Health Bill May Advance Without Bipartisan Deal

[steven johnson]

It looks like the Democratic leadership is getting to a 'take it or leave it' offer for congressional Republicans. It looks like the compromising was done with the Blue Dog Democrats and if that isn't good enough for the GOP, so be it.

By BRIAN KNOWLTON, ROBERT PEAR and DAVID M. HERSZENHORN
Published: August 2, 2009
WASHINGTON — As White House officials and members of Congress began fanning out across the country on Sunday to make the case for or against a health-care overhaul, Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner said that the White House still preferred a bipartisan approach but hinted that it might consider moving forward without one.

“Ideally, you want to do this with as broad a base of consensus as possible,” he said in an interview on ABC’s “This Week” that was broadcast on Sunday. “But people on the hill are going to have to make that choice, do they want to help shape this and be part of it, or do they want this country, the United States of America, to go another several decades without doing what every other serious country has done” to provide basic health care to all.

As House members began a five-week recess, they left behind the outlines of a nearly $1 trillion health care overhaul that is sure to draw fire from a variety of interests, but which shows the beginnings of a consensus that would provide insurance for more Americans and give them new rights in dealing with insurers.

Action by House committees gives President Obama a fragile political victory but falls far short of his original goal of passage by both houses of Congress before the August recess. The Senate remains in session through Friday, but the Finance Committee chairman said the issue would have to wait.

Health Bill May Advance Without Bipartisan Deal

[rusty charly]

1. Can't the argument be "Hey! We let you

have The Iraq War! Now: We're going to get Health Care Reform, so shut up about it."

[truedelphi]

8. Nah, they can't do that.

The Dems in Congress cannot do things like that because they really want to honor their Corporate Committments far more than they want to get a health care bill. That is reason Numero Uno for every spokesperson, from Obama on down, constantly shilling for the need to be all "bi-partisan."

That is part of the reason that the bill is over 2,100 pages long, with most Congress critters in the dark as to what teh legislation contains.

[sandyd921]

2. About time.

Could have told them that back in January. What world was the admin living in that they seriously thought the GOP was all about "consensus"?

[Hissyspit]

3. r'd (& k'd)

[daggahead]

4. Sounds promising, but ...

... I'd rather see this:

[pleah]

5. When they say 'will' and not 'may' , then I will jump and shout.

But, may just doesn't mean anything.

[truedelphi]

9. Wake me so I can join you.

[Lint Head]

6. It's still not total universal care that gets rid of the profit thiefs BC/BS,

CIGNA, Atena etc.
:dem:

[truedelphi]

11. Ssh! We are NOT supposed to notice things like that. n/t

[regnaD kciN]

7. I wish they'd decided on this...

...before giving away half the store to the Blue Dogs.

[truedelphi]

10. + 1 n/t

[Triana]

12. That Potter dude (?) , former insurance co Pub. Relations guy was on NPR today and said...

..this delay is strictly for the benefit of the insurance companies - they benefit because that gives them more time to put out scare-mongering ads against a public option and against reform.

Of course our bought-and-paid-for Congress is more than happy to do that for THEIR 'owners' (ie: NOT me and you - but rather the private, for-profit insurance dirtbags).

We the people are lucky to get anything by the time it's all said and done. Our "representatives" are more concerned with doing what's best for the *^^@% insurance mercenaries than for us - the people who actually need healthcare.

Sorry I don't remember the guy's name - but he is an insurance co whistleblower.