home

Pelosi: Companion Reconciliation Fix Necessary For Passage Of Senate Health Bill

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Other Politics
Posted on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:21:58 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

WaPo:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Thursday that [. . .]"I don't think it's possible to pass the Senate bill in the House," Pelosi told reporters after a morning meeting with her caucus. "I don't see the votes for it at this time." [. . .] Aides said afterward that the best option would be for the Senate to pass a bill that fixes those and other issues under fast-track rules that require a simple majority. But the Senate has not agreed to do so.

This is the political reality. Whether Village Dems will accept that or not, that is where we are.

< Who You Gonna Call? Village Dems Go Wild In Support Of Senate Bill | CA Supreme Court Strikes Limits on Medical Marijuana >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Pelosi: Companion Reconciliation Fix Necessary For Passage Of Senate Health Bill | 84 comments (84 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    I might (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:28:53 AM EST
    Watch the SOTU if this goes down - Obama will somehow have to address this.

    And (none / 0) (#38)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:28:40 PM EST
    Bob McDonnell is giving the Republicans' response.

    Parent
    Man I hope the Healthcare (5.00 / 3) (#5)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:53:04 AM EST
    Bill in 2025 has better luck.

    Thie Senate bill is not worth all this drama (5.00 / 9) (#7)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:56:12 AM EST


    Parent
    I disagree (5.00 / 4) (#10)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:10:03 PM EST
    The Medicaid expansion alone justifies its passage, throw in guarenteed issuance, and the restrictions on recission and you have a decent bill- assuming the excise tax can be changed-- its clear that any real attempt at cost containment is stupid it only serves to anger an interest group (capitation- pisses of Doctors, the excise tax unions, caps on non-economic damages- trial attorneys, all for good reasons)- might as well deficit spend instead

    Parent
    The flip side is (5.00 / 6) (#22)
    by Pacific John on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:43:25 PM EST
    ...anything that looks like welfare is a big fat target for the GOP. MediCal here in CA pays something like $15 for a pediatrician office visit, so many communities just don't have pediatricians. The nature of means-tested social welfare systems are that they are continually trimmed because they lack broad political support. So, expansion of Medicaid without some larger defendable structure is a mirage.

    Other semi-fatal problems, off the top of my head, include:

    No regulatory authority to make insurers provide care in a timely (i.e. lifesaving) manner, or make sure customers aren't robbed.

    No mechanism to control inflation, much less address that 50%+ imbalance our system has with other advanced economies.

    It will impose a mechanism to finance private insurance from cuts to Medicare and PPOs like I offer to my employees.

    It institutionalizes private insurance as the US UHC model, and precludes a natural migration to public insurance.

    It mandates private insurance, with no choice of public insurance.

    Like so much of what we see now, honest people should have sounded alarms about this a couple of years ago, and many did. When these issues are intrinsic to the insurance industry proposal of 11/08, it's not as if we didn't predict this.

    Parent

    Many of these issues could be fixed later (none / 0) (#27)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:51:28 PM EST
    You aren't going to get a perfect bill.

    It mandates private insurance, with no choice of public insurance.

    The mandates are in there to balance the preexisting condition requirement.

    If the House passed the Senate Bill at least the Stupak ammendment would disappear.

    But this is all academic, I think these bills (both the House and Senate) are just about dead.

    Parent

    Sure they could (5.00 / 7) (#29)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:53:11 PM EST
    And as Anthony Weiner said, and pigs could fly out of their a$$es too.

    How's that FISA fix the Dems and Obama promised working out?

    Parent

    Medicare and Medicaid (none / 0) (#33)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:01:43 PM EST
    have been tweaked over the years.  You have to have something to tweak.  What I'd like to do with FISA is to repeal it.

    Parent
    Yes, but (5.00 / 7) (#37)
    by Pacific John on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:17:23 PM EST
    Medicare has a broad structural base of support. Medicaid is less so, and suffers from it. Both were put in place in an other era.

    The more predictive model (aside from the FISA example) is NCLB. Ted Kennedy sold it too us with the promise that it would be fine tuned over time, and instead, it has become a standardized test nightmare that not even parents and unions can fix.

    The problem is, if legislation isn't elegant and targeted, our side simply isn't competent enough to cope with its complexities, like the FDR and LBJ era parties were.

    Parent

    NCLB is great example (none / 0) (#39)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:31:26 PM EST
    I deal with NCLB every day and while it is terribly frustrating and in need of repair, overall it has had a positive effect on my child's education.  I would much prefer to fix it than to be without it.

