Sen. Max Baucus on single-party legislation

[pjohns]

Senator Max Baucus (D-MT)--who is the architect of the Affordable Care Act (a.k.a. ObanaCare), but who also described it, in April, as a "huge train wreck"--has now had an epiphany as regarding the manner in which it was implemented: "It is my belief that for major legislation to be durable, sustainable, it has to be bipartisan. ...I mean, one party can't jam legislation down the other party's throat. It leaves a bitter taste."

Here is the link: http://www.nytimes.com/2013/12/19/us/politics/baucus-still-fretting-over-health-law-he-shepherded.html?_r=0

Too bad he didn't think of that some 3 3/4 years ago...

[KC]

I'm not sure there was a chance of passing any bipartisan health care legislation. It was sort of seen by Republicans as a zero sum game.

[Green Arrow]

As if it would have mattered. Either way, we would have been stuck with Insuracare. With Republicans, it would have just been "toned down" some - i.e., no substantive changes would be made, just token alterations.

[Chris]

There was no chance it would have been bipartisan because the people didn't and don't want it.

[Peter1469]

They really need to let the states experiment with local solutions. If some states decide to do nothing, and other states have great results, the do nothing states will be forced by their citizens to - do something. And if some states do make changes that make matters worse, the other states will look to that as a "clue" that some things just don't work.

This fetish for a federal one-size-fits all plan cannot work in a nation as large and diverse as the US.

[pjohns]

As if it would have mattered. Either way, we would have been stuck with Insuracare. With Republicans, it would have just been "toned down" some - i.e., no substantive changes would be made, just token alterations.

At the very least, healthcare insurance could be sold across state lines (as other forms of insurance may be), and there would have been tort reform, thereby attenuating the need of doctors to practice "defensive medicine."

I would consider these changes pretty "substantive"...

[Green Arrow]

At the very least, healthcare insurance could be sold across state lines (as other forms of insurance may be), and there would have been tort reform, thereby attenuating the need of doctors to practice "defensive medicine."

I would consider these changes pretty "substantive"...

They would be additions, but they wouldn't be substantive changes to the law because the core of the law, the government force aspect, is still there. The Republican track record, especially that of their nominee, shows that we'd still be stuck with the government force bits (the individual mandate) regardless.

[pjohns]

They would be additions, but they wouldn't be substantive changes to the law because the core of the law, the government force aspect, is still there.

I have consistenly opposed the compulsory aspect of ObamaCare. And that is very unlikely to ever change.

[Green Arrow]

I have consistenly opposed the compulsory aspect of ObamaCare. And that is very unlikely to ever change.

I don't doubt that. Our politicians on both sides are a different story.

[Alyosha]

I love how people can say this now when it means nothing.

[Green Arrow]

I love how people can say this now when it means nothing.

Oh, yeah, they pull this crap all the time. Sensenbrenner wrote the PATRIOT Act and loved it when Bush was President, then Obama screws up and the world finds out about the Dark Side, and suddenly, Sensenbrenner is horrified about the abuse of his beloved law.

The former NSA dude also came out recently and was like, "This is terrible!" Nevermind the fact that he pushed for and developed the very spying techniques we suffer from.

It's all a big joke. When their asses are on the fire, they turn against their own children to get out.