The Hill tries to game out the next steps in the Senate, but doesn’t really come up with any definitive conclusions.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), once in polite disagreement over the idea of a public option component in healthcare legislation, are approaching a breaking point over the issue.
Reid and Baucus have staked out opposing positions on the central question of a government role in health reform — Reid has consistently stood in favor, but Baucus has consistently said the idea doesn’t have enough Senate support.
Instead, Baucus has inserted insurance co-operatives into the bill that is scheduled for a final vote on Tuesday.
Now, let me ask you this question. The co-operatives…how many votes are there for the co-operatives as a stand-alone measure? We know Kent Conrad is in love with the idea. Max Baucus put the measure in his bill as a way to attract the support of skeptics on his committee like Blanche Lincoln, Tom Carper, and Bill Nelson. But Carper and Nelson voted for Schumer’s version of the public option. Even in Baucus’s case, he originally included a public option in his bill before he realized that he couldn’t pass it through the committee. So, we know that there are really only two votes on the Finance Committee in favor of the co-ops. The White House has never signaled any enthusiasm for co-ops. Harry Reid has remained steadfast in his support of a public option, even as he has played around with the idea of using a trigger mechanism.
It’s a good bet that senators like Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and Evan Bayh prefer co-ops to a public option. But, I can’t think of too many senators beyond them. So, the co-ops have the support of about five or six senators. They don’t seem to have any constituency in the House. Could they prevail with such lukewarm support? Will the threat of a Democratic-aided filibuster make Harry Reid adopt the Finance bill as the base bill? I don’t think so.
On the other hand, I don’t think he can just throw the Finance bill away and use the HELP bill. If he’s going to include HELP’s public option, he’s going to have to compromise in other areas. I don’t think any members of the Democratic caucus want to filibuster, even though a few are threatening to do so as a negotiating ploy. They need to be able to hold something up as a concession they have won in return for their vote for cloture. It may be that Labor has to take one on the chin and see their Cadillac health care plans get taxed. It may be that the public option will not have its reimbursement rates tied to Medicare. Perhaps the fees on medical device manufacturers will have to be lowered or dropped. I can’t predict right now which concessions will be made. I do predict, however, that this fellow is wrong:
A Democratic Senate source downplayed any differences, saying that Reid, Baucus and Harkin cooperate well but that the Finance Committee bill is the only legislation that can pass the Senate.
“President Obama clearly articulated his blueprint in his speech, and everyone knows Finance has the bulk of the bill that reflects that blueprint,” the source said. “Everyone, including the White House, knows the Finance bill is the only bill that’s paid for and can pass. In short, the White House wants a win, and using the bulk of the Baucus bill is the playbook to get the ‘W.’ “
I don’t think the Finance bill is popular with more than five or six senators. I don’t think it can pass the Senate, and it’s even less likely to pass the House. Unless the Republicans are willing to join with the five or six Democratic senators, I don’t see it having any chance.
I could be wrong, but I suspect Reid is going to make that Democratic senate source play a game of chicken. Who will leap out of the way first?
Can’t Harry Reid change the membership of the committee? That seems to be the next move. Since it’s so obvious some members are beholden to the insurance industry, doesn’t Reid have the power to say hey, you had your chance, you failed, and then reconstitute the committee?
your comment on reid being useful, which he’s not. and if you expect him to bring a good bill to the given his history and recent comments from his office, then you are far more trusting than i am.
as for me, i am not weighing in on anything until I see what gets sent into and out of commerce, at which point i expect to be saying “see i told you so”.
I will be very happy to be proved a pessimist and to be proved wrong.
Where did I suggest I trusted him? I was just asking if he HAD that power.
It would be up to US to make him use it. I just don’t know if there’s a rule that you have to leave committees as constituted for x amount of time, etc.
I guess it read as if you expected him to exercise this kind of power (if he had it, and i don’t know that he does).
in any event, harry reid is just as beholden to the insurance industry as anyone else. open secrets has the inurance industry as the #3 contributor to his leadership PAC. and they’re number 6 on his campaign committee.
monkey on a string…
No, he doesn’t have that power.
The membership and ratio of committees is set in an organizational bill in each new Congress. Changing it requires unanimous consent or 60 votes. Of course, we’ve seen people switch committees since then. Michael Bennet just moved off Homeland Security and onto HELP, while Kirk took over that Homeland Security seat. But no one objected to that.
Let’s take a real world example. Lieberman was allowed to keep his Homeland Security chair and his chair of an Armed Services subcommittee. To change that, we’d have to have 60 votes. Since Lieberman wouldn’t be one of those 60, we;d need at least one Republican to join in in punishing Lieberman. On the other hand, if he doesn’t vote for cloture on the health care bill, it’s unlikely that the Democrats will allow him to keep his chairs in the next Congress. I’m pretty sure that the condition for letting him keep his chairs in this Congress was that he would give the president his vote on procedural matters.
Btw – have you guys seen Dylan Ratigan on MSNBC’s Morning Meeting show on this issue? He’s far more outspoken than Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddow and REALLY deserves our support. Please watch and tell your friends to watch. He’s out there taking some amazing chances on our behalf. Let’s support his efforts.
Good call. What’s even more interesting is that he jumped to MSNBC from CNBC, where he must have been going nuts having to take orders from the “free-market” fundies that control that joint.
In any case, hims meme about “corporate capitalism” == using government to enrich the corporations and help them oppress the working people is amazing to hear, and has the unmistakable ring of truth. He could become pivotal in changing the terms of the ongoing debate. You’re right — he deserves our enthusiastic support. I’m sure the attacks will come hot and heavy because he steps up and challenges some really basic illusions.
you mean “corporate communism,” right? That corporations don’t want choice, and that’s the essence of communism. Right now we have insurance industry control – one-party control – over the health care debate.
I wish the blogosphere would pick up that meme. I think it will open conservative brains.
I caught part of his show this morning and thought his “Corporate Communism” rhetoric regarding the finance and insurance industries was brilliant and could also be applied to the oil and energy industries. He explained that other industries (like retail and manufacturing) which actually have to compete have had to “adapt” and change their ways or fail as the economic environment has changed. But not these industries, who leave consumers with nowhere else to go but to their rigged markets where all of the participants collude and kill any form of competition with the help of Washington.
Liberal politicians and strategists should take note. He’s on to something here.
Yup. Blew the punch line — sigh. I guess the “corporate communism” meme was too startling to stay in my so-called mind. In any case, it’s the best two-word battle cry I’ve heard in a long time. We need to spread it — and support its author, who will be under tremendous attack, I’m sure.
I heard someone once say that they privatize profits while socializing losses – that needs to be emphasized in the discussion as well.
That was true for the Wall Street bailouts. But the health insurance industry never loses money and never misses their earnings targets, which increase something like 20% each year in order to keep Wall Street analysts happy. The health insurance industry just raises rates and denies care to make up for all the pesky “medical losses” (actual valid patient claims that they can’t weasel out of.)
And since they’re all colluding with each other, there may has only be one unregulated monopoly. You have no where else to turn for coverage and you’re forced to pay whatever they want. That’s why I thought “Corporate Communism” was such an apt choice of words. Under communism, everyone’s stuck with the same crappy system and there’s no incentive to compete to lower costs or to make the consumer’s experience any better.
Yes, support Dylan’s campaign of tagging the corporate/financial Empire with the catchy phrase “Corporate Communism” — and here’s why it WILL work:
http://www.opednews.com/populum/diarypage.php?did=14528
Alan