    Parent
    It should be fixed (5.00 / 1) (#40)
    by Pacific John on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:34:09 PM EST
    but we can't.

    Parent
    We can't? Why? (none / 0) (#41)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:44:02 PM EST
    Is it because the fixes lack popular support or because of inertia?  

    Parent
    Competence (5.00 / 4) (#44)
    by Pacific John on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:31:46 PM EST
    The Obama administration policy is to use existing NCLB scores to institute merit pay, expand charter schools, and make sure states are using similar scales. Some of these sentiments are admirable, but it solidifies the flaws of the current system, that drive resources toward testable subject matter, and away from the arts, history and the sciences.

    By reinforcing the current system of getting the most students to test at grade level, we maintain a structural cattle chute, so that resources are siphoned away from learning disabled kids whose scores do not easily improve, high achieving students who will not change the average no matter what, and of course, away from non-tested/testable subjects.

    The unions have blasted Obama's policies as indistinguishable from the Bush administrations', and I'm sure the lack of clear thinking in the administration comes from the fact that Obama has never attended a public school, and his ed. guy, Arne Duncan, is friendly to market schemes.

    The bottom line is, like with health care, DC has a tin ear to the voters and the experts in the states.

    Parent

    It's not that simple (none / 0) (#47)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:56:34 PM EST
    The reason we can't get a fix is because there isn't consensus on what the fix should be.  If we can get consensus on some of the fixes, they will be enacted.  Unfortunately, consensus can develop around bad ideas e.g. Charter Schools.

    My learning disabled child has benefited from NCLB and standards based education.  He is in an inclusion program and has benefited from the higher expectations.  In the older days, there would have been more pressure to place him in a self contained classrooms with low expectations.  His assigments are modified and his test results are adjusted for his disability.

    I see two major problems with NCLB (although I don't have a solution).

    The punitive consequences of negative test results lead to perverse incentives.

    We need to improve the skills of our teachers and the resources available to them so that they are able to teach to kids with a wide variety of abilities and learning styles in the same classroom.

    Here, as in health care, the difference between Republicans and Democrats may be small but they might make a difference.

    Parent

    There is a consensus (5.00 / 4) (#51)
    by Pacific John on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:38:00 PM EST
    ...that authority for public education should be local, and that effective standardized testing should be used to measure performance for states and local districts to use, and that there is an overemphasis on testing. This is demonstrated by polling and the statements of teachers' unions.

    Consider yourself lucky that mainstreaming has worked for your family. In one district we had our kids in, the administration responded to test score pressure by instituting a policy of fighting all requests for IEPs.

    As you allude, this is highly complex. For every batch of kids who do well in a regular classroom population, there is another group who is damaged by the same template and are stigmatized and picked on. Some kids do best in home schooling, in various types of school based environments, etc. There is no one answer, kids are individuals, and often need individual solutions, but NCLB drives districts to institute blanket policies, and there is financial pressure to halt any activities that do not produce increased numbers of children testing at grade level.

    This is the fundamental flaw with the current assumptions of federal testing: mainly, local school performance directly reflects the local population, so unless you are normalizing for similar communities, you have no idea what a high or low score means, or the context of a change in score from year to year. This critical level of nuance is too much for DC deal with... and frankly, there is pressure not to understand this, because once you normalize for similar communities, you see that there are only minor variations between similar schools, and the huge variations come from economic conditions, and the percentage of credentialed staff... and no one, not even D politicians want to pop for salaries adequate to draw fully staffed and credentialed inner city schools.

    Parent

    Perhaps on problems not solutions (none / 0) (#53)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:04:24 PM EST
    Consider yourself lucky that mainstreaming has worked for your family. In one district we had our kids in, the administration responded to test score pressure by instituting a policy of fighting all requests for IEPs.

    This is illegal.  NCLB doesn't change that.  Yes, too many districts flaunt the laws.  Parents are unable to fight back.  But, guess what? NCLB can be used as part of fighting back.

    For every batch of kids who do well in a regular classroom population, there is another group who is damaged by the same template and are stigmatized and picked on.

    I disagree.  It is within our capability to teach the vast majority of children in inclusive classrooms.  And everyone would be better off for it.  See here, for example.  I don't agree with everything ICS proponents claim or with how school districts implement it (a way to save money) but I do agree with the inclusive premise.

    This is the fundamental flaw with the current assumptions of federal testing: mainly, local school performance directly reflects the local population, so unless you are normalizing for similar communities, you have no idea what a high or low score means, or the context of a change in score from year to year.

    But you could say the same about car mileage regulation and civil right laws.  The problem isn't the existence of the standard.  The problem is what you do abot low scores.  It isn't OK to have whole communities doing poorly on national math exams.

    Parent

    John, here is an interesting video (none / 0) (#81)
    by Manuel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 02:54:03 AM EST
    and comment thread.  There is consensus that there are problems.  In the comments there are also common misunderstandings of the law and at least two different views (revise, scrap).  Are you in favor of scrapping it?  What do you think of Obama's proposal?  

    Link

    Parent

    If we had a policy master (none / 0) (#82)
    by Pacific John on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:18:37 PM EST
    at the helm, I could be convinced that NCLB could be overhauled, but even then, I'd have doubts. Wes Clark ran on scrapping it, and I've thought so too, for at least 6 years. One thing I can't get over is it is based on the fraudulent TAAS model Bush brought from Houston. Only after NCLB passed, did we fully realize that the Texas data had been cooked, and sure enough, cooked data and mixed dropout rates have dogged NCLB.

    I'm a Clintonite, and although Hillary ran on fixing NCLB, I'm not sold. Of the major elements of the Obama plan, Duncan builds on Bill Clinton's federal charter school initiative, but again, I'm not in step with Bill. The data on charter schools is mediocre at best. They have failed at their stated goal of improving overall performance. Obama's plan starts with one of the weaker elements of Clintonism, and runs toward the free marketeers. So that's k-12. Dump NCLB, and figure out a new way to let states and counties do the job and be accountable to local voters.

    Obama's college plan, as a kid whose way out of the apartments was a pre-Reagan full financial aid package, is insulting. The grant proposal is more modest than the alternative he ran against, and he requires public service of low income recipients. Compulsory public service also happens to be something convicted drunk drivers perform. The Obama plan will have stigma among recipients because it is based on economic class. Already, in post-Reagan America, college is largely an entitlement of class and birth, and to lay this obligation on the kids who most need opportunity reeks of sneering elitism. But Obama never set foot in a public school, so I don't expect much different. We should model financial aid on success from the past, including a mix of grants, loans and work, because work is both honorable, and something we expect of all economic classes. The over all goal should be to greatly expand opportunity for hard working, talented high school grads so that finances are not a barrier to professional success. This fundamental thinking is set aside in the tinkering we see in the current proposal - which btw is roughly identical to the campaign proposal.


    Parent

    Fair enough (none / 0) (#84)
    by Manuel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 05:51:00 PM EST
    I'll see if I can change your mind about revising over time.  The one thing we must avoid is to have the same thing happen with education that happened with health care.  It may be easier as not as many big money special interests are involved.

    Parent
    Maybe (5.00 / 2) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:43:10 PM EST
    NCLB works in your state but it has been a disaster for me. I have a learning disabled child and it has been horrible for him. So horrible in fact that I had to take him out of high school and put him in an online private international academy where I have to pay tuition. The complete focus on tests is insane. One year my son didnt do jack but managed to pass that stupid test and he went on being rewarded for doing nothing. Another year he worked his butt off and failed the test and had to do summer school. NCLB lets no good deed go unpunished and no slack off go unrewarded. It is simply horrible.

    Parent
    No, I wouldn't say it works (none / 0) (#56)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:08:54 PM EST
    There are still way too many kids falling through the cracks.  I wouldn't say it has failed either.  It has brought schools out of neglect and shined the spotlight on accountability and expectations.  It's progress, I think, but it is incremental, inches not miles, progress.  There is still lots of hard work ahead.

    What is the IEP process like in your state?  It sounds like it is out of compliance with IDEA.

    Parent

    He had (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:40:32 PM EST
    an IEP for one class and was in inclusion classes. The problem is that NCLB has made the tests the end all and be all of education. It has done none of the things you are talking about her and in fact has probably drug teh schools down. One school didn't pass the stupid NCLB because of the large number of hispanic students who didnt show up for testing. The parents of the hispanic students didnt understand the importance of showing up for the tests. Every teacher I talk to here hates it and says we need to get rid of it.

    Parent
    Many teachers don't want to be accountable (none / 0) (#58)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 05:58:33 PM EST
    No factor is more important than the quality of teachers in the classroom.  The primary factor in whether we have a good or bad year in school is the quality of the teacher.  From the link I provided above.

