One the the greatest myths you will hear from senators is that reconciliation will not work for health care reform. This myth is pure nonsense, just like the myth that they need 60 votes (something that could be changed any time by 50 senators and the vice president, but that is another story).
The argument against using reconciliation to pass health care reform is that provisions not related to the budget could be removed by the Byrd rule. There are two big problems with this argument.
First, the argument ignores that reconciliation would still protect the guts of reform. For example, half of the people who will gain insurance (roughly 15 million) will get insurance because of the expansion of Medicaid. Expanding Medicaid is completely doable with reconciliation.
Expanding Medicaid, Medicare buy-in, the public option, closing the Medicare doughnut hole, taxes, affordability tax credits, cost control reforms for Medicare and Medicaid, and more can all be done with reconciliation. These are all the most difficult parts of reform.
Secondly, the argument that reconciliation could strip out the important insurance regulations is very weak. Technically, provisions not related to the budget can be removed by the Byrd rule, and that includes the important new insurance regulations (ban on pre-existing conditions, community rating, lifetime limits, etc.), but there is a very important caveat: these provisions will only be removed if they fail to get 60 votes to wave the Byrd rule for those provisions.
I dare all 40 Republicans plus one conservative Democrat to vote for a stand-alone provisions that would let insurance companies continue to exclude people for having pre-existing conditions. If they are foolish enough to vote against extremely popular insurance regulation as stand-alone provisions they will face the mother of all attacked ads in 2010.
I suspect that there will only be a very narrow set of provisions that don’t violate the Byrd rule, and would not get 60 votes to wave the Byrd rule. It is possible the Republicans will vote “no” on everything related to reconciliation as a protest against reform. Even if the Republicans do unite to commit political suicide by voting against a wavier of the Byrd rule for the extremely popular insurance regulations, that is only a temporary set back. The insurance regulations can be added as a whole or piecemeal to some big omnibus defense bill.
This is not a new strategy. Earlier this year, an expansion of hate crime legislation was passed by adding it to a massive defense authorization bill. I simply can’t imagine anyone taking down a huge defense authorization bill because it contained a very popular regulation stopping recession or lifetime caps on coverage.
The greatest myth being told in Washington right now is that reconciliation could not produce a good health care bill. That is pure nonsense. Even if the Byrd rule strips some important provisions from this bill, there are plenty of ways to get those provisions passed into law using other hardball tactics. Don’t buy Democrats’ lame excuses for not doing everything they can to get the best bill possible. Just because they don’t want to pass a good health care reform bill using reconciliation doesn’t mean they couldn’t.



72 Comments








Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL Action
Well Happy Holidays to all of us. Barack Obama has just sold us down the river. It hurts — really hurts — to admit it, but this Chicago hustler has taken our good hearts and played us for complete suckers. Why do I feel like Tiger Woods’ wife?
This bill is worse than the status quo; it is an abomination. (Again I cannot easily express my disgust that the teabagger crackpots who called it an “Obamanation” apparently knew something that we did not.) $1000000000s to insurance companies courtesy of this smooth talking empty suited liar from Chicago.
KILL THIS TRAVEST OF A PAYOUT TO INSURANCE COMPANIES ***NOW***
I do not know what to believe anymore and I get sooo mad about JOE L. having so much control in the Senate…He has the Dems by the _____. If they demote him he will be even more vindictive. We need more Democratic Senators. End of story.
Absolutely. Feed the corporate corruption incubator more fresh meat.
Nancy just drew an interesