insurance lobbyist rights...

the repubs want a 72 hr delay on the vote for the healthcare bill, so the insurance companies lobbyists can review it and weigh in with the repubs with shiney new delay tactics/arguements about what isnt acceptable to them. watched cspan yesterday and last nite..this was the only source i could find that has a vid posted of the eerie request. wtf..the lobbyists arent already in charge of the repub plan they wrote for baucus, that isnt enough?

http://thinkprogress.org/2009/09/23/roberts-72-hours-insurance/

Bunning requested that the Committee put-off a vote on the health care bill until the final legislative language of the bill is made available on the Committee’s website for at least 72 hours. The amendment failed, with all of the Democrats except Sen. Blanche Lincoln (D-AR) voting against it. But had the amendment passed, it could potentially have halted the health care debate for weeks.
Before the vote took place, Sen. Pat Roberts (R-KS) offered a defense of Bunning’s amendment by arguing that the 72-hour provision was critical because it provides time for senators to consult with health insurance lobbyists:
<BLOCKQUOTE>All the Senator from Kentucky is asking is for 72 hours to determine the cost. Senator Snowe has spoken eloquently about sunshine, and the openness, and the fact that the American people would support this 90 percent, 95 percent. But the thing that I’m trying to point out is we would have at least 72 hours for the people that the providers have hired to keep up with all of the legislation that we pass around here, and the regulations that we pass around here, to say “hey, wait a minute. Have you considered this?” And that’s all I’m asking for — is not only cost, but also the content of a bill. And that 72 hours, I think, is highly, highly important.</BLOCKQUOTE>

I believe the 72 hour was also to get new figures from the CBO instead of old estimates off the unamended bill. While I could care less about the lobbyist concerns. CBO figures are important, after all the healthcare bills don't take effect until either 2012 or 2013 so the need to rush this through is what?

Scooby01_98 wrote:I believe the 72 hour was also to get new figures from the CBO instead of old estimates off the unamended bill. While I could care less about the lobbyist concerns. CBO figures are important, after all the healthcare bills don't take effect until either 2012 or 2013 so the need to rush this through is what?

Because Obama's approval ratings are still somewhat good and they want to 'rahm' it thru while he's still 'popular'...

Scooby01_98 wrote:I believe the 72 hour was also to get new figures from the CBO instead of old estimates off the unamended bill. While I could care less about the lobbyist concerns. CBO figures are important, after all the healthcare bills don't take effect until either 2012 or 2013 so the need to rush this through is what?

if the cbo was hired by the healthcare providers then your answer might address the reason for the delay request. i beleive i recently posted a number of credible sources stating the cbo in recent years has been consistly off on their assessments by anywhere from 20% to 80%..leaning toward the high dollar end. a comparison..the epa and nasa and surgeon general were fairly credible until the bush years too.

floridafun wrote:

Scooby01_98 wrote:I believe the 72 hour was also to get new figures from the CBO instead of old estimates off the unamended bill. While I could care less about the lobbyist concerns. CBO figures are important, after all the healthcare bills don't take effect until either 2012 or 2013 so the need to rush this through is what?

if the cbo was hired by the healthcare providers then your answer might address the reason for the delay request. i beleive i recently posted a number of credible sources stating the cbo in recent years has been consistly off on their assessments by anywhere from 20% to 80%..leaning toward the high dollar end. a comparison..the epa and nasa and surgeon general were fairly credible until the bush years too.

That funny most of the examples you gave I believe were a couple of decades old. Either way you give 4 or 5 examples over how many do they do a year?!?!?! So they get a few wrong, they seem to be more right or under estimate than over estimate. So the CBO info is still creditable in my eyes.

Wasn't Mitch Daniels at the CBO with the Bush admin before he came to Indiana?

Figures.



Oops, that was the OMB.