Network News

X My Profile
View More Activity

Upping the pressure on Boehner

John Boehner is appearing on ABC's This Week on Sunday, alongide Steny Hoyer. I'll bet you a Plum Line lava lamp that Hoyer will press Boehner to answer a question:

What. precisely, is he willing to support in order to hold BP liable for Gulf spill damages? It's a perfectly fair line of inquiry. After all, Boehner himself has said he wants BP held liable.

To recap: Yesterday, Boehner's office said he believes no taxpayer money should be spent on cleanup or damages. "No taxpayer money for cleanup or damages -- period. BP pays," Boehner's spokesman said.

That's the right position. But Boehner hasn't said what legislative vehicle he's willing to support in order to make this happen.

As it happens, the bill in the House of Representatives that would lift the liability cap on oil companies, and retroactively apply it to BP, has at least one Republican co-sponsor. That House GOPer, REp. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen of Florida, is now calling on Republican colleagues to support this measure.

Her office emails a statement:

"As the worst environmental disaster in our nation's history continues to do damage, I'm hopeful that my colleagues will see why the liability limit should be should be increased. Every day, the costs increase and we could be facing a time when BP says that it doesn't have to pay more. We should not pass this exorbitant bill on to the already overextended taxpayers."

That's a Republican talking. Dems will seize on this to argue that lifting the liability cap, and applying it to BP, has Republican support. It doesn't have much Republican support at all, of course, but Dems are going to try to make as much noise around this as possible.

I don't have any idea whether Boehner or other Republican leaders are sweating this line of pressure or see it as a political problem at all. But Dems are going to do their best to make it one.

By Greg Sargent  |  June 11, 2010; 3:22 PM ET
Categories:  Climate change , House Dems , House GOPers  
Save & Share:  Send E-mail   Facebook   Twitter   Digg   Yahoo Buzz   Del.icio.us   StumbleUpon   Technorati   Google Buzz   Previous: You, too, can pretend to crush Obama's head!
Next: Happy Hour Roundup

Comments

Now where is David Broder when we need a harangue about bipartisanship?

Broder? Broder?

And Maureen Dowd, should Boehner emote about this catastrophe? Are GOPs exempted from caring about this issue?

Greg, I'd also suggest pushing the CoC for some quotes on this. They've walked back their assertion that taxpayers should be on the hook too, but without specifics.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 3:32 PM | Report abuse

Slave Sargent:
"What. precisely, is he willing to support in order to hold BP liable for Gulf spill damages? It's a perfectly fair line of inquiry. After all, Boehner himself has said he wants BP held liable. "

It's fair if you're a political hack, and only focus on the Coppertone Congressman simply to try to play political games.

What does your creature Piglosi propose?

She is still, alas sadly, Speaker of the House. What BeePee bees are buzzing around up inside HER bonnet?

We've heard from the Senator and Congressman from the State of La Cosa Nostra, thanks.
(New Jersey has a lot of tank farms and refineries, so they really LIKE imported awl/url/oy-yull see?

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 3:37 PM | Report abuse

"What. precisely, is he willing to support in order to hold BP liable for Gulf spill damages?"

GOP politics for $500. Bzzzz. I can handle that one, Greg. The answer is What is Nothing. The only hard question is what flimflam Agent Orange will use to tap dance around the truth.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 3:45 PM | Report abuse

Meanwhile the Chamber of Commerce attempts a walk-back of their recent comments, too. Only they talk out of both sides of their mouth, just like Boehner.

To wit: All the costs for clean up and damages belong to BP. There should be no retroactive change to the liability cap.

They do say, however, that we need comprehensive energy policy. I'll give 'em a point for that.

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/06/the_chamber_on_the_spill_clean_up.php?ref=fpblg

Posted by: suekzoo1 | June 11, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

From Pelosi's presser today:

Q: Unlimited liability cap — with cost estimated at $37 billion for everything, do you support the idea of unlimited cap?

Speaker Pelosi. Unlimited?

Q: Unlimited for BP.

Speaker Pelosi. Yes.

Q: And what do you foresee the taxpayer role in the cleanup beyond the 6 cents a barrel?

Speaker Pelosi. Let me be very clear: BP is responsible for the cleanup. Anything that we are doing in advance of that has to be compensated back to the taxpayer; this is BP's responsibility. The cap that is in the Oil Pollution Act of 1990 is $75 million if there is no negligence. With or without the negligence, I don't think there should be a cap. I had, for a while, thought when others were proposing the $10 billion cap, and that's for each episode, that that sounded like that might be okay, but I think now looking at the size of the damage and the rest, the scope of this whole thing that why should there be a cap, why should there be a cap?

BP is going to pay the bill, it is going to pay the bill for the cleanup, it is going to pay the bill for making good for the loss of livelihood for workers and businesses in the region. So there will be no taxpayer dollars that are not repaid — spent that will not be repaid by British Petroleum, BP. I guess they changed their name recently and so some of us are used to the old name and when we use it they say, oh, that is being xenophobic. I don't see it that way. But in any event, I'm for no cap and there is no cap if there is negligence involved.

Posted by: sargegreg | June 11, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

The spill has been estimated to have caused $28 BILLION in damages.

The liability cap is $75 MILLION.

Who pays the remaining $27,925,000,000???

And if it's BP, then, as Greg notes, what legislative vehicle will force them legally to pay that remittance?

The Republican Party cannot escape one simple fact.

And that is that, even in light of the WORST CORPORATE DISASTER IN U.S. HISTORY, the Republican Party is standing strong against the American people on behalf of one of the richest, most profitable industries mankind has ever seen.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 3:46 PM | Report abuse

Greg,

Don't post here often but I do read this site every day. Can you explain to me why the poster Bilgeman has not been banned for violations of site policy? Some of the personal insults I have seen this week have been reprehensible and his whole "slave ___" routine is highly insulting and offensive.

I have tried to "report abuse" from his postings but my e-mail keeps getting bounced. Can we ban this person until he learns to speak without personal insult? He brings down the level of civility I enjoy reading on this site. The comment threads here are generally informative and useful until he posts.

Posted by: zattarra | June 11, 2010 3:49 PM | Report abuse

"I don't have any idea whether Boehner or other Republican leaders are sweating this line of pressure or see it as a political problem at all. But Dems are going to do their best to make it one."

Good luck with that. I don't see this as a political problem (despite your efforts, Greg!)

The politicians all seem to be in agreement about placing blame and assigning cost. Dems won't get any traction arguing about hard-to-understand legislative specifics.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 3:51 PM | Report abuse

I LOVE me some Pelosi! Thanks for that, Greg. Gives me some hope for the Dems after all.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 3:52 PM | Report abuse

"Dems won't get any traction arguing about hard-to-understand legislative specifics."

Nope. But they'll get plenty of traction opposing the GOP's $27,925,000,000 (thanks, Ethan) BP Bailout.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 3:54 PM | Report abuse

Greg, thanks for the Pelosi. She says it how it is. Why is it so hard for others to follow?

I'd still like to see some hard questions put to the CoC. They are behind GOP obstruction here as the party is carrying their water on corporate protection.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 3:58 PM | Report abuse

zattarra, thanks for the request. would you mind emailing me same so I can pass it on to the powers that be?

Posted by: sargegreg | June 11, 2010 4:00 PM | Report abuse

Here's John Cole, O/T (sort of), snarking on a report on who weathered the financial crisis (from an LA Times article):

"Working as intended:


"Unemployment remains at near-record levels, and most Americans are struggling to rebuild their battered finances. But the country’s wealthy are once again doing just fine, thank you.

No group was immune to the downturn. In 2008, as the financial crisis raged, the stock market hit bottom and the Great Recession ate into the economy, the number of millionaires in the United States plunged.

But last year the number of millionaires bounced up sharply, new data show.

And after that decline and rebound, the millionaire class held a larger percentage of the country’s wealth than it did in 2007.

“It’s been a recession where everyone took a hit — with the bottom taking a bigger hit,” said Timothy Smeeding, a University of Wisconsin professor who studies economic inequality. But “the wealthy alone have bounced back.”"


If people would sit still and wait for some to trickle down, everything will be ok."

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 4:01 PM | Report abuse

Slavesargegreg:
"Q: Unlimited liability cap — with cost estimated at $37 billion for everything, do you support the idea of unlimited cap?

Speaker Pelosi. Unlimited?

Q: Unlimited for BP.

Speaker Pelosi. Yes."

Okay, I assume that the Piglosi mis-spoke. She should know very well that the Congress cannot hold one company to unlimited liability and not the rest...that's unconstitutional on Bill of Attainder grounds.

So, she supports lifting liability cap on ALL drilling....even where there is an honest-to-God bona-fide accident:

"With or without the negligence, I don't think there should be a cap"

This sounds like a good idea to defective moonbat minds, but who do you think pays the insurance premiums on the undertaking of a deepwater well?

You do.

How do you pay those premiums for the oil companies?

Every time you purchase a good or a service that used or uses oil, gas or diesel fuel in any way.

So in Piglosi's America, the only laws that do not lead to the economic ruin of 10-15 dollar a gallon gasoline are the unconstitutional ones.

These clowns are SO gone in November...

No wonder you dragged your feet in showing us what the DemocRat Moonbat "leadership" had in mind!

"I had, for a while, thought when others were proposing the $10 billion cap, and that's for each episode, that that sounded like that might be okay, but I think now looking at the size of the damage and the rest, the scope of this whole thing that why should there be a cap, why should there be a cap?"

To answer this drooling idiot and her weird hand-jive gestures, because with an unlimited cap even for honest accidents and acts of God, nobody will do ANYTHING.

That may score points among the DemocRats' vital cave-dwelling loincloth wearing constituency, but the rest of the country is going to slam-dunk you fools into the dust-bin of history.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 4:02 PM | Report abuse

slave zattara:
"Don't post here often but I do read this site every day. Can you explain to me why the poster Bilgeman has not been banned for violations of site policy? Some of the personal insults I have seen this week have been reprehensible and his whole "slave ___" routine is highly insulting and offensive. "

Ah, good. the "Waaaaaah!-mbulance" just returned from taking the slavemoonbatmsmollygee from wherever she flounced off to.

Your car is waiting, Mr. Whiner...

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 4:06 PM | Report abuse

@wb: "They'll get plenty of traction opposing the GOP's $27,925,000,000 (thanks, Ethan) BP Bailout."

What does this mean?

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 4:16 PM | Report abuse

sbj3:

It means that the GOP will oppose raising the liability cap and will also oppose holding BP criminally liable. Since the estimated damages are $28 BILLION and the liability cap is $75 MILLION, that means the United States taxpayer is on the hook for the balance of $27,925,000,000. Ergo: the GOP's $27Billion BP Bailout. My guess is that won't be very popular with the American public.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 4:25 PM | Report abuse

@wb: "The GOP will oppose ...holding BP criminally liable."

So?

"Since the estimated damages are $28 BILLION and the liability cap is $75 MILLION, that means the United States taxpayer is on the hook for the balance of $27,925,000,000."

This assumes that congress is going to pass some law awarding this money to the damaged party?

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 4:29 PM | Report abuse

Yes, BP pays costs or the gov't (taxpayers) do it and bill BP. The real alternative to damages, however, is that everyone eats their own costs, and people just suffer from the bad luck of living near the Gulf. This is really the Republican way--the "yoyo" or you're on your own" society. But they don't want to say that out loud.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 11, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

stooge-b-gonne:
"It means that the GOP will oppose raising the liability cap and will also oppose holding BP criminally liable."

From what narcotic-induced fever dream did you get the certainty that the GOP is going to exempt BeePee from criminal liability?

As to the rest of your nonsense that you insist on repeating in the face of the clear language of OPA'90, a succesful prosecution for negligence or gross misconduct or willful violation of Federal Regulations NEGATES the liability cap.

And as someone working in this industry, I can assure you that that is going to be a slam-dunk case, if Holder ever gets off his behind and begins his investigation.

So you really have no argument whatsoever here.

Just trolling for Comrade Chavez and HIS oil company, CITGO.

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 4:33 PM | Report abuse

Here is a concept that SBJ considers "hard to understand".

1) The law says the most the company has to pay is $75 million.

2) The total damages will turn out to be in the neighborhood of $28 billion.

3) Without lifting or removing the cap, BP only has to pay $75 million.

4) The remaining damage to American citizens, businesses, and the economy (~$27,925,000,000) will either be paid by the federal government (taxpayer money) OR it won't get paid by anyone.

The fact is that SBJ understands that full well. The Republican Party understands that full well. The Chamber of Commerce understands that full well...

AND YET, the Republican Party opposes all efforts to avoid that worst-case scenario (item number 4).

On the other hand, the DEMOCRATIC PARTY is trying -- and has been trying -- to hold BP accountable for the disaster they created through their own negligence and malfeasance.

Really, it's quite easy to understand.

The GOP is trying to hold the American people for ransom on behalf of the oil industry.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 4:39 PM | Report abuse

I apologize if this posts twice, but there are three different things here.

1) Clean-up costs are BP's liability, for which they may or may not have had insurance. The alternative if BP is unsatisfactory is for the gov't (taxpayers) to do it and bill BP.

2) Civil and criminal penalties under the Clean Water Act and other statutes; These are calculated per day and per gallon in the case of oil. Sliding scale according to degree of fault and statutes violated. Can be jail time, but it's rare. Max fines are $25,000 per day or $4300 per gallon. This compensates the public for damage to natural resources.

3) Third party economic damages. This is what the cap applies to and what all the fight is about. I do believe that in their heart of hearts the GOP believes that these are a matter of personal responsibility and if BP screws up your fishing grounds, well, you should have taken out insurance. But no one wants to say it out loud. Here the only alternatives are BP pays, the taxpayers pay (like they do with crop damage, ahem) or some people are paid selectively and the rest eat their own costs. No compensation is the alternative that no one will speak out loud.

Posted by: Mimikatz | June 11, 2010 4:48 PM | Report abuse

Greg:

"To recap: Yesterday, Boehner's office said he believes no taxpayer money should be spent on cleanup or damages. "No taxpayer money for cleanup or damages -- period. BP pays," Boehner's spokesman said.

That's the right position. But Boehner hasn't said what legislative vehicle he's willing to support in order to make this happen."

For about the tenth time now, you are misleading people by confusing the question of whether BP pays all damages with whether and under what circumstances taxpayers would be responsible.

Taxpayers would NOT be responsible, whether or not BP is held fully liable.

Thus, there is NO need for a "legislative vehicle" to ensure that taxpayers are not liable. The already ARE NOT.


Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 4:49 PM | Report abuse

Seems as if more than a few are getting all wee-wee'd up about imagined scenarios.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 4:50 PM | Report abuse

"This assumes that congress is going to pass some law awarding this money to the damaged party?"

"Seems as if more than a few are getting all wee-wee'd up about imagined scenarios."

No law is necessary. The damages are real; just watch TV. The only question is who pays? The alternative is to leave the Gulf of Mexico a cesspool of oil. Are in favor of that?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 4:55 PM | Report abuse

wbgonne:

"It means that the GOP will oppose raising the liability cap and will also oppose holding BP criminally liable. Since the estimated damages are $28 BILLION and the liability cap is $75 MILLION, that means the United States taxpayer is on the hook for the balance of $27,925,000,000. Ergo: the GOP's $27Billion BP Bailout. My guess is that won't be very popular with the American public."

This statement, once again, is patently untrue.

The liability cap in no way means that the "taxpayer is on the hook" for damages beyond the cap.

Stop the lies if you want to retain any shred of credibility.

Mimikatz at least understands and isn't misrepresenting the basic legal framework.

The hard truth is that Congress enacted the cap (unanimously) as law twenty years ago. It struck a balance, under whatever reasoning it used, as the constitutionally elected representatives of the citizenry. That was the legislative arrangement the "people's representatives" put in place.

If they want to repeal the cap retroactively now, they might just be able to get away with it. Whether it is principled or just is a different question. And it isn't as simple as saying we'll take $$ from an evil corporation without consequence to anyone else to compensate those harmed. Shareholders, many of whom are Americans, will be harmed. And others will be harmed in more indirect ways. On the other side of the ledger, some who were harmed by the spill will have insurance, some won't.

That doesn't mean it isn't the best of bad choices, but it is absurd for liberals to treat this as a decision to be made based on emotions and without thought, which is exactly what you are all doing.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 5:00 PM | Report abuse

It's obvious who the Republicans feel should be responsible... NOBODY.

It's obvious how much money the Republicans feel should be paid to those who were damaged... NONE.

That is today's GOP.

Mean, immoral, and they JUST DON'T CARE.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 5:02 PM | Report abuse

Too Big To Fail, British Edition. The GOP's $27Billion BP bailout on the backs of American taxpayers.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:05 PM | Report abuse

P.S., Thanks for that, Mimikatz. I often find that logic, reason and information are wasted on the GOP Trolls living under out bridge. To the GOP I say: Live by the stupid. Die by the stupid. And payback's a b*itch.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:07 PM | Report abuse

Shorter QB/GOP:

"Will someone PLEASE think of the SHAREHOLDERS!"

and

"NO damage payments beyond $75 million. NONE."

QB and his Republican "leaders" have made their position on this VERY clear.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

@wb: "The only question is who pays? The alternative is to leave the Gulf of Mexico a cesspool of oil."

Am I crazy or is it not the case that BP has to pay to clean up the spill? There's no cap on that cleanup, right?

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 5:11 PM | Report abuse

Here is your chance, again, Ethan, to explain why it is an imperative of justice to repeal the cap your party enacted and impose ex post facto liability.

Why is that an imperative rather than following the rule of law established by Congress for this situation, as representatives of the very same people harmed by the spill?

Don't just tell us the consequences are tragic or resort to more vacant blather.

Thrill us with your insight into the justice of this whole matter.

You might come up with a perfectly persuasive explanation, but so far you are just blowing hot air.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 5:16 PM | Report abuse

"BP has to pay to clean up the spill"

That depends upon what you mean by "clean up the spill." The GOP says BP must pick up its oil and everyone else is on his or her own, though you can all rest assured that BP will pay all "legitimate claims." Oh, and based on BP's newest "information," the oil gusher is only 24 ounces a day (the rest is an optical illusion) so how much damage could THAT cause?

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:19 PM | Report abuse

@wb: Is medicinal marijuana legal where you live? You should really try it...

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 5:21 PM | Report abuse

"Am I crazy or is it not the case that BP has to pay to clean up the spill? There's no cap on that cleanup, right?"

No, sbj, you aren't crazy, you are right.

And wb and Ethan are dishonest. They care nothing about the truth. They care nothing about reason. They care nothing about justice.

They just care about power and punishment of their enemies, which includes but is not limited to anyone who resists the imposition of their radical, totalitarian vision.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 11, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

QB, if you don't get why these people who have been summarily injured should get remittance, you simply don't understand the concept of justice.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 5:24 PM | Report abuse

sbj3: Hey, that's pretty funny. Maybe Agent Orange can use that line on Hoyer this Sunday. A good chuckle will surely make the American people forget about the GOP's $27B BP bailout.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:27 PM | Report abuse

Hey, I'm no totalitarian, I'm a socialist (at least I was earlier today). Or a communist, I can't remember due to my MM Rx. But, really, is there anything funnier than the GOP demanding "justice" and "logic"? Why no, no there isn't.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:30 PM | Report abuse

@wb: The problem with the whole "GOP's $27B BP bailout" is that it will be more accurately labeled "the Democrats' $27 billion BP Bailout."

If the scenario you imagine comes about (and I don't think it will - my whole point is you and Ethan are getting wildly upset over things which have not happened!) But if the imagined scenario occurs, it will take an act of congress (or the admin) to shell out the billions.

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 5:32 PM | Report abuse

@BM: We keep you around because your posts are amusing in a grotesque kind of way and so easy to parody. Heck some of your posts are so silly that they seem like parodies by themselves. We just try to ignore your grade school name calling and moronic insults. I guess not everybody can...I just hold my nose...

Posted by: srw3 | June 11, 2010 5:36 PM | Report abuse

Let's try to be clear. The cleanup is BP's responsibility, and they are on the hook for that. The thorny question is what constitutes "clean." Their use of dispersants is already an indication that they place "disappearance" ahead of "clean." They'll fight environmentalist efforts for habitat restitution in the courts. Guaranteed.

The big ticket item is damages, and that's where they are going to try to stick the feds/taxpayers with the much bigger bill.

We can argue till we're all blue in the face about caps, but that shift the focus from responsibility and the consequences of a faulty risk management strategy.