    Using State and Federal Regulations for the Success of All Learners
    In 2000, we wrote that the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act (IDEA) asked no more of a school district but to provide high quality services in collaboration with parents, based on the individual needs of students in the schools and classrooms they would attend if not disabled. We also acknowledged the importance of determining individualized academic goals and objectives based on bias-free assessment instruments. Today, No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation is requiring nothing less of schools with the exception of normed-based accountability practices to show adequate yearly progress. The major flaw in this plan is the sole reliance on norm-based assessment processes that fly in the face of IDEA. Therefore, educators have a responsibility to write policies that allow for a range of differing assessment strategies (performance-based, functional, and criteria-referenced) that assist students in demonstrating what they know.

    Getting rid of NCLB isn't going to improve anything.  It won't make children at risk more likely to attend school and learn.

    Parent

    The problem (none / 0) (#63)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:09:58 PM EST
    with NCLB is that is based completely on test scores and children like your son drag down the test scores of the schools. Do you not realize this is how NCLB works? It punishes kids like your child for being LD. It punishes children who are bright. It plays to the lowest common denominator in the middle. It is a horrible progran and should be junked. My child is old enough to have been in school before NCLB was instated and it was a lot better then. The teacher accountability is all test based. there is no incentive for teachers to improve the students skills because it's all about teaching to the test.

    Parent
    No, he doesn't drag down the test scores (none / 0) (#65)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:20:56 PM EST
    He is allowed to "pass" with a lower score in the areas where he is not at grade level.  When he meets his goals, he actually improves the school's score.

    NCLB does not require schools to "play to the middle".  The schools choose to do that.  Please refer to my earlier link about ICS.  This kind of thinking is waht gives us the abomination that are self contained classrooms.

    No, the schools weren't better back then.  It's just that no one was noticing the problems.

    Do you think special education was better before IDEA?

    Parent

    "Many teachers...." (none / 0) (#83)
    by Pacific John on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 03:30:23 PM EST
    This is a common GOP anti-public ed. talking point.

    Unless a particular district offers pay adequate to draw more than enough qualified applicants, blaming teachers' motives is a scapegoating waste of time.

    But most people know this in their guts. The annual PDK/Gallup poll has shown for decades that most people score their local schools highly, but "other" schools poorly. Upper income districts are highly satisfied with their teachers, and in one example, Cupertino (iirc, or some adjacent community), high income parents refused to comply with NCLB testing. Why should they? They had one of the highest college acceptance rates in the nation.

    Responsibility for ed. belongs with local communities. If there are funding shortfalls, and salary budgets are not adequate to draw qualified applicants, the state and federal government should infuse cash. All else is predictably political scapegoating and distraction.

    I think we're done here.

    Parent

    This is terrible. (none / 0) (#59)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:15:43 PM EST
    One school didn't pass the stupid NCLB because of the large number of hispanic students who didnt show up for testing. The parents of the hispanic students didnt understand the importance of showing up for the tests.

    but i don't see how it is the fault of NCLB.  If anything, I think it should be a red flag for the school district.

    Parent

    Exactly what happened (5.00 / 1) (#60)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:43:05 PM EST
    in enough schools in my district that the whole district is flagged -- and suffering for it.  It's a mess when parents don't get kids to school.  Hard for teachers to teach them if students aren't there.

    The district also is suffering greatly from the vouchers, from the charter schools, all costing us for two school systems, public and private.  This was the first district where all these experiments were attempted, thanks to the behind-the-scenes machinations of the Ayers Foundation when Obama was on the board and other foundations in cahoots with the Catholic church to save its diocesan schools.  Of course, private schools are not accountable to the taxpayers.  The quality of education is not a problem in the Catholic schools, at least -- but wait 'til you see the storefront schools without books, without certified teachers, etc., and you can't do anything about it.

    NCLB is causing sufficient problems.  Put it together with the push now for vouchers and charter schools in your districts, and you will see declining schools at greater costs, too.  

    Parent

    A huge problem with charter and private schools (5.00 / 1) (#62)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:53:29 PM EST
    is that they are not required to educate all children.  By allowing them to employ their own admision standards we set up an inequitable system.  I wonder if charter schools could be sued on the basis of equal protection.

    Parent
    It is (none / 0) (#64)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:11:48 PM EST
    part of NCLB. It is one of the factors deciding the grade of the school.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#66)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:25:41 PM EST
    but the reporting isn't what is causing the root problem (absenteism).  You are just blaming the messenger.

    Now, the punitive consequences are bad (and need modification).  Once a school fails, there should be better ways to address the problem.

    Parent

    My problem (none / 0) (#67)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:32:48 PM EST
    is that the school is being blamed under NCLB and so are many of the kids for things that are out of their control.

    Parent
    Schools and school districts should be accountable (5.00 / 1) (#69)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:59:46 PM EST
    Why should parents attending terrible schools be trapped there with no recourse?  Under NCLB they are entittled to transfer and to free tutoring services.  Why is this bad?

    More flexible ways of measuring progress is needed as well as more ways to help troubled schools.

    Going back IMO would be a mistake.

    Parent

    Because it's (none / 0) (#71)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:19:03 PM EST
    a joke. If it really got people out of bad schools it would be something but it doesnt. The bus services are all done by district. If you send your child to antoher school there is no bus for them. You are going to have to car pool them there. The high school that failed? No one took their children out because they knew the NCLB rating was a joke anyway. When a school doesn't pass over something like some students not showing up then the whole thing just becomes some sort of joke.

    There is no free tutoring here in Georgia that I know of. I've had to pay for all of mine. From my perspective NCLB has done a ton of damage. NCLB actually kept my child from getting additional help because it treats LD children like second class citizens.

    Parent

    It is only free (none / 0) (#78)
    by Manuel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:01:23 AM EST
    if the school is a failing school which can only happen after going through several years of not meeting AYP.  It has to be an option in Georgia.  Otherwise they would be violating NCLB.

    Parent
    And the main (none / 0) (#72)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:22:48 PM EST
    problem I have with NCLB is that it is completely inflexible on measuring progress. Everything is tests, tests and tests and teachers spend so much time with these crappy tests that it's just horrible. NCLB has ruined the flexiblity of teachers to teach the way that helps their students the most. Did you know that if your student doenst understnad something well, that's just tough? You have to keep moving even if the entire class doesnt understand it. It's no longer learning under NCLB it's rote robotic crap.

    Parent
    My, but you make assumptions (none / 0) (#73)
    by Cream City on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:29:17 PM EST
    Some of the schools punished by NCLB in my district were rated as very good schools by and for those who showed up -- until NCLB ratings, which are based in part on participation, i.e., percentage of students taking the tests.  (I have seen the NCLB rules, so you can't convince me otherwise on that.)  Repeat, these are ones that were not bad schools -- and they still are not bad schools, except in the judgment of the federal government and you.

    Are you in a major city, a big-city school district in a city with major poverty problems and all that flows therefrom for these parents, students, and schools, as I am?  The impact of NCLB is different for smaller-city districts, as I know from family and friends among teachers in those.

    Again and again, there is not a one-size-fits-all fix for education.  Not at the K12 level anymore than in higher ed, where we embrace the range of post-secondary education from traditional colleges and universities to community colleges, vocational schools, and many more options.  And I also have seen the very same students benefit from each of those at different times in their college years.  It just makes no sense to have a one-size-fits-all even for one student.  Growth requires different approaches for different needs at different times.

    Parent

    I am dealing in generalities (none / 0) (#77)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:49:23 PM EST
    but I am not making assumptions.  I am writing from the vewpoint of a classroom volunteer for over 25 years in Boston and Seattle.  I am writing from the viewpoint of a parent with a kid on an IEP.  I have visited plenty of schools that deserve their bad ratings. I have watched third grade teachers deliver a math lecture for an hour that leaves most of the class either bored or hopelessly lost.  I have heard a Jr High School History teacher tell me, in a social setting in the 90s, that special education kids had no place in his classroom and that the principal was not valuing his doctorate in American History when she made him teach such kids.

    I really relate to the Freire quote from the link I cited.

    It is in the interest of the oppressor to weaken the oppressed still further, to isolate them, to create and deepen rifts among them. This is done by varied means, from the repressive methods of the government bureaucracy to the forms of cultural action with which they manipulate the people by giving them the impression that they are being helped.

    Anyone who has dealt with school district bureaucracy knows what he meant.

    NCLB gives you some rights with which to fight the bureaucracy.  I think Ted Kennedy understood that.

    It is true that some schools are great schools despite their bad ratings.  That isn't a reason to stop measuring and to stop striving for better schools.

    Parent

    You just have no idea (none / 0) (#79)
    by Cream City on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:19:12 AM EST
    of the fallout from the bad ratings per NCLB.

    Do your homework.  You could be next, in no time.

    Done here.

    Parent

    A bit condescending eh? (none / 0) (#80)
    by Manuel on Fri Jan 22, 2010 at 12:45:36 AM EST
    Do your homework.  You could be next, in no time.

    If you have books or web links I should consult, I'll be happy to take a look.

    Parent

    There is a problem (none / 0) (#68)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 07:42:32 PM EST
    if hispanic kids are not showing up in school for an imprtant test.  How is that out of the school's control?

    I don't like assigning blame but someone should own a solution to the problem.  Benign neglect won't help anyone.

    Parent

    Um (none / 0) (#70)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 08:13:10 PM EST
    is the school the parent? The parent is the one that gets them out of bed and onto school. All the school can do is let the parents know what is going on.

    Parent
    There are ways to build community (none / 0) (#75)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:26:33 PM EST
    Succesful schools try to understand why a problem is hapening and work on a solution.

    Parent
    Here is a resource (none / 0) (#61)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 06:45:07 PM EST
    Here is a web site with lots of great articles about NCLB and special education.   If you have a special needs child you should consult Wrightslaw the parent site.

    Parent
    Perfect no (none / 0) (#74)
    by cal1942 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 09:27:55 PM EST
    but a harmful bill should be rejected.

    This bill contains harmful provisons.

    Parent

    If we reject all bills with harmful provisions (none / 0) (#76)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:29:16 PM EST
    we'll never pass anything.  I am sure Ted Kennedy was well aware of the harmful provisions in the bill but he saw enough good in it to push for it.  Did he say anything about NCLB in his book?  I haven't read it yet.

    Parent
    This fiasco is not about "luck" (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:22:11 PM EST
    It is about incompetence. Obama's.

    Parent
    Of course he should take the blame (5.00 / 1) (#28)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:53:04 PM EST
    Politically that is the smart thing to do.  However, the blame is not his alone.

    Parent
    Really (3.50 / 2) (#24)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:46:02 PM EST
    I have a hard time believing every single Healthcare Reform attempt save one failing for more than half a century is do to incompetence, we've had President's try to do it on their own, Presidents delegate it to congress, heck we've even had President's do in cooperation with Congress- all but the 1965 Social Security failed, (on the GOP side you have the 2003 MMA, and the 1986 Bipartisan approach- one was a straight up give away the other sucked so hard it was repealed in less than 18 months).

    Parent
    Talking about THIS fiasco (5.00 / 4) (#30)
    by Spamlet on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:58:46 PM EST
    Emphasis on THIS one. THIS year.

    Ruminate on the past all you like, if it makes you feel better. THIS time we had a damn near unprecedented opportunity to reform health care in this country, but Obama's "bipartisan" B.S. became his failure to lead Congress and the country to anything but this sickening implosion.

    Parent

    One major difference (5.00 / 10) (#36)
    by standingup on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:17:17 PM EST
    between the attempt in 2009 and previous attempts.  In 2009 the president and Congress had the support of individuals and business, with the exception of the insurance and pharmaceutical industry, to pass health care reform.  Instead of acting in a timely manner with a decent bill, they delayed and abdicated the writing of the legislation to the insurance and pharmaceuticals.  

    Now they have a bill that is unacceptable to those who supported reform and no longer have time on their side either.  No excuses, the president and Congress blew it, period.    

    Parent

    One of the (5.00 / 2) (#6)
    by Ga6thDem on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:56:00 AM EST
    PC members suggested passing a bunch of smaller bills with things like ending recission and send them to the senate to then vote on them.

    This bill is poison and I think everybody realizes it. There can be NO fix for it. The process has to be started over.

    Yep. Kill this senate bill. (5.00 / 2) (#9)
    by brodie on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:05:55 PM EST
    Start asap with one discreet reform matter that everyone can understand and most of the public could strongly support.  Force the Repubs to defend the status quo on a popular reform issue and watch them squirm.

    A series of small to mid-sized bills passing one after the other leading up to Nov should help Dems politically as well as the public on the reform substance.

    Parent

    Many of the Republicans (5.00 / 1) (#21)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:43:23 PM EST
    Are on board with things like people can't be turned down for pre-existing conditions and getting rid of the caps for things like cancer treatment.  Why can't we start there?  Had they started off that way, it would have been the bi-partisan bill Obama wanted, he and the Dems could have claimed victory and all their poll numbers would now be in the 70s or 80s.

    Parent
    No they aren't (5.00 / 2) (#26)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:48:42 PM EST
    they'll pull Liebermans- say they're for it until push comes to shove, besides the PC probably wouldn't go for that stuff when it doesn't help the uninsured who can't afford coverage- and the GOP thinks those people deserve to die sick quite frankly.

    Parent
    They did start that way (5.00 / 2) (#49)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:32:36 PM EST
    but too many concgresscritters will not sign on to that without the approval of their corporate masters. Hence the deals with the insurance companies - new regulations in exchange for the mandates. If you have the mandates, you need some help for people to pay for insurance, hence the financing problem.

    This is what I meant yesterday when I said you cannot rip this thing apart and get support for it.

    Parent

    With 59 votes in the Senate (none / 0) (#46)
    by me only on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:52:43 PM EST
    you cannot work with the Republicans.  It is frustrating for anyone to even think that is possible.  At 52 votes, maybe.  At 59-41 the Republicans would be stupid beyond stupid to vote for something that lends credibility to the Dems.

    I just cannot believe that people do not understand that dynamic.  The Republicans are going to delay, defer, disrupt and distract the Dems.  Then they are going to use the "wow they stink, can't get anything done, we would love to have passed a bill making this that or the other better, but you know the Dems never offered us that" campaign line in the fall.

    Parent

    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#48)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:17:09 PM EST
    The Democrats can whine all they want about "only having 59", but the American people aren't buying it anymore.  This is a bigger margin than any president has had in decades.

    Guess what?  They are going to have to put on their big boy/girl underwear and get it done - however they need to.

    Parent

    Aww (none / 0) (#15)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:22:21 PM EST
    what? No mandate? But how will they ever keep the money from big insurance and big Pharma for themselves, and away from the republicans? I don't believe there will be a hammer on the insurance co's means to extract money, without a mandate. Their lobby is too strong.
      Caught between big pharma, big insurance, and voters is where following Baucus has led.

    Parent
    Guareeteed issuance doesn't (5.00 / 1) (#25)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:46:50 PM EST
    work sans a mandate- no country in the world has one without the other.

    Parent
    Exactly (5.00 / 2) (#31)
    by hookfan on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:59:19 PM EST
    and most other countries have non-profit insurance reqs or highly restrictive regulations. Don't see that in this bill do ya?

    Parent
    Yup. IMO (5.00 / 5) (#50)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:37:29 PM EST
    any way you slice it, the only logical choice to really reform the system is to get rid of for-profit insurance. Nothing else will work in the long run. We can and will put these band-aids in place until the cows come home, and it won't do a darn thing.

    Parent
    When exactly (5.00 / 1) (#52)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 03:48:27 PM EST
    do the cows come home? ;)

    Parent
    Ha! Can't believe I used that expression (5.00 / 2) (#54)
    by ruffian on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 04:19:43 PM EST


    Parent
    But all the talk of reconciliation is coming from (5.00 / 1) (#11)
    by steviez314 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:18:22 PM EST
    the House--what does the Senate say?  I heard Conrad is kind of interested.

    Dodd?  Rockefeller?

    Those are the people we need to hear from to get an idea if there's even 50 votes there now.  What says Durbin?

    That is who needs to feel pressure (none / 0) (#12)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:20:11 PM EST
    Josh Marshall does not understand that.

    Parent
    Here's a question for you to wrestle with: (none / 0) (#16)
    by steviez314 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:24:39 PM EST
    What if there aren't even 50 votes anymore in the Senate to do this, at least this year?  Not for reconciliation, or even doing any HCR?

    If it was 100% CLEAR that it was the Senate Bill or nothing, would you advise voting for it?

    I sure hope someone is doing a whip count before even more time gets wasted waiting for the Senate.

    Parent

    Then the bill is dead (5.00 / 4) (#17)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:29:35 PM EST
    There are not 218 votes in the House for the Stand Alone Senate bill. That is the reality.

    Parent
    OK, let's try another one: (none / 0) (#19)
    by steviez314 on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:41:32 PM EST
    I doubt the Senate would vote on any fix first.  I also doubt you'd get 50 Senators to publicly announce they would.

    Right now, nobody trusts anybody else.  So how do you get the House to vote first?  

    We might be running into chicken and egg territory here.

    Parent

    In the back rooms (none / 0) (#20)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:42:26 PM EST
    I assume someone trust someone.

    Parent
    You make it self-executing in the rule for (none / 0) (#32)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:59:33 PM EST
    the reconciliation bill. The Senate bill will be considered passed by the House if the Senate passes the reconciliation bill.

