Senate Vote On Health Care In September

By Justin Gardner | Related entries in Barack, Democrats, Health Care, Legislation, Obama, Reid

They’re actually going to go on vacation instead of trying to pass it.

Wow…

Reid told reporters he expected the Senate Finance Committee would approve its version of the legislation before the Senate starts its recess August 7.

“We’ll come back in the fall,” and work in the full Senate on the bill, he said.

Get ready for the media to pounce on this as a failure by the Obama administration to pass it before the unnatural deadline they created.

Ugh.


This entry was posted on Thursday, July 23rd, 2009 and is filed under Barack, Democrats, Health Care, Legislation, Obama, Reid. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

15 Responses to “Senate Vote On Health Care In September”

  1. Tully Says:

    It is a failure. The admin created the deadline, and they missed it. Just as they’ve missed the deadline for several other things, such as the report on where the TARP money has all gone, the spending cuts report, and the congressionally mandated report on current economic conditions. (On that last, one doubts Congress will cry havoc.) And those logs on health care executive visits to the White House.

    But hey, the most transparent administration in history, yada yada.

  2. Tony Lambiris Says:

    QUICK LET’S PUT OUT A HALF-BAKED VERSION INSTEAD OF ONE THAT WILL BE MILES BETTER JUST SO WE CAN SAY WE DID IT BUY SOME ARBITRARY DATE!

    Didn’t Obama say last night he’d rather do it right than do it before a deadline? I fail to see how this has anything to do with transparency.

  3. ExiledIndependent Says:

    I think that lawmakers learned a very small lesson from the TARP rush, the bailout rush, the automotive buyout rush, etc. These are massive issues that will fundamentally alter the social landscape and direction of our country; they should be addressed with serious consideration, not a “we have to do SOMETHING!!!” fire-ready-aim. I think indies especially are concerned about the idea of rushing legislation through before people get a chance to digest and understand it.

    I would expect BHO to ask congress to work through the recess though (and well they should). It was a bit arrogant of him to mandate an arbitrary timeline for a vote. He’s the president, they’re the congress.

  4. Mike A. Says:

    For those who work in larger companies, or who have had project management involving teams that don’t report to you, you well know that projects will stall without deadlines. I have had a recent experience were I did just this – I set an arbitrary deadline to a major goal. I published it, announced it and stated that it was critical. After I did so, all the responsible parties freaked, but they began to work in earnest toward the goal. Everyone grumbled it was an impossible goal. Major discussions ensued, arguments erupted and decisions were reached. And the result? Rather than one quarter late, I was one week late. Without this arbitrary deadline, I firmly believe little progress would have been made. This scenario is not much different than what’s gone on in the health care reform over the last few months.

    And the activity surrounding health care is not confined to our government. Tune into any news program and see what’s being discussed. This country is firmly engaged in health care reform discussions.

    Any date can be argued to be arbitrary. So what’s the choice – never setting a date at all?

  5. mw Says:

    What exiled said.

    @MikeA
    The “choice” is to not try to force a deadline on a hodge podge multi-thousand page impenetrably complicated bill that would require a vote before anyone could read it, let alone digest it. The choice is to live up to the spirit of his campaign promise of always leaving enough time for the American people to read and understand and comment on a bill before passing it.

    Obama has no one to blame but himself for this. It is now painfully obvious to the American people that the stimulus package was not even vaguely similar to what Obama claimed it was at the time and there was no reason to jam it through without adequate review as Obama demanded. He got the benefit of the doubt them and squandered it on Madame Pelosi’s porkfest feast at the Federal trough. As a consequence people are less likely to buy into deadline demands based on his broad, sweeping. detail-free rhetoric about the health care bill now.

  6. Mike A. Says:

    MW said “The “choice” is to not try to force a deadline on a hodge podge multi-thousand page impenetrably complicated bill that would require a vote before anyone could read it, let alone digest it.”

    From what I have read and heard, Obama has accepted the delay and has stated he’s fine with it as long as the bill is being activity worked on. Please explain how this if forcing a deadline.

  7. mw Says:

    @MikeA

    Sorry Mike. I understand that is the new improved official Obama position as of I think – noonish today. I missed it. I know this replaces all prior Obama statements, even if they directly contradict today’s statement. I do clearly understand every single word on this topic that Obama was saying every single minute up to today has now been declared “inoperative” and cannot be mentioned. My bad.

  8. Mike A. Says:

    MW
    So that’s your answer… not to answer. So I ask the question, of which you may choose not to answer, what is the alternative? Not to set deadlines?
    No problem.

  9. mw Says:

    Answer: Realistic deadlines.

    Like the transparency and time to consider all bills that he promised as a candidate.

    Not deadlines that do not permit time for our legislators to even read the proposed legislation they are expected to vote on. Like he demanded on the stimulus bill that did not stimulate. Like he demanded on the Health Care bill every minute up until noon today.

    Clear enough for you Mike? Happy to help.

  10. michael reynolds Says:

    MW:

    You want something done? You set a deadline. It forces people to focus. You go into it knowing you won’t hit the deadline. You go into it knowing you’ll extend it.

    If Obama had said 6 months congress would have demanded 10. If he’d said 10 they’d demand 14. It’s not just the nature of this beast, it’s the nature of all deadlines.

    The book I’m writing right now? The due date was actually before the day we finally signed the contract.

    I mean, come on: you learn this when you’re five. “I want that room cleaned in 5 minutes or you are in BIG trouble.”

  11. mw Says:

    Michael,
    Really? The day before you signed the contract? How does that work? I mean, neither you nor the publisher can possibly find any value in a deadline you both know to be meaningless, can you? Anyway – I hope you didn’t accept any late penalties in the agreement. Maybe you should have me read your next contract over before you sign anything.

    Back to Obama. If that is all this was – a motivational deadline intended only to keep movement on the bill, I wouldn’t have a problem. But as usual, Obamapologists prefer to focus on what he says (and in this case – only what he said today) and ignore what he actually does.

    The relevant comparison here is to the fear driven strong-arm tactics that this administration used to steamroll the stimulus package that was not read by anyone who voted for it. That was not a deadline to keep the process moving. That was a deadline to be sure that Americans did not have time to really understand what was in the bill It is now clear that particular exercise of raw partisan political power was to no greater end than a display of political muscle and to satisfy the eight years of pent-up demand for pork spoils by the Democratic party victors.

    So – based on what he actually did with that bill, as opposed to what he said, he does not deserve the benefit of the doubt now.

  12. michael reynolds Says:

    MW:

    Obama doesn’t have a health care bill. There’s supposedly a Senate finance committee bill, and a House bill, and some other bits and pieces of bills here and there. So I don’t have an opinion on whatever bill you see him trying to ram through.

    What Obama is pushing for is for the House and Senate to finish their work. It’s a good idea to push them, it’s the only way they come close to getting anywhere.

    And yep, my contract calls for me to have a book done before they signed for it. They printed the contract while we were still negotiating. Publishing has a history of “phony deadlines.” They base their deadlines largely on when they expect to be going on vacation. That’s a little cynical, but not too.

  13. Tully Says:

    So, deadlines set by the admin are the equivalent of deadlines set in the world of professional lying fiction publishing. :-)

    One can certainly speculate on the purpose of the deadline, and mileage will vary as to that. I saw it as an attempt to force through “reforms” favoring specifically those politically connected with the current majority and admin, with the highest return to same being inveresely proportional to the time allowed to examine whatever was being rammed through unread.

    Obama set the deadline. He staked some major political capital on it. He lost the bet, and with it, the capital. His backtracking is an attempt to reduce the loss.

  14. michael reynolds Says:

    Tully:

    I think we’d all be relieved to see Congress raising its game to the level of HarperCollins. We may fudge the deadlines but they do pay me what they owe me.

    As an aside, fiction isn’t lying: I tell the absolute truth about my characters.

    Incidentally, in HUNGER I actually have a kid create a currency based on the gold standard. It’s a surprisingly capitalist book. You’d approve of the political subtext. It’s available in most bookstores. And I know you want to give Uncle Rupert $18 and me my $1.80.

    By the way, you still owe me an apology for calling me out on a poll just because your browser didn’t open a jpeg.

  15. Tully Says:

    Sorry, I don’t obsessively watch blogs to see replies from people who have trouble specifying sources, especially when what they DO point out does not say what they say it says. I have real work to do. My browser works just fine, thank you, but does not psychically process all links connected to a page to see if there’s something buried several layers down. Do post the link. In reviewing the article about that survey I noticed immediately that it actually referred to multiple parts separate parts, one of which (judging from the slim description provided) used unproven and questionable methodologies to purportedly assess “racism,” but no evidence of the particulars of which was offered nor obviously linked. If that’s the part you’re referring to, I would tell you that it categorically does not rise to the level of acceptable evidence by current peer-review polling standards without full disclosure and justification of methodology, no matter how pretty a jpeg they may have.

    IOW, you said polling showed it, there was no such showing in the poll linked, so I owe you no apology. The other separate study deserves no consideration without full disclosure and justification of methodology, no matter how pretty a jpeg they may have. I’ve spent half a lifetime analyzing bad studies — if the base assumptions and methodology are bad, so is the study, and the indications are that the study as described is not, as we say, rigorous.

    OBAMA set the deadline. That it was not met falls on him. You say that’s Congress’ failure, but Obama set the deadline, and it was not met. His bad. Call it a failure of leadership if you like. Or admit that he made promises he couldn’t keep, and then tried to back away from them. Which he did.

Leave a Reply


NOTE TO COMMENTERS:


You must ALWAYS fill in the two word CAPTCHA below to submit a comment. And if this is your first time commenting on Donklephant, it will be held in a moderation queue for approval. Please don't resubmit the same comment a couple times. We'll get around to moderating it soon enough.


Also, sometimes even if you've commented before, it may still get placed in a moderation queue and/or sent to the spam folder. If it's just in moderation queue, it'll be published, but it may be deleted if it lands in the spam folder. My apologies if this happens but there are some keywords that push it into the spam folder.


One last note, we will not tolerate comments that disparage people based on age, sex, handicap, race, color, sexual orientation, national origin or ancestry. We reserve the right to delete these comments and ban the people who make them from ever commenting here again.


Thanks for understanding and have a pleasurable commenting experience.


Related Posts: