Harry Reid has sent a rather muscular letter to Minority Leader Mitch McConnell justifying the use of budget reconciliation rules to pass heath care reform. Meanwhile, the Washington Post continues to provide a platform for misleading agitprop against reform from so-called Democrats (in this case, former Democratic pollsters Pat Caddell and Doug Schoen). Jonathan Chait explains that Schoen and Caddell ceased being supportive of the Democratic Party long ago, but then finishes with a thud.
In short, Schoen and Caddell’s professed Democratic self-identification, to the extent that it would be interpreted as some sympathy for the party’s electoral success and broad policy goals, seems highly misleading. Their analysis of public opinion on health care likewise appears to be an outgrowth of their ideological opposition rather than a fair-minded read of the data. Especially given that Schoen made a virtually identical argument in a national newspaper just three days earlier, it’s hard to figure out what this op-ed is doing in the Washington Post.
No, it’s not hard to figure out what that op-ed is doing in the Washington Post. It’s not hard to figure out at all.
In other news, the Senate parliamentarian has apparently ruled that reconciliation language must change existing, not prospective, laws. That means that the House must pass and the president must sign the Senate bill before the reconciliation bill can be considered germane. I think I’ve got that right, but the parliamentary maneuvering is complicated and fluid at the moment. There is some talk of the House crafting a special rule that would allow them to consider the Senate bill as passed once they vote on the reconciliation part of it, thereby avoiding having two separate roll call votes.
Update [2010-3-12 10:14:48 by BooMan]: Maybe I haven’t got that right.
There seems to be a consensus that a public option, if passed by amendment in the Senate, would kill the reform effort, but no one can explain precisely why that is the case. My assumption is that it would be a change that the House would not approve. On the surface, this is a strange argument which may be why no one is making it explicitly. After all, the House already passed a bill with a public option. But, with the death of John Murtha, the resignations of Robert Wexler and Neil Abercrombie, and the defections of Joseph Cao and Bart Stupak over abortion language, it’s not clear that the House can pass a public option again. If that’s the case, I’d like to see someone say so in a straightforward and convincing manner. If the public option is offered as an amendment in the Senate and it fails, it won’t do any mischief. If it is going to scuttle a deal with the House, I’m sure plenty of Republicans will be willing to vote for it.
No, no you don’t want “someone say so in a straightforward and convincing manner.” I have seen both Rockefellor & Harkin do just that, but progressives proceeded with a public option campaign anyway. If it kills reform, it is all on you guys and Jane & Grover will be forever grateful to you.
Since the antiabortion folks won’t vote for the bill, the Speaker has to hit people who voted no because of the public option the first time. That is as simple as I can make it for you.
But Harkin and Rockefeller never explain which chamber would be the problem. Presumably, it would be the House, but they aren’t whips in the House.
If you really think Jane is the problem, then i’ll chip in $5 to buy you a clue. re: The public option. It’s like EFCA all over again. Spineless cowards in D.C. supported it as long as it had no chance to pass. Now that it has a chance to pass, they back away. That’s nothing Jane has anything to do with.
I just got off the phone with durbin’s office, and they were incoherent. first they said that no amendments could be offered to the bill. But I pointed out that Sanders plans to tack it on, and referenced the muscular letter, in which reid wrote:
…and they changed the subject to Durbin’s support for a public option. They also said it’s a miscommunication and that there’s a letter explainign things at Huffington, where i just found out pelosi WON’T include a public option in the bill.
i don’t get this: if there’s a majority in the senate for a PO (and they keep saying there is) and a majority in the House for a PO (and they say there is), what is the fucking problem here?
The problem seems to be a bunch of folks who are for the public option as long as there is no chance of it actually passing and who have been trying to strangle it in the crib in a backroom for at least seven months. And they want to stay anonymous.
So we don’t know who they are and primary them.
And we don’t know who they are; so everyone is a suspect no matter what their conservative, Blue Dog, moderate, New Democrat, liberal, or progressive histories.
“we don’t know who they are and primary them.
And we don’t know who they are; so everyone is a suspect no matter what their conservative, Blue Dog, moderate, New Democrat, liberal, or progressive histories. “
…which perfectly encapsulates the reasons my wallet is closed, why i’m not knocking on doors, and why I will probably write in candidates.
A few months ago, Booman criticized me for not having any faith in the system:
Anyone still believe in our system of government? I don’t.
I’d take whatever the parliamentarian is saying with a grain of salt. It’s just some claims being made by the Republican party to stir up trouble. Second, I don’t care what he says; there’s precedent for firing them if they don’t go along with the majority party.
And about the PO: the argument isn’t that it could die in the House, the argument is that they want to stiff-arm as many amendments from Republicans as possible, and this impedes the process. In which case I say: tough shit. I’m not even a strong supporter of the public option, but I’d rather have it than not, and I especially want to see who is a coward and who is not.
Durbin can bite me, as Steve M. lays out:
Like Steve, I don’t buy it.
I know it’s a minority opinion here, but I really think we’d get a stronger public option if it happens later. There are a lot of moving parts to this thing already, and adding another just makes passage of the base bill less likely.
I’d really prefer to open up Medicare, with reimbursement rates set at +5% for those under 65, and premiums set at cost. It’s the simplest option and the easiest to sell.
Any public option they give us now is going to be substantially weaker than that. Once we create a new bureaucracy (instead of adding to Medicare), it will never go away… and the system will have one more needless complication thrown in.
Medicare for anyone. Simple concept. Different bill.
“I really think we’d get a stronger public option if it happens later…”
I’m in that minority along with you, Rachel. If HCR passes, we’re on a roll. Nothing suceeds like success.
This is by no means the first time I’ve agreed with a comment of yours, just the first time I’ve said so …
l think that’s a fair assessment of the situation as it now stands, and grayson’s bill, as a stand alone measure would accomplish the “medicare for anyone” that would, in a perfect world, be the best solution…short of single payer.
that aside, the caveat is that if you think “later” means the foreseeable future, it’s my opinion that you’re sadly mistaken. the most likely outcome is that whatever passes as health
careinsurance reform, will be touted as the absolute best thing since social security, and now we really don’t have time to tweak it because we really have to get serious about the economy, jobs, and blah, blah, blah.ergo, what isn’t in there now, will not even be on the agenda until after the 2012 elections, if then.
that’s the real danger here. a mandate to purchase from the insurance co’s coupled with some subsidies, and viola, the party’s angst over the po is put behind it.
the b.s. about it scuttling the whole package is just that, a heaping pile. especially in light of this:
Democrats move toward grouping health reform with student-aid bill
not that it isn’t a good bill, but really, wtf’s it got to do with hcr/hir? and, it’s got just as much chance of derailing the process as a p.o. proposal. l say put the public option up as an amendment, vote it up or down, and expose the spineless sycophants and get their names on record prior to the 2010 midterms.
The student aid bill is written and ready to go. It already passed the House, and it’s pretty easy to count which Senators will keep it from getting by a filibuster.
In other words, it’s an easy thing to bundle.
If Pelosi or Reid tries to add a public option now, they’d still need to negotiate all the details: Reimbursement, premiums, eligibility, start time, etc. Once they had a compromise, they’d need one or more CBO scores.
And at the end of all that, what we’re most likely to get is reimbursement rates negotiated with providers, premiums at or above the industry, very limited eligibility, and a start time in 2014. IMO, the delay and the risk aren’t worth it.
I don’t think it will take 20 years to achieve Medicare expansion once this bill is in place. The insurance industry will (continue to) shoot themselves in the foot by raising rates and finding excuses not to cover people. The pressure will keep building. And this first reform will be a foundation for that one to build on.
Here’s is my understanding, which might be entirely off.
The House can include the public option in its reconciliation package if it’s got the votes to do that. The idea then is that the Senate would pass the reconciliation package straight up with no amendments. There are a lot of questions as to whether the House will do this, given the votes they have and given the Stupak amendment dustup again – which I am beginning to see a a tactical move to prevent the House from having a roll call vote on the public option (which would probably pass).
On the Senate side, you have a letter circulating asking for an up-or-down vote on the public option. Presumably this is regardless of the method which it comes to the floor. Because of the filibuster, the only way it can come to the floor is under reconciliation rules. But if the Senate succeeds in amending the reconciliation + Senate bill, it will have to go back to the House for concurrence or hash it out in a joint committee (also confusingly called reconciliation). I think that is the risk Harkin is talking about.
Then you might have the situation in which 51+ Senators signed Bennet’s letter but procedurally there was not a good way to convert that support of the public option into law in the current Senate + reconciliation sidecar strategy. I’m not sure what the politics of that would be — besides very interesting.
That’s the concern I’ve seen as well. The risk is that a modified Senate bill with the Senate’s abortion language won’t pass together with a public option. What I haven’t seen is names of Reps who would vote for this without a public option but not with one.
Regardless, though, I think the right way to go is the expansion of Medicare. And at this point, I just want the base bill + reconciliation fix passed as soon as possible.
It would be nice to get some names on the record instead of killing popular provisions in backroom deals.