Or, to put it differently, BP wanted NO gov't interference, tax, regulation/contingency plans when they were drilling and making huge profits. And they paid handsomely to influence the GOP to get the most favorable terms. NOW they want help, they want a bail-out, they want the "pressure taken off."

Capitalism for profits, corporate welfare for losses.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 5:40 PM | Report abuse

O/T: Well look here - seems like we were lied to about health care reform!

"Over and over in the health care debate, President Barack Obama said people who like their current coverage would be able to keep it.

"But an early draft of an administration regulation estimates that many employers will be forced to make changes to their health plans under the new law. In just three years, a majority of workers — 51 percent — will be in plans subject to new federal requirements, according to midrange projections in the draft."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100611/ap_on_go_pr_wh/us_health_overhaul_keeping_your_plan

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 5:41 PM | Report abuse

@qb:Thus, there is NO need for a "legislative vehicle" to ensure that taxpayers are not liable. The already ARE NOT.

The question is what legislative vehicle will be used to make sure the folks in the gulf are compensated for the losses due to the BP disaster by BP even if it goes over 75 million, not whether the feds pay.

Posted by: srw3 | June 11, 2010 5:44 PM | Report abuse

sbj3: Last time, sorry. Very slowly.

1. The Gulf Oil Disaster causes $27B in damages to the Gulf Coast. Those damages come in many forms. Fishers who can't fish. Hotels that can't rent. Restaurants that can't serve. Oil workers who can't work. Use your imagination.

2. BP is only obliged to pay $75M for those damages.

3. That leaves about, oh let' say, $27B in unpaid damages.

Now just who is going to cover that? Nobody? All those people are going to be destroyed financially and that's just tough sh*t? Well, no. That's not how America is. We aren't heartless and cruel and we don't believe that innocent victims should go uncompensated and be punished for corporate malfeasance. (Well some of us do believe that but will try like the dickens NOT to admit it-- Agent Orange this Sunday, for instance).

So those innocent victims of BP's wrongdoing will get their $27B one way or another. And if BP doesn't pay it, which is exactly what the GOP wants, guess who has to pay?

BINGO. You and me. And our national debt. Ipso facto: the GOP's $27B BP bailout. Even Goebbels himself couldn't spin his way out of this one.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

Well look here, SBJ, being disingenuous again!

To him, the ability to keep your same plan, only to have BETTER BENEFITS, means that Obama broke his promise that you won't have to change your plan. Even though you WON'T have to change your plan. Your plan will just be improved.

Of course, it SAYS all that in the article:

""""On the face of it, having consumer protections apply to all insurance plans could be a good thing for employees," said Alex Vachon, an independent health policy consultant. "Technically, it's actually improved coverage."

The types of changes that employers could have to make include offering preventive care without copayments and instituting an appeals process for disputed claims that follows new federal guidelines."""

So either he can't read or he's a disingenuous fool.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 5:46 PM | Report abuse

"Capitalism for profits, corporate welfare for losses."

Oui. Privatize the profits; socialize the losses.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:48 PM | Report abuse

OMG NOEZZZ!!1!!eleven1!!11 PREVENTATIVE CARE WITHOUT CO-PAYS! OBAMA IS A LIAR!

Haha. What trash. Hilarious.

Posted by: Ethan2010 | June 11, 2010 5:49 PM | Report abuse

All, Happy Hour Roundup posted:

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/plum-line/2010/06/happy_hour_roundup_27.html

Posted by: sargegreg | June 11, 2010 5:51 PM | Report abuse

And since you mentioned health care, the GOP also wants that to go on taxpayers' backs. Allow me: In the United States we don't let people die in the gutter because they don't have health insurance. We treat them anyway at no cost TO THEM and call it uncompensated care. But it doesn't really go "uncompensated"; it goes into the insurance premiums that insured people pay. The GOP hates nationalized healthcare because it's obviously a communist plot to install an illegal immigrant as president. Yet the GOP doesn't say that, why yes indeed, those uninsured folks should die in the gutter like dogs. No sir, they don't have the courage to announce their convictions so instead we get the same cr*p we're getting now: Privatize the profits; socialize the losses. Bottom line: the GOP is a bunch of lying sc*mbags.

I hope that helps.

Posted by: wbgonne | June 11, 2010 5:58 PM | Report abuse

paraphrasiong Ethan: "It's the SAME plan - it's just different."

From the article:

"The main issue in the 83-page regulation is how to deal with what the government calls "grandfathered" health plans.

"...Lawmakers created the special category to deliver on Obama's promise that people can keep the coverage they have if they like it.

"But health plans change frequently. Premiums and copayments keep rising. Coverage is expanded for some services and restricted for others. Lawmakers asked regulators to spell out how much an employer can change a plan and still claim it to be grandfathered, exempting it from closer federal regulation.

"...How employers react to the coming changes will be critical. If many companies start dropping health care benefits, opting instead to pay the government a penalty, Democrats would face a political backlash. Whether there's a tipping point ahead is still unclear."

Posted by: sbj3 | June 11, 2010 5:59 PM | Report abuse

"Why is that an imperative rather than following the rule of law established by Congress for this situation, as representatives of the very same people harmed by the spill?"

"QB, if you don't get why these people who have been summarily injured should get remittance, you simply don't understand the concept of justice."

@Ethan: Don't even bother. You see it's about "the rule of law" with these clowns, except for when it isn't.

Rule of law: Clinton's impeachment, ACORN, BP's Liability, AZ immigration....

Exceptions: warrantless wiretapping, torture, unitary executive, Terri Schiavo, Elian Gonzalez, and anything else they find convenient.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 11, 2010 6:08 PM | Report abuse

SCat, you forgot limiting a woman's right to choose.

Posted by: BGinCHI | June 11, 2010 6:52 PM | Report abuse

Meant to add that, BG......good catch.

Posted by: schrodingerscat | June 11, 2010 7:03 PM | Report abuse

sbj3:
"But if the imagined scenario occurs, it will take an act of congress (or the admin) to shell out the billions."

Funny how they've never seemed to mind that before.

Maybe it should be named the "American Family Stimulus Spending Act", and then these booger-eaters would demand that funding be tripled!

Posted by: Bilgeman | June 11, 2010 7:59 PM | Report abuse

"QB, if you don't get why these people who have been summarily injured should get remittance, you simply don't understand the concept of justice."

What an excellent cop out, Ethan. You know it when you see it. Justice is whatever you say it is at the moment, without the need for explanation or reason. To hell with the law as enacted unanimously by a Democrat-controlled Congress.

Through all this fuming and ranting by you, wb, shrod, all the rest, not a single one of you has had the courage or the honesty or the ability to address the issues of "justice" or "morality" raised by your insistence that lifting the cap is the only just path. Nor have you addressed or even acknlowledged the actual facts of the situation.

Not one of you has had the guts to address the question of why, if the the liability cap is so evil and unjust, YOUR OWN PARTY sponsored the bill and voted unanimously for it, and never repealed it in 20 years.

Not one of you has had the guts to address why it is a moral imperative to undo the legislative balance that your own party enacted and impose ex post facto liability.

I asked you about the rule of law because it was your assertion that Republicans care nothing about the rule of law, which you claim is proven by the domestic violence committed by an unknown former depute WH counsel. (Great intellectual integrity on your part!)

And you've proven to have no intellectual courage or integrity once again. Ex post facto laws are barred because they are unjust and amount to arbitrary rule, the disregard for the rule of law. They are barred because we accept in our society that you don't change the rules after people have relied on them. You have no explanation how it can be justified here, let alone why it is a moral imperative.

And then there is wb's wild advocacy of criminal prosecution for purposes of extorting the money from BP, which proves beyond doubt his complete lack of principle or integrity.

Rule of law -- a concept you arbitrarily invoke when it suits your political interests but trash whenever it doesn't: No rule of law when it comes to illegal bribes using federal jobs, perjury by a Democrat President, the Constitution, ACORN fraud, changing election rules, illegal immigration, illegal foreign contributions, Black Panther voter intimidation, etc., etc.

Posted by: quarterback1 | June 12, 2010 7:03 AM | Report abuse

Seems to me that republicans supporting the destruct of the planet for short-term financial and political gain is a crime against humanity.

Posted by: rbaldwin2 | June 12, 2010 1:22 PM | Report abuse

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 
RSS Feed
Subscribe to The Post

© 2010 The Washington Post Company