Health Care Reform in 60 Days Using Reconciliation?
Feb 20th, 2010 | 49 responses
Harry Reid is now saying that health care reform will be passed by April, using reconciliation:
Democrats will finish their health reform efforts within the next two months by using a majority-vote maneuver in the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) said.
Reid said that congressional Democrats would likely opt for a procedural tactic in the Senate allowing the upper chamber to make final changes to its healthcare bill with only a simple majority of senators, instead of the 60 it takes to normally end a filibuster.
My feeling is, I’ll believe it when I see it. Although I’ll admit, I’m encouraged to see that Paul Krugman is optimistic:
Well, this certainly sounds like it’s a go. That’s the style, Mr. President!
If this works out — I’d think the odds now are that it will, though it’s by no means a done deal — there will be endless debate about whether Anthem Blue Cross was wot did it. My sense is that a final push was always available, as long as the White House was willing to take a stand; Anthem may just have helped provide an occasion.
Jonathan Chait predicts a “conservative freak-out” in three, two, one… Wait, it’s already begun!
Ever since Scott Brown beat Martha Coakley, conservatives, with very few exceptions, have been convinced that health care reform is dead. Friday’s Charles Krauthammer column offers a good example of the prevailing sentiment: “Barack Obama’s two signature initiatives — cap-and-trade and health-care reform — lie in ruins.”
But the mustache-twirling bonhomie has started to give way to the realization that the legislative door to health care reform is wide open, and Democrats simply need to walk through it. By no means is it clear that they’ll succeed. But I’ve been waiting for conservatives, filled with hubris at having swept liberalism into the dustbin of history, to wake up to the fact that health care reform is very far from dead, and start to freak out.
Friday’s New York Times report that Obama plans to propose a bill on Monday signaled the start of the freakout. Former Bush administration aide Yuval Levin writes:
The apparent decision to push Obamacare through reconciliation gives new meaning to the term political suicide. It will almost certainly fail, for one thing. And it will persuade rank and file Democrats in Congress that their leaders have lost their minds, and so will badly divide the Democratic caucus and make for a very difficult year to come for them.
Which, of course, is transparent nonsense. Levin and others on the far right, including the Republican leadership in Congress, know perfectly well that it’s the opposite scenario — the defeat of health care reform — that would spell ruination for the Democrats’ electoral chances in 2010 and 2012. If they thought for one second that using reconciliation to pass health care reform legislation that Republicans have blocked since last March would be such poison for the Democrats, they would be doing everything possible to help the Democrats get it passed. That’s so obvious, it shouldn’t even need to be said.
49 Responses to “Health Care Reform in 60 Days Using Reconciliation?”
Maybe a little clarification on the Anthem affair is in order. (Although, you will probably say an editorial from the WSJ (with facts and figures) is just some more conservative lying.)
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB100014240527487…
I am for HCR, but we all need to keep an open mind and bring our thoughts and ideas to the table (looking left an right and then slightly upward).
I'll believe it when I see it. Personally, I don't think they have the balls to take full responsibility for anything.
Two immediate thoughts.
One is that while the GOP may be misusing the filibuster, the Democrats are probably misusing the reconciliation process if the Byrd rules are to be followed.
The second is that this makes the health care summit with the GOP a moot point. If the Democrats are planning on reconciliation anyway they can rightly be accused on negotiating in bad faith.
So, any critisism of the HCR is now 'freaking out'. I think the only ones who will freak out are the Dems in Congress who kind of like being in office, and will 'freak out' at being asked to support something that would cost so many of them their seats.
It always comes down to self-preservation. It is not a question of 'if' the Democrats could pass HCR, as they have had the votes. Their problem has been and still is the public has made it clear they do want this bill in this form at this time. Until there is either a different bill, or the Democrats can change the perception the public has about the current legislation, they will not get enough votes.
Well, it will be interesting to see if this gambit helps the Democrats in the mid-terms – my guess is that it won't.
Good. You never need a mandate to choose the best of two alternatives.
This is politics: they could be trying to shore up their position, likely, in fact. The blue dogs hold the key to this fight, and Bayh's announcement probably didn't lighten their mood.
If the Democrats are planning on reconciliation anyway they can rightly be accused of negotiating in bad faith.
Couldn't agree with you more on this. This is what the Dems have been planning all along while waving around the 'bipartisanship' flag and inviting Republicans to 'share ideas'. A transparent charade.
Far from the characterization in the OP, Republicans have been warning that the Dems planned to ram health care through since shortly after Massachussets. That is not to say it is wise, but it is hardly unexpected. This means at least 12 Democratic Senators will have to go back on their position opposed to reconciliation but that seems to be no big deal these days.
There may still be a few people around that believed the Democrats' promises to bring a higher form of politics into play. Clearly pulling this stunt should disabuse all but the most saturated of the Koolaid drinkers that this was not the case.
Reconciliation was used twice by the republicans during Bush II to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, so any freakouts about use of reconciliation by democrats would be blatant hypocrisy. That said, hypocrisy has become so deeply ingrained in the GOP it would hardly present a stumbling block. Will the dems have the cojones to use reconciliation? I hope so… but won't place any bets.
Reconciliation was used twice by the republicans during Bush II to pass tax cuts for the wealthy,
My understanding of the Byrd Rules, and I'm no expert, says that reconciliation can only be used for budgetary issues. There are elements within the proposed health care bills that are questionable whether they fit that definition. For instance the parliamentarian may decide that a national mandate to buy health insurance falls outside the definition of a budgetary issue and void that part of it.
The end result may be a moth-eaten plan.
DaGoat wrote: “Reconciliation was used twice by the republicans during Bush II to pass tax cuts for the wealthy,”
That covers half of JSpencer's sentence, “Reconciliation was used twice by the republicans during Bush II to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, so any freakouts about use of reconciliation by democrats would be blatant hypocrisy.”
Care to address the other half of what he said?
Unlimited amendments by the GOP if they try. They can hold up reconciliation until after the election. It would make an excellent election issue for the GOP as well, I think they actually would have a shot at taking both Houses if the democrats try this.
Even if the Dems passed it, I could see it going quickly to the Supreme Court and likely being stuck down.
The consensus on the Left and Right following the election of Sen. Scott Brown to fill the late Sen. Kennedy's seat was overwhelmingly that it was a referendum on health care, i.e. we don't want what Washington is dishing up. Rep. Ron Paul won the straw vote at CPAC! And in this penny-pinching mood of the electorate, Sen. Reid says” “D— the torpedoes, full speed ahead”? Nice sentiment, but a sense of timing is everything, and that he doesn't have.
“health care reform legislation that Republicans have blocked since last March”
How could a party that was in the minority in the House and at a filibuster proof minority in the Senate(yes, I know Franken wasn't declared a winner until later than March) be blocking something?
Re 2nd graf, no they aren't. They would be using reconciliation to pass only the parts of the bill that have to do with the budget.
Re 3rd graf, the health care summit was always a moot point. Republicans said the only health care reform deal they would accept would be no bill at all. They also made it clear that even if they nominally agreed to a compromise on the 25th, they would still threaten to filibuster and vote against it if the Democrats got 60 votes. Then they would vote against it again on a simple majority vote.
The reconciliation part really has no connection at all to the relevance of the summit.
That was not the consensus on the Left and Right, redbus.
If they succeed, it will.
Democrats have not “rammed health care through,” DaMav. They had to overcome multiple threatened filibusters and jump through literally dozens of procedural blockades put up by the Republicans in order to pass health care reform.
And by the way, they did pass it. Health care reform has been passed, DaMav. The House passed it, and the Senate passed it. It's passed.
Even if the Dems passed it, I could see it going quickly to the Supreme Court and likely being stuck down.
That's funny. On what grounds, Leonidas?
Must be one of those strange facts from Bizaro World.
They would have had not moderate democrats prevented the progressive wing from doing so. The centrist wing of the democratic party joined with the GOP in notable numbers to prevent the off centered wing from ramming it down the throat of the nation.
On what grounds, Leonidas?
The mandate where people are forced to buy coverage or be fined and/or imprisoned.
I missed that referendum on the consensus, Redbus.
HCR and insurance reform aren't the same. In refining the legislation President Obama needs to look at actual health care delivery as well as how service is reimbursed. There really are more issues involved than purchasing insurance coverage. The original bill did little to address the multiple factors that will greatly impact cost of health care services. Perhaps their idea is to do the insurance coverage and come back later, but I just don't think the public can “stomach” another HCR debate. That said, Sen. Reid needs to keep his big mouth shut until a package has been prepared for public and Congress. When the trigger is pulled for a vote, 50-50-1, we win, it doesn't matter. GITTER DONE! If it can't get done, were I in Obama's position, I'd kick Harry Reid's a_s back across the Mississippi River.
It was polled ad nauseum among Massachusetts voters post-election. There were lots of posts right here on TMV. It's what Scott Brown honed in on during his ads, how he would be a vote against health care, etc.
” The consensus on the Left and Right following the election of Sen. Scott Brown to fill the late Sen. Kennedy's seat was overwhelmingly that it was a referendum on health care, . . ”
Well, if you are talking only of Massachusetts why didn't you say so. Don't generalize for the Left and Right a bit more expansive. As far as Massachusetts is concerned, I trust you will study up a bit more on what is occurring in Massachusetts politics rather than plastering their vote with a simplistic design. You must have been watching FNS.
All these people saying how Mass. was a referendum – why do you think I even respect the vox populi, and why do you think I should?
I would suggest that there are three things at play here:
First, the D’s will make a lot of talk about using Senate rules to pass a bill about money via the reconciliation process.
Second, the president will talk on Monday, 22 Feb about health care, maybe propose a bill.
Third, there will be a meeting at the WH on the 25th of Feb when the big wigs of both parties will have a conversation with the President.
This is all theatre. It is for show. The results will also be three:
The Ds will come out of this looking very good.
The Rs will look as if they are trying to kill Grandma.
Some health care legislation will be passed, via the reconciliation process.
The only place that the Public Option is not wildly popular is in the Senate chamber. Once a Public Option is signed into law, the rest of the health insurance industry will fall like a house of cards.
Yes, it was polled ad nauseum among Massachusetts voters nationwide, and those polls showed that most of the Brown voters were driven by concerns about the economy. Voters were disgusted with the health care reform situation, but no poll that I know of indicated that voters did not want health care reform, or even that they did not want the particular health care reform bill that's in Congress. What they didn't want was Congress spending a bloomin' YEAR on health care reform, and having nothing to show for it. People want RESULTS, Redbus. They don't want to see one item on the agenda taking up all of Congress's time for months on end, which is quite reasonable, in my view.
Good points, Chief. Especially the last one. The idea that Americans hate the public option is the biggest canard in this whole debate.
Leonidas, the American Enterprise Institute to support a claim of unconstitutionality for mandated insurance coverage?
The arguments in that quote are pure garbage — amateurish, laughably ridiculous. But that's hardly a surprise, considering the source.
Can you possibly pick a source that does not have a massive, gigantic dog in this fight?
I would like to restate…
I love my public health care. It is effective…it is cheap…and everyone has access. What else could you ask for?
That covers half of JSpencer's sentence, “Reconciliation was used twice by the republicans during Bush II to pass tax cuts for the wealthy, so any freakouts about use of reconciliation by democrats would be blatant hypocrisy.”
Would you care to address the other half of his remark?
I don't believe I'm “freaking out” about anything. I doubt JSpencer wants to completely stifle calm discussion by characterizing it as freaking out.
To be honest I wasn't paying attention to how reconciliation was used during the Bush tax cuts. I am guessing that the parliamentarian ruled that the tax cuts fell under the definition of budgetary issues. My point now is that there are elements in the health care plans that will be difficult to characterize in that way.
[...] this should be good. Some lefty at The Moderate Voice: “I’ll believe it when I see it.” Ha, when you’ve lost The Moderate Voice. [...]
Kathy,
Polling also shows that the number one health care reform concern is cost. The unpopularity of the Democratic bills are due, in part, to the fact that they don't address that fundamental issue. Expanding coverage, while important, is a secondary concern to most Americans.
It will be interesting to see what the Democrats come up with that can pass reconciliation. My guess is that they'll only be able to make changes at the margins. Funding will be a big question-mark and I suspect they'll have to take money from other parts of government to fund whatever they're planning. Regardless, this is all academic until we see what's in the actual bill.
I would also like to add that my public health care pays my salary when I miss work because of illness. After 6 weeks it only pays 70%…only….
Curious to hear comments about this Poll:
Rasmussen Polls:
The Political Class, as is generally the case, doesn’t see eye-to-eye with Mainstream voters on the issue. While 75% of Mainstream voters oppose the plan, 87% of the Political Class favors it.
Eighty-five percent (85%) of the Political Class say it’s better to build on the current plan, but 74% of Mainstream voters say Congress should start all over again.
Eighty-two percent (82%) of the Political Class say Congress should pass health care reform before the midterm elections. Sixty-eight percent (68%) of Mainstream voters want to wait until after voters select a new Congress in November.
In my mind, it would be political suicide to go forth with health care reform.
Let's say they keep the section in the plan where they fine small business 8% for not providing insurance to their employees. If the average cost of insurance is $600 per person per month and you pay an employee $30,000 a year, do the math, (the fine is $200 a month) these employees will still be uninsured; however, it will also make these companies look more toward contract positions versus employees or reduce the number of employees they can afford to have on the payroll. It makes no sense.
It makes no sense.”
Bingo. One of the law of unintended consequences examples.
Which plan…I made a comment without actually reviewing the section you are talking about
No? Harry Reid just referenced the public option he put back in the bill sent to the White House. Where did he get the idea that there is a public option? No one has seen any of what is being proposed yet, but Harry came out and said he wants the public option pushes through the reconciliation process.
You will have to choose better grammar to get me to answer, no clue what your saying here.
Considering the source of the comment, ie., you, I'm not surprised that referencing past case history and founding American principles would get such a cold reception. Care to actually address the arguments put forth or just to ad hom in a amateurish, laughably ridiculous manner?
You mean non Americans? I really don't care what they, or non taxpayers think, and wont bother to check.
Then–since I am a tax-paying American–you must care what I think: I love living in a country that has a national health plan. It is effective…it is cheap…and everyone–even the Americans living here–has access.
The healthcare situation in the US is a disgrace throughout the rest of the developed world. My Canadian friends, my British friends, My New Zealander and Australian friends, my Korean and my Japanese friends all wonder why the Americans allow a situation where their fellow citizens can go bankrupt from an illness or a child could die of a toothache. I try to explain FUIGM to them, but I haven't had much success.
You will have to choose better grammar to get me to answer, no clue what your saying here.
I am questioning your good faith, fairness, and common sense in choosing the American Enterprise Institute to support your claim that mandated insurance coverage is unconstitutional.
Better now?
Care to actually address the arguments put forth….
No, why on earth should I? If you cannot be bothered to provide a reasonably objective, fair, nonpartisan analysis to back up your point, why would you expect me to take the time to address the arguments put forth by an organization that is ideologically far right and adamantly opposed to any meaningful health care reform?
If you want to be taken seriously you will have to do better.
If you want me to take you seriously, you will have to provide a source to back up your claims about the constitutionality of mandated health insurance that is not ideologically committed to the very proposition you are trying to back up.
OK, I'll reply to you and KK at the same time –
First, I never watch Fox News, because I live in an area that doesn't carry it. I'm a CNN.com kind of guy, and often look at BBCNews.com.
Secondly, Sen. Brown campaigned loudly and openly in the last two weeks of the campaign against health care, at least as it was being proposed by Washington…or did you miss that detail?
Finally, and more constructively, I hope…
Both Dems and the GOP have agreed through the health care debate that Medicare – for all its faults – is a good program. Now experts tell us it will be bankrupt in seven years. Why doesn't President Obama pivot on this issue, and say that now is the time to fix Medicare? Combine that with the popular (and this will cost you nothing) fixes of the overall system, such as striking down the pre-existing condition clause, and guaranteeing portability of insurance between employers? There's a MODEST bill that most people can agree on, and if the so-called “party of no” goes against it, then let them hang in the next elections.
You are yet to provide the evidence for your statement “The consensus on the Left and Right following the election of Sen. Scott Brown to fill the late Sen. Kennedy's seat was overwhelmingly that it was a referendum on health care,. . . ” Exit polls are notoriously unreliable. What specifically about health care are you alleging they were voting on? How do you jump from what Scott Brown was yapping about to a generalization about a consensus on the left and right? A left and right, presumably, nationally based. And what about the center? What was their consensus or did you miss that detail?
Wagglebutll –
No reply to Sen. Brown's laser focus on healthcare in his ads? So, that had nothing to do with it?
No reply on my attempt to move the conversation forward? Nothing on Medicare? Too bad. It needs fixing.
As for my point about the Left/Right consensus, I concede that my claim may have been too broad. However, you can find statements in the general vicinity of mine from mainstream news sources at the time, like this line from Stephanie Condon of CBS News on January 20:
.
Read the whole article here.. And yes, she mentions exit polls. That's fine by me.
Okay, I just read the plan put out today. It does not address tort reform AT ALL – and as you people who live in countries that have national health care know – without malpractice limits, you cannot have healthcare reform! That is one of the reasons our healthcare costs are just about double any one elses. Malpractice makes up a good portion of a doctors expenses.
Yes, there are other issues that they do actually address, but you have to have tort reform!!!!