Congress might actually pass bipartisan healthcare reform?

Strange news from the New York Times: dogs and cats living together? Red Sox and Yankees fans being civil to one another? No, even weirder:

Quote:

WASHINGTON — The deal is as politically remarkable as it is substantive: a long-term plan to finance health care for older Americans, pay doctors who accept Medicare and extend popular health care programs for children and the poor. It was cobbled together by none other than House Speaker John A. Boehner and Representative Nancy Pelosi, the leader of House Democrats, who rarely agree on anything, with the apparent blessing of a majority of their respective members. . . . “This is what we could get done in the House,” Ms. Pelosi said on Tuesday. “I’m very proud of the product.” . . . For years, Congress has had to settle for temporary patches to prevent deep cuts in Medicare payments to doctors, like a 21 percent cut scheduled to take effect April 1 if Congress does not intervene. The House measure would permanently remove the threat of such cuts, and would require some higher-income Medicare beneficiaries to pay higher premiums, a change Republicans hail as a major reform. It also would renew the popular Children’s Health Insurance Program and provide $7.2 billion for community health centers — crucial to both rural and urban areas where doctors are scarce — over two years. The compromise between Mr. Boehner and Ms. Pelosi had something for everyone to dislike. Democrats for the most part were not happy about the premium increases and the fact that the children’s health program extension lasts two years rather than four. And some Republicans were displeased that over half the cost of the package, which is estimated to total $200 billion over 10 years, was not paid for.

A bipartisan compromise? A permanent fix for the so-called "doc fix"?

Of course, nothing is ever quite so simple though.

Quote:

Then along came a surprising impediment: Senator Harry Reid of Nevada, the minority leader, along with other Senate Democrats, objected to abortion restrictions in the bill and limits to an extension of a health insurance program for children. They have begun to undermine what was poised to be a sweeping bipartisan solution to several policy problems that have long vexed Congress.

Thanks Harry Reid! Why do you want to undermine "a sweeping bipartisan solution to several policy problems that have long vexed Congress"? Because Republicans were mean when you were in the majority and now you want to pay them back? If it's OK with Nancy Pelosi (and House Democrats), how bad could it be?

Quote:

Mr. Reid is using his power to filibuster bills and toss up chaff — a role Senate Republicans enjoyed for several years — to push back on anything Mr. McConnell may wish to accomplish.

OK, to be fair, let's look at their stated reasons for opposing it. One of the reasons Reid and Feinstein give for opposing it is that it supposedly places new restrictions on abortion access. But let's examine that:

Quote:

Abortion rights advocates in the House also pushed back on the idea that the measure imposes additional restrictions. “We will be supporting this bipartisan compromise,” said Representative Louise M. Slaughter, Democrat of New York, and Representative Diana DeGette, Democrat of Colorado, in a joint statement. “And we encourage other members of the Pro-Choice Caucus to do the same.”

Of course, to be sure, Senate Republicans are doing their own kinds of obstruction at the same time, like holding up Obama's nominee for Attorney General to replace Holder. But two wrongs don't make a right.

via International Skeptics Forum http://ift.tt/1CphYjv