$634 billion for health care in budget! We have Stimulus 2.0, folks!

[backscatter712]

That's what I call solving two problems at once!

For one, fix health care - get those countless millions of uninsured, underinsured and insurance-company-screwed some decent health care.

For another, toss $634 billion dollars into the economy in such a way that it helps ordinary folks, puts millions of nurses, doctors, and other people in the medical industry to work, and propagates through the economy - this is Stimulus 2.0, folks!

And by putting it in the budget, Obama's doing it in a way that can't be filibustered! Keep this funded for a few years, and the Rethugs won't dare take it away - they'll get lynched if they try!

Obama just keeps opening up six-packs of awesome, doesn't he?

[Renew Deal]

1. Is it true that the budget can't be filibustered?

I think I heard that somewhere else. Why isn't this loophole exploited more often?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

3. Because it's not a legal document.

Even Congressional budgets have no force of law. They're political documents.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

2. Budgets are barely worth the paper they're printed on.

You say it can't be filibustered, which is correct. But it also has exactly ZERO force of law. Even when Congress writes their own budget, it has almost no force of law - it doesn't even set the appropriations caps.

All it does is start the discussion. It's a political document - nothing more.

[Renew Deal]

4. Does that mean that they are budgeting the money, but not creating the program?

That's what it sounds like.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

6. That's correct.

You need an authorizing bill first. The authorizing bill sets up the framework for how the money will be spent. Then you need an appropriation for it in order for any money to actually be issued. That's how nearly every federal program works (there are a very, very few number of programs that are appropriated without being authorized, but they are typically rather small in nature.)

This tells Congress "I'm putting in a placeholder for you guys when you work your appropriations bills that I'm going to want to spend X amount of dollars here." They'll take that under advisement, but little more. Honestly, if they don't see the political feasibility of getting the program authorized, they'll spend the money elsewhere and there's nothing Obama can do about it.

[pinto]

5. iirc, once it gets to the Senate as a bill it would in procedure require 60 votes.

The Budget Act allows for a point of order to be raised on a spending bill, blocking it from consideration. That point of order can only be waived by 60 votes to continue to consideration. *Then* it's a simple majority to pass.

http://www.congressmatters.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/161443/9275/436/583

That was the process for the Economic Recovery Act.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

7. It was needed for the ERA because that bill circumvented budget rules.

In order to get around that, 60 votes were needed, according to parliamentary procedures. The budget itself, which will be written by Congress and not Obama, doesn't even really need to be voted upon.

[pinto]

8. I'm talking about a specific bill - not a budget. I thought a spending bill

that increased deficit spending was subject to a point of order, under the Budget Act, on the floor. ?

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

9. Honestly, I'm not sure.

I think it would heavily depend on the process that's taken.

[pinto]

15. Here's the Pay-As-You-Go Point of Order (Senate)

http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/F?c110:4:./temp/~c110O2gxkd:e40328:

SEC. 201. PAY-AS-YOU-GO POINT OF ORDER IN THE SENATE.

(a) Point of Order-

(1) IN GENERAL- It shall not be in order in the Senate to consider any direct spending or revenue legislation that would increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit for either of the applicable time periods as measured in paragraphs (5) and (6).

(2) APPLICABLE TIME PERIODS- For purposes of this subsection, the term `applicable time period' means either--

(A) the period of the current fiscal year, the budget year, and the ensuing 4 fiscal years following the budget year; or

(B) the period of the current fiscal year, the budget year, and the ensuing 9 fiscal years following the budget year.

(3) DIRECT SPENDING LEGISLATION- For purposes of this subsection and except as provided in paragraph (4), the term `direct spending legislation' means any bill, joint resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report that affects direct spending as that term is defined by, and interpreted for purposes of, the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985.

