconciliation and fund it, but I don't see that happening either.
Obaba wants to Rahm through the giant health care bill but even he won't be able to pull it off. Even Newt said they needed to break it up into manageable pieces but I don't see that happening any time soon.
Also, reconciliation is to be used to amend the budget, not create new legislation. Conceivably they could pass health care reform legislation, but not fund it, then come back via reconciliation and fund it, but I don't see that happening either.
- 9,744
Do you believe in the Tooth Fairy too?
Just what we need - another huge, expensive entitlement at a time when not only are we broke - but most of the other big entitlements will be falling off a cliff soon. Makes perfect sense.
If it were the commercial networks, I would agree. The PBS Newshour is totally different, apparently you've never seen it...
- Thread starter
- #5
moonlight,
i usually like your posts. you're funny and smart most of the time. but you don't know what you're talking about here.
1) the CLASS Act is not an entitlement program.
2) the CLASS Act is projected to be "deficit neutral" for about the first 15 years (according to the CBO's scoring--which is the only scoring that matters.) At that point, the legislation requires that premiums be raised or benefits cut (OR BOTH) in order to prevent taxpayers' dollars from being used to pay claims.
3) the wording in every version of the CLASS Act prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to pay the claims. The claims are paid by the premiums of the plan participants.
4) I have watched "The News Hour", the only part of the report that is usually worth watching is the stock market report.
5) Maybe the news hour has improved. But the snippet that al shared was a joke. Neither of those guys made the critical, salient points. Facts are rarely newsworthy. Rumors, hyperbole, "the story" is what is newsworthy. Facts aren't. Those idiots (brooks and shields) (sounds like a bad las vegas lounge act) were just telling the "political story" to tickle the ears of the audience.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now here's an interesting story on PBS' News Hour:
Online NewsHour | PBS
i usually like your posts. you're funny and smart most of the time. but you don't know what you're talking about here.
1) the CLASS Act is not an entitlement program.
2) the CLASS Act is projected to be "deficit neutral" for about the first 15 years (according to the CBO's scoring--which is the only scoring that matters.) At that point, the legislation requires that premiums be raised or benefits cut (OR BOTH) in order to prevent taxpayers' dollars from being used to pay claims.
3) the wording in every version of the CLASS Act prevents taxpayer dollars from being used to pay the claims. The claims are paid by the premiums of the plan participants.
4) I have watched "The News Hour", the only part of the report that is usually worth watching is the stock market report.
5) Maybe the news hour has improved. But the snippet that al shared was a joke. Neither of those guys made the critical, salient points. Facts are rarely newsworthy. Rumors, hyperbole, "the story" is what is newsworthy. Facts aren't. Those idiots (brooks and shields) (sounds like a bad las vegas lounge act) were just telling the "political story" to tickle the ears of the audience.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now here's an interesting story on PBS' News Hour:
Online NewsHour | PBS
Last edited:
- 9,744
Social Security and Medicare were both programs that started with "good intentions" as well. Look where they are now.
Maybe you could cite a couple of federal government programs that have fulfilled these promises previously...
- Thread starter
- #7
Thank you for your non-admission admission that my points are factual and correct.
(when you can't refute the facts, just change the question, right?)
You're using examples of two entitlement programs to prove why a non-entitlement program won't work.
I think you had one too many margaritas last night. Try using a logical argument.
Last edited:
I wouldn't hang my hat on CBO projections. They missed the mark on Medicare Part D and have come up with some goofy numbers on health insurance reform as well.
In fairness, they are only allowed to score items that are specifically delineated in the budget, involve federal taxes, and those items they are told to score. There is plenty in health insurance reform that was never priced out because they were never directed to price it. You can find those listed in both the House and Senate versions under "such sums as are needed".
In fairness, they are only allowed to score items that are specifically delineated in the budget, involve federal taxes, and those items they are told to score. There is plenty in health insurance reform that was never priced out because they were never directed to price it. You can find those listed in both the House and Senate versions under "such sums as are needed".
- 9,744
You're missing the point...
History has proven that every federal government program (entitlement or not) mushrooms out of control over time, mainly due to political pandering and poor financial management. You can tell me about one that hasn't?
It may be a "non-entitlement" today...
When the problem is government, it's hard to believe that MORE government is the answer.
- Thread starter
- #10
If gov't was the source of all the problems and if gov't was the source of none of the solutions, then I would agree with you. But neither of those statements is true.
Although I see myself as a political conservative, I'm not opposed to the involvement of the federal gov't in many areas.
The federal gov't, along with the private sector, can do some things very well together, that neither sector could do well by itself.
Examples:
the interstate highway system
national defense
the space program
many research programs (particularly ARPA, without which we would not be having this conversation)
oversight/regulation (e.g. FDA, NRC)
guaranty associations (e.g. FDIC)
Medicare
Most of these programs are NOT run solely by the federal gov't. But the federal gov't's involvement along with the private sector's expertise, combine to form an effective partnership.
I think the CLASS Act is good because it will be like Medicare Part B, but just for Long Term Care. It will provide a basic amount of coverage that everyone can get regardless of their health history. All they have to do is pay the premiums and co-pays.
The CLASS Act does not offer rich benefits... just a very basic benefit. It will raise awareness of the need to plan for long term care and it will dramatically increase the private long term care insurance market.
Last edited:
