Tweet
A group of pro-public option senators met with Harry Reid last night to discuss health care reform. Indications are that the possibility of using reconciliation to pass health care reform was indeed discussed.
Reconciliation is just one way to pass health care reform or the public option with only a simple majority. Reconciliation is not some highly unusual or controversial parliamentary trick. It is a common tool the get around the filibuster which has been repeatedly used by both sides on issues big and small. In the past 20 years, it has been used roughly a dozen times.
Reconciliation is only one possible solution. At any time, 50 senators plus the vice president could use the “nuclear option” to effectively eliminate the filibuster. The filibuster is a terrible perversion of the idea of allowing unrestricted debate in the Senate. The founders had no intention, that 200 years later, it would be warped into some gimmick used to permanently undermine the foundational constitutional power of the majority.
There is no need to compromise, there is no need to find 60 votes, and there is no need to win the support of Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, etc.; it is well within the power of Harry Reid and fifty other Democrats in caucus to pass at much better health care bill without some potentially terrible compromises. If the Senate Democrats don’t pass a decent health care bill–with a public option–it is because they did not want to, not because they were unable to. They decided that maintaining their special Senate privileges were more important.
Most of the Elected Democrats have talked a good game on health care. They have called it urgent and necessary. Some have called it the civil rights issue of our time. Others have said it is critical to avoiding personal and national bankruptcy. Many have pointed out that reform is need to save the lives thousands of Americans. This is all true.
But if the Senate waters down reform to the point of near uselessness to win the support of Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, and/or Olympia Snowe, you will know the Senate Democrats were all talk. What they really care more about than helping Americans desperately in need, is protecting the special rules and privileges of their club (anti-democratic rules that were only created relatively recently, I might add). If the Senate Democrats actually don’t do everything in their power to pass the best possible bill, it will be proof that protecting financial stability of the country, making the American workforce competitive around the world, helping middle class families, and saving the lives of ten of thousands of American people ranks a very distant second in their list of priorities. My question is how many thousands of lives and billions of dollars are they willing to throw away to maintain some of their terrible, anti-democratic, anti-constitutional, special Senate privileges?
10 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Yes. End the filibuster and, while we’re at it, let’s reform the Senate. It is anti-democratic as it is now constructed, giving Olympia Snowe the same power as Barbara Boxer, even though Boxer represents a load more folks.
Read this: http://www.populist.com/09.21.kalet.html
One step at a time. Simply getting our federal government to act in accordance to the constitution will be hard enough.
As I understand it the measure will have to be divided into two parts one of which could not go through under reconciliation. Regardless of this Reid is wasting time. A phone in campaign needs to be started to contact the real dems and insist on this procedure.
Jon, thanks for joining the party. Lots of other links suggesting the same or a similar thing: here, here, here, here, here, and here.
I think the bottom line is as you say, they think their individual sentaorial privileges are more important than a good hcr bill.
Huzzah and well said. The answer to your last question is “virtually no limit.” Some months ago Matt Taibbi said “now, this is about raw political power.” I believe there is no crime, no injustice you could elucidate that would bring a change in the business practice of the cartel or alter their political tactics. They have proven themselves to be invulnerable and they are really starting to act like it-such as hiking up rates right in the middle of this debate without regard to how it looks. What would it take to light a fire under Senate Dems to get rid of the filibuster?
On the public option, Ian Welsh has this to say:
Makes sense to me. I hope the whole thing goes down in flames.
I’m not so much in favor of ending the filibuster as I am of making it harder to deploy. It should involve some real inconvenience on the part of those who want to invoke it. As it stands, it’s simply too easy to merely threaten it to get the majority to cave in to minority demands.
Reconciliation is just one way to pass health care reform or the public option with only a simple majority. Reconciliation is not some highly unusual or controversial parliamentary trick. It is a common tool the get around the filibuster which has been repeatedly used by both sides on issues big and small. In the past 20 years,
I’m certainly no expert but doesn’t the use of reconciliation require each individual part to be budget neutral or to show revenue savings? For example an end to pre-ex doesn’t show revenue savings so it could be stripped out. Also a weak public option doesn’t show revenue savings so it could be stripped out over time. Basically this makes no reform at all (not that the current bills are really reform). Wouldn’t that be even MORE a colossal waste of time (as if this wasn’t already).
To pass through reconciliation the provision of the bill most only effect the budget positively or negatively. Most of the bill could be redesigned to pass through reconciliation. The weaker public option still scores as saving $25 billion so it is good to go.
For example half the people covered are by the expansion of Medicaid which can pass through reconciliation.
Plus instead of creating rules for a new exchange you could just open up the Federal employee exchange to people without insurance and only give them subsidies to buy insurance there.
Have you a link to Ian’s piece.
You might also want to look at this piece I did some time ago. It points up the difficulties in sustaining a PO which neither dominates the privates nor is dominated by them.