(4) EXCLUSION- For purposes of this subsection, the terms `direct spending legislation' and `revenue legislation' do not include--

(A) any concurrent resolution on the budget; or

(B) any provision of legislation that affects the full funding of, and continuation of, the deposit insurance guarantee commitment in effect on the date of enactment of the Budget Enforcement Act of 1990.

(5) BASELINE- Estimates prepared pursuant to this subsection shall--

(A) use the baseline surplus or deficit used for the most recently adopted concurrent resolution on the budget; and

(B) be calculated under the requirements of subsections (b) through (d) of section 257 of the Balanced Budget and Emergency Deficit Control Act of 1985 (as in effect prior to September 30, 2002) for fiscal years beyond those covered by that concurrent resolution on the budget.

(6) PRIOR SURPLUS- If direct spending or revenue legislation increases the on-budget deficit or causes an on-budget deficit when taken individually, it must also increase the on-budget deficit or cause an on-budget deficit when taken together with all direct spending and revenue legislation enacted since the beginning of the calendar year not accounted for in the baseline under paragraph (5)(A), except that direct spending or revenue effects resulting in net deficit reduction enacted in any bill pursuant to a reconciliation instruction since the beginning of that same calendar year shall never be made available on the pay-as-you-go ledger and shall be dedicated only for deficit reduction.

(b) Supermajority Waiver and Appeals-

(1) WAIVER- This section may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

(2) APPEALS- Appeals in the Senate from the decisions of the Chair relating to any provision of this section shall be limited to 1 hour, to be equally divided between, and controlled by, the appellant and the manager of the bill or joint resolution, as the case may be. An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this section.

(c) Determination of Budget Levels- For purposes of this section, the levels of new budget authority, outlays, and revenues for a fiscal year shall be determined on the basis of estimates made by the Senate Committee on the Budget.

(d) Sunset- This section shall expire on September 30, 2017.

(e) Repeal- In the Senate, section 505 of H. Con. Res. 95 (108th Congress), the fiscal year 2004 concurrent resolution on the budget, shall no longer apply.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

16. Yeah, but what I meant about process is through which means will they do this bill.

There are certainly ways around PAYGO. For instance, let's say they pay for any health care provision out of a normal appropriations bill. Depending on the order of the bills, they could pass the Labor/HHS/Education bill first with a more bloated amount than normal, and under that scenario, paygo wouldn't apply because they hadn't yet created a deficit. It would apply, however, to another of the typical appropriations bills passed afterwards. So if you were being coy about it, you could hold onto Defense approps until the end, knowing the Republicans will pass the PAYGO waiver for a defense bill, and there you go. Would there be a political cost attached to that? Probably, but you could do it.

[pinto]

23. Yeah, it'll be interesting to see how this plays out.

[Romulox]

10. How much of that is earmarked for Insurance Companies? nt

[backscatter712]

11. We don't know yet.

Obama decided not to repeat the mistakes of the Clinton administration, and is giving Congress a lot of input as to how health care reform will be implemented, rather than trying to dictate reform to them.

Of course, the insurance and pharmco industries will be spending millions on lobbyists to try to make the reform into "reform" - something more friendly to them than to We the People.

[Romulox]

12. Right, but Obama campaigned AGAINST UHC, and FOR mandatory, private health insurance

Logic suggests that a large % of this money will be dedicated to private, for-profit insurers.

[backscatter712]

14. He also campaigned for opening up .gov employee health insurance to the public.

I don't remember the mandatory insurance - Obama's plan was focused on fixing the market failures that result in the spiraling costs, and part of that was opening up the government insurance plan offered to government employees, including members of Congress, to the general public, in a way that it accepts anyone who pays in, regardless of preexisting conditions and so on. IIRC, he'd also require private insurance companies to take customers with preexisting conditions, without jacking up their premiums. In other words, something to compete with private insurance and force them to retool their business to be more humane.

[Romulox]

17. I'm not sure where the disagreement lies--we're talking about mandatory for-profit insurance

[backscatter712]

19. I can see a role for private insurance, once proper rules of the road are set.

Half the reason why we are in this mess is because the insurance companies have no meaningful regulation.

I believe the Obama plan proposes:

1. Regulation: Cap the percentage of revenue that insurance companies can take as profits or administrative fees - make them spend most of it on actual medical care for customers. Forbid them from refusing to insure those with preexisting conditions, or jacking up their premiums. In other words, the healthy 25-year-old pays the same premiums as the heart-transplant patient. Force them to open up their books, audit the fuck out of them, throw people in prison if they're caught scalping the public. Also regulate the hospitals, the pharmcos, other care providers, etc. - make them open up their books and make them play by the rules.

2. Competition: As I mentioned, Obama was going to make the insurance available to government employees, including Congress, available to the public. Again, nobody blocked or gouged for preexisting conditions, answerable to the public, and managed in such a way that it's going to be cheaper than private insurance. Force the private insurance to start finding ways to compete for customers instead of competing on who can dump the sickest people and gouge money from the healthiest. Make them compete on services offered and lower prices.

Oh yeah, and 3: Subsidize those with low incomes who can't afford health care. That is part of Obama's plan. In other words, everybody should be able to get health care in this country - if you can't afford it, you'll get help.

[Romulox]

20. Oh, I see. You want to DEFEND diverting billions to private insurers...

I'm not interested in this argument. To me, it's absurd on its face to argue that we can reduce healthcare expenses by making it mandatory for everyone to pay for healthcare through an insurance middle-man.

[backscatter712]

22. Make them earn their keep.

They're supposed to be offering a service in exchange for all the money we're sending them. We give them money, and insurance covers our asses when we incur a claimable expense. At least that's how it's supposed to work. Right now, they're not providing the service - they've fallen off the wagon and focused their business solely on taking our money. They take our money, then they deny us health care and jerk us around when we're most vulnerable. Maybe if it was a fair trade of services for money like business is supposed to be, it'd work better.

Since the regulatory framework that's supposed to ensure they're providing this service instead of ripping us off is broken, that's one thing that sorely needs to be fixed.

And yes, I do see a very big role for public, government provided health care as well as private insurance. Private insurers have a role, but obviously, not everyone can afford them or want them. Most of the more civilized of the industrialized nations offer public universal health care, but also allow private insurers to jump in the game if people are willing to pay for them, and generally it's a situation where the private insurers have to earn their keep rather than extort the public.

You're absolutely right in that a "health care plan" that consists solely of requiring all Americans to buy health insurance from private insurers, even though they can't afford it, would be a total clusterfuck. I don't think health insurance should be mandatory. Health care needs to be available and reachable to all Americans.

[ThomWV]

18. Every fucking dime - eventually.

[SoCalDem]

13. Exactly.. People always ask why the Europeans take to the streets & we don't

THAT'S why..

People WILL rise up if you take something AWAY from them, but we'll never see "vast quantities" of well-dressed "middlers" out in the streets to GET healthcare for "other people" who DON'T have the health care thay THEY have (it's temporary though, as some are finding out NOW)..

Once people HAVE the healthcare, TRY and take it away from them.. It's this very reason why we MUST get it.. Employer-paid/offered "insurance" is not sustainable, as many are finding out..

The blabberers love to toss in the "having someone decide for you/the middleman/the bureaucracy" nonsense, but it's what we have NOW.. Some $10 an hour office clerk may have the final say about whether you get an MRI, or not..But since he/she is working for the insurance company, people just accept it.. and then have to take on a protracted fight with the company to get care their doctor wants them to have.

This downturn is causing MANY middlers & former-middlers to realize that their health is/was/will be held hostage by someone who can FIRE them, lay them off, and jeopardize the lives of them and their family.. It should NOT be that way....and you should not have to hold car washes & bake sales to get your kid an operation

[prolesunited]

21. I hope this works

because my life literally depends on it.