    Parent
    Ot this I suppose (none / 0) (#34)
    by Big Tent Democrat on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:10:11 PM EST
    I actually think a press conference announcing a deal with the PResident and the Senate will work.

    Parent
    Sure (none / 0) (#35)
    by andgarden on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:16:48 PM EST
    Still, trust but verify.

    Parent
    Back in the day (none / 0) (#18)
    by lilburro on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:41:18 PM EST
    there were more than 50 for a PO.  Should be able to get 50 for this.

    I think what Nancy is doing is a good way to legitimize using reconciliation to pass more progressive measures.  What is funny is that the people who believe Obama is behind everything are p*ssed because it hasn't occurred to them that he is behind this.  (Booman)

    Parent

    This saddens me, though I'm no fan (5.00 / 2) (#13)
    by Coral on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:21:41 PM EST
    of the Senate Bill. Don't see how any legislation on health reform gets through the Congress. It's a tragedy because so many people are suffering without access.

    Maybe they could pass a Medicare buy-in option for anyone who is uninsured and let the mandates go.

    That horse is (almost) dead (5.00 / 2) (#23)
    by Manuel on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:44:16 PM EST
    The popular part subsidies and Medicare buy in don't need the Senate Bill.  They can be done through the budget without it.

    The insurance mandate / preexisting condition combination doesn't have enough support to pass congress without a public option being added.

    I wish the House Democrats had the courage to pass the Senate Bill (preferably with the fix to the excise tax) but that is not possible. Don't forget that the vote in the House was extermely close.  There weren't many votes to spare.

    WH: Let "dust settle" on health care (5.00 / 1) (#43)
    by jbindc on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:04:10 PM EST
    Asked today if health care was on the back burner, Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said, "The president believes it is the exact right thing to do by giving this some time, by letting the dust settle, if you will, and looking for the best path forward."

    He said the administration wants to give Congress time to figure out their next move.

    "The President thinks the speaker and the majority leader are doing the right thing in giving this some time and figuring out the best way forward," he said.

    He also noted that President Obama "has a very full plate" with financial reform, the economy, the wars and other matters.

    "As the majority leader and speaker continue to look to the best way forward, the president has a very full plate," Gibbs said. "There's plenty of work for the president to do in the meantime."

    TPM

    Say What? (5.00 / 3) (#45)
    by coast on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 02:44:39 PM EST
    "We're not in a big rush" on health care, Pelosi said. "Pause, reflect."

    No big rush?  For the last six months we have heard nothing but deadline after deadline.  Now we're in no big rush.

    Forgive me madame Speaker, but that's a load of cra$!

    So i guess that means ... (none / 0) (#1)
    by nyrias on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:27:39 AM EST
    there will be no bill?

    Well, Obama definitely knows that (none / 0) (#2)
    by observed on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:28:41 AM EST
    his fate is tied to whether he can pass a HCR bill. That's a good motivator.

    If Obama still thinks that Americans are (5.00 / 10) (#8)
    by Anne on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 12:05:19 PM EST
    waiting on the edges of their seats to stand up and cheer for him as soon as "he" passes health care reform, he's not paying attention.  He didn't get the right message from Martha Coakley's numbers tanking after she hitched her wagon to Obama's star, after she campaigned on being the 60th vote for reform.

    Getting something passed may make all the googly-eyed pundits happy beyond all expectation, but it isn't going to send a thrill up most Americans' legs - especially if this reinforces their belief that the people who represent them in Washington are not listening and don't care what they want - and if they can't vote Obama out in 2010, they will do the next best thing - vote out whatever Democrats they can hold accountable for ignoring them - or stay home in utter disgust.

    Obama and Congress had a wonderful opportunity to get this right, but they used that opportunity - and almost an entire year - to craft something that is heavily weighted against the people who needed help.

    Now, we'll see how long Pelosi will pay lip service to the liberals before she, too, caves.

    Parent

    Not Obama (none / 0) (#4)
    by Socraticsilence on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 11:52:24 AM EST
    so much as congress- I mean Bill Clinton got re-elected despite a crushing defeat on Healthcare.

    Parent
    Clinton had something going for him (5.00 / 7) (#42)
    by MO Blue on Thu Jan 21, 2010 at 01:47:38 PM EST
    that Obama will not have - a thriving economy. People forgive a whole lot when they are prospering financially and tend to become very unforgiving when they feel financially threatened.

    Parent
    Pelosi: Companion Reconciliation Fix Necessary For Passage Of Senate Health Bill | 84 comments (84 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment