Tweet
Harry Reid still has the ability to pass health care reform using reconciliation. Bills passed using reconciliation can’t be filibustered, so they only require a simple majority to pass the Senate. The biggest problem with using reconciliation is the Byrd rule.(brief summary and full CRS report) The Byrd rule requires that only provisions related to budget (those that spend, save, or take in money) can be passed using reconciliation. If the Senate Parliamentarian rules that a provision is an “extraneous matter,” it can be removed from the bill by a point of order. Through my research on the matter, I’ve come to two important conclusions: I’m 90% confident a properly designed public option could pass using reconciliation, and I’m 95% confident that the Stupak anti-abortion amendment could not.
There are several reasons a properly designed public option could survive the Byrd rule. First, the bill saves money. Even the weaker, negotiated rates public option would still reduce the cost of reform to the federal government by roughly $25 billion, according to the CBO. Second, the public option would bring in and pay out large quantities of money in the form of premiums and provider reimbursements. This would all be done in a deficit neutral way, but it would still be related to the budget. If the first two reasons are not good enough to protect the public option from the Byrd rule, other changes could be made. The bill could require the public option to pay the federal government a small profit (i.e. run a surplus) in the first few years. The overall bill could also be slightly rewritten to base tax credits on the cost of premiums for the public option. The important thing is there are ways to get a public option passed using reconciliation.
By the same token, the Stupak amendment would definitely run afoul of the Byrd rule. This rule dealing with abortion is clearly an “extraneous matter” and the Parliamentarian would rule is as such. It violates the first part of the Byrd rule because it does “not produce a change in outlays or revenues.” I see almost no way the Stupak amendment could remain in a bill passed using reconciliation.
There was already good reason for progressives to demand that reconciliation be used. It would protect the public option from the threats of filibuster by Joe Lieberman. It would also not require the public option to be watered down with opt-outs, opt-ins, or other stupid provisions. Thanks to Bart Stupak (D-Mich.) the Democratic base just gained another reasons to push for reconciliation. Remember, if a bill is passed under regular order that does not contain a real public option but contains the Stupak amendment, it is because Harry Reid refused to use reconciliation.
22 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
They used it to pass the climate bill, they sure as hell can use it now!
And Lieberman can go pound salt.
And Harry Reid is going to use Reconciliation to get a decent health care bill? Obama and the Democratic leadership would seem to be satisfied with a piece of shit legislation that they can claim as historic and Reid’s going to challenge this? I guess we can dream.
Jon,
It’s my understanding that the Senate can vote on a bill without a public option (so that Lieberman won’t filibuster) and without the Stupak Amendment. After it passes and the House and Senate versions are combined in committee, the public option can be included and the Stupak Amendment can be excluded before the bill goes to President Obama for signing.
That’s my understanding of how it works, and this approach would make for a stronger bill than by using the budget reconciliation procedure. What do you think?
I’m afraid you’re in for a massive disillusionment.
Conference is where the absolute worst of the back-room dealings and sellouts occur, especially when the bills are as disparate as the House and Senate HCR bills are sure to be. And by the time anyone realizes that a backstab has occurred (again) the sellout is a done deal and the bill is on its way to both chambers for a final vote… and is almost unstoppable.
The idea that a fairy-tale ending will happen if we all just sit on our hands and fart “Yankee Doodle” while the Dem leadership handled the problems is complete and utter BS designed to silence critics until it’s too late.
Bills almost never get better in conference, and blithely ignoring the presence and influence of corporate interests in the outcome of the conference will yield only catastrophe… yet again.
Zapkitty is right. It is possible in theory but in practice conference is where good ideas go to be put down.
Unless there is mobilization going on which constrains the conference.
it is a very bad bill. it deserves to be defeated.
And by the time anyone realizes that a backstab has occurred (again) the sellout is a done deal and the bill is on its way to both chambers for a final vote… and is almost unstoppable.
there is no robust public option. the best thing we could do is kill this sucker.
I’m not sure why the Byrd rule would bar killing the Stupak Amendment on the budgetary grounds. It has major budgetary implications and, in fact, will cost millions more.
Here’s why.
Women with an unexpected and unwanted pregnancy will be left with one of two choices under Stupak. They can either pay for an abortion out of their own pocket (roughly $500-$1000) or they can receive full coverage under the policies offered under exchanges, or subsidised by the Feds, or, if they qualify, the public option. All the costs related to a pregnancy total over $20K. But it will be fully covered. Furthermore there is the prospect of maternal leave, unemployment, adoption and/or welfare…depending on the situation.
So, given the choice of putting down a cool thou, that simply may not be affordable…or having the kid on the taxpayers ticket (throw in some much more easily digested anti-choice rhetoric from the right-wing and other hindrances) and I’d expect many women to take option #2.
That means there will be expenditures of $20K+ vs. $1K. For every individual coerced economically. If that’s 100,000 births a year the difference is $1.9 billion. Over a decade it’s a difference of almost $20 billion. That’s just for pre-natal, partuition, and immediate post-partum care without complications. Add on more for adoption subsidies, foster parent support, the loss of education and productivity of the mother, her welfare or unemployment costs, the business expense of her maternity leave, etc. etc.
That is not at all how the CBO works.
Let Leiberman filibuster. How much worse can this get anyway? At best Leiberman and his friends will get publicity as the anti-democrat traitor he is. Call his bluff – will he really go to the end of the road and totally kill the entire project?? If I’m wrong and he really kills it, what have we lost at this point anyway? Let it be his fault that the people won’t even get the crumbs that are left in this sorry bill.
OFF TOPIC: Can someone explain why we are not driving a big push for the “Public Option” be available to everyone?? Between me (healthy) and my employer we pay about $6000 a yr in health care costs. I would chose to put that money into a publicly accountable public plan. That’s a $6000 windfall to the public plan – just from little old me!
Keeping healthy working people out of the plan seems like a way to ensure it is underfunded to the point of failure. WHAT’S THE DEAL? and why aren’t we fighting for a PUBLIC OPTION AVAILABLE TO ALL???
Access can be expanded to the public option without an act of Congress and solely by a state level decision or by the Secretary of HHS. After it exists opening it up will also be a much easier battle.
http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2009/10/29/the-ever-expanding-exchange-and-how-everyone-could-get-the-choice-of-the-public-option/
Headline at msn.com based on an article at MSNBC stating ” A government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.” The article quotes only Lindsey Graham, Joe Lieberman and Mary Landrieu. Who knew these were the moderate Democrats? Amazing.
There is also the slight possibility that BO will stop listening to his owners and veto any bill that contains the misogynous Stupak Amendment. I mean, isn’t about time that he does what he promised as in “No one will loose their health insurance.”?
Time for Harry Reid to shit or get off the pot.
Thanks for the useful links. Hadn’t found much other discussion of this.
But it seems high risk to act in the hope that the PO will be expanded after the fact. When public pressure is down, and we are back to doing our day jobs instead of sneaking time to respond to action alerts, AHIP will still be on the job 24/7, doing everything they can to prevent expansion of access to the PO. Doing everything they can to make sure that my health $$ go to their cartel, not to a public plan.
I think the difference is whether the 12 million signed up for the public option will like it. If they like it there will be some real pressure. More importantly if it decrease cost on the Exchange the finance pressure for small and midsize businesses to use it will be huge. Say what you will about the lobbying power of AHIP. If bulk of businesses in the 50-300 employee range start seeing it as a way to cut 10% off the cost of their health insurance they will roll AHIP so fast. AHIP has nothing on the collect power of midsize business.
This is very promising strategy.
As previous thread made clear, the House bill has now become intolerable. Time to kill it unless Stupak is taken out and robust public option is put back in. For a moment I felt guilty that I didn’t know Stupak was about to fuck up abortion rights, but then I realized he & the Catholic bishops kept it secret until the last second. We were clearly outplayed on this one. We never had a chance to whip it or do a money bomb to prove our determination.
P.S. I just called Stupak’s office to let them know they are going to suffer serious payback for abusing their power in gutting abortion rights. Staffer did not “scream” or accuse me of “yelling,” so they have apparently decided to suck it up and take the criticism. His main rebuttal to my claim this was done secretly in conspiracy with Catholic bishops was that Stupak offered his amendment in committee, said he would bring it up again on the floor, and had support of House leadership to do so. He didn’t deny they conspired with the bishops, didn’t seem fazed that the Committee REJECTED it, and was silent when I told him we blame House leadership as much as Stupak for the last-minute, secret play in Rules Committee. I told him passing Stupak was a major mistake for the party and both supporters of Stupak & Dem. party leadership will see payback. He said he would pass it along to the Congressman.
Jon,
I’m not seeing it. Speak slowly :) At what point does Reid need to invoke reconciliation? The Senate hurdles ahead as outlined by Chris Bowers: “First, on the cloture vote to bring the bill to the floor for debate and amendment. Second, on the cloture vote to end that debate and bring up a floor vote on the overall bill. Third, on the cloture vote to end debate and bring up a floor vote on the overall health care bill after the health care bill is returned from conference”.
Interesting. This baby’s going to reconciliation – unfortunately I do believe Lieberman and Nelson and a few others will filibuster. If that caused us to lose the Stupak amendment, all the better.
Good article. I think saving the public option is essential. It would clearly serve many and work well with the right model. This proves it: http://cli.gs/23yYaM/
Right. But to make a difference here you’ve got to get 2 million people to Washington to tear up the town, and why would they do that? To get the House bill, without Stupak passed? It was a POS before Stupak changed things.
You want to get 2 million people to Washington to change things? Tell them that if they come, the Senate will pass Medicare for All and defend it in Conference, if they come, but only if they come.