Quote of the Week
Kari Chisholm
I don't know how I missed this earlier, but Congressman Kurt Schrader had an insightful (and funny) comment at the Oregonian editorial board - as reported by the O's Jeff Mapes:
"I think Republicans offered up 100-some odd amendments and 25 of them made it into the health care bill... You know I'm a pay-to-play guy and I'm kind of shocked that you let them do that and they all vote no anyway. It doesn't seem fair. Why put their stuff in the bill if they're going to vote no? Maybe I'm just a hard-ass, but I was a little shocked at that."
Now that the Senate is about to take up the health care bill, that's some good advice from the other chamber. If folks are going to amend the bill, they should be prepared to vote for it.
 |
More Recent Posts | |
Albert Kaufman |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
Kari Chisholm |
Final pre-census estimate: Oregon's getting a sixth congressional seat |
Albert Kaufman |
Polluted by Money - How corporate cash corrupted one of the greenest states in America |
Guest Column |
|
Albert Kaufman |
Our Democrat Representatives in Action - What's on your wish list? |
Kari Chisholm |
|
Guest Column |
|
Kari Chisholm |
|
connect with blueoregon
10:10 a.m.
Nov 20, '09
[Full disclosure: My firm built Kurt Schrader's campaign website, but I speak only for myself.]
Nov 20, '09
Kari said, " If folks are going to amend the bill, they should be prepared to vote for it."
I'm not sure I see the logic. Are you saying that if I offer an amendment to improve a bill that commits me to a vote for the bill?
I would be curious to ask Mr. Schrader if he ever offered an amendment to a bill which he later voted against. I'm betting he has. I have a hard time believing that he would commit to vote for a bill prior to knowing all that is in it. If he does commit to voting for bills before they are complete, I think that is irresponsible.
11:01 a.m.
Nov 20, '09
Note, this is actually a criticism of the Democratic leadership, not the Republicans.
It's also a little too simplistic. From the standpoint of the Democratic majority, it's important to distinguish between an amendment that you agree actually improves the bill and a compromise that you think weakens the bill.
Of course you should vote for the first type of amendment regardless of who proposes it, but I would agree that it doesn't make sense to accept something you don't like unless you get something more important to you in return.
So the question is, into which category do the 25 successful amendments offered by Republicans fall?
Nov 20, '09
Sound advice for sure, but I'm not sure that I'd be trumpeting a quote re: supporting "pay to play". Does that apply to lobbyist contributions as well (in Kurt's case I know it doesn't).
Nov 20, '09
The Republicans get amendments into the health care bill but still vote against it. So what? This series of debates in Congress is just a charade. Whatever, if anything, comes out of Congress will still leave the United States with the worst overall health care delivery system in the industrialized world.
If the Obama administration and Congress were really serious about providing the nation with a decent health care system they would have taken the politics out of the picture and appointed a NON-partisan commission to develop one with most of the proceedings televised on C-Span. But they are not in the least serious as far as health care is concerned. They are, however, serious in protecting their campaign donors in the health insurance industry - which only has a peripheral interest in health care.
Get some facts on health care from The Commonwealth Fund a private foundation that aims to promote a high performing health care system that achieves better access, improved quality, and greater efficiency, particularly for society's most vulnerable.
1:31 p.m.
Nov 20, '09
Seriously: what's the funny part?
Nov 20, '09
Is that sausage logic?
Nov 20, '09
"It's (the public option) a token public option, an ersatz public option, a fleeting gesture toward the idea of a public option, so small and desiccated as to be barely worth mentioning except for the fact that it still (gasp) contains the word 'public.'" That's part of what Robert Reich has to say.
Nov 20, '09
Of the week? Really? Considering what you must read, and that it's Friday, that's rather impressive!
Really? That's the quote of the week? Huh.
"heh, heh, hehe, Beavis. He said 'ass'. No he didn't stupid, Schrader said 'ass'. But, heh, heh, hehe, Beavis, 'ass' was coming out of Kari's mouth. heh, heh, hehe, heh, heh, hehe, heh, heh, hehe...".
Sorry. Just trying to imagine how that is the quote of the week. I still can't get my head around how it even makes sense, let alone is bodacious (and I don't mean the bull ).
Nov 20, '09
Zara!
Nov 21, '09
Kari:
If folks are going to amend the bill, they should be prepared to vote for it.
Bob T:
Not really. Some amendments are put in so that in case the bill passes it's just a little better (not counting pork additions which should not be allowed in bills anyway). Why should someone vote for a bill that s/he hates just because there's one tiny bit in there that's okay?
Bob Tiernan Portland
Nov 21, '09
Also, Kari: just because one guy's amendment gets in does not mean there will not be others that totally wipe out the goodness of the bill. Witness the much-needed legislation forcing the big hospitals such as Kaiser, OHSU, Legacy and Providence to reveal the actual malpractice records of ALL of their doctors, right? Great law, and why did we have to force the issue with a law?
Well, the entire back end of that good law is Mucked up with the ass-protecting of an MD Senator and his recently more-activist cohort -- nearly 90% of provider malpractice records are now hidden from view, and vast numbers of records now redacted from the public report website OMB services.
One hand gave reasonably, the other hand utterly took away: viz information.
We were so desperate to enshrine basic legal requisites that the big self-insureds tell us who has been hurt, maimed and killed by their practitioners.... but in so passing the law, we had to accept the bad legistlation now being fought year by year that allows malpractice insurers to no longer report true records requested by Quality and Regulatory professionals; and the OMB dare not tell anyone what they know. In effect, if the doctor does not wish to tell you the truth, you will not know it and are not allowed to know it.
Null sum story in some aspects.
<h2>So, Kari: what was that you were saying about how you have to vote for the bill if you amend it? Maybe you are just talking about gameplayers who tinker just to obstruct; but it seems like the legislative process is pretty multi-focal and you may never arrive at a product you can in good conscience support.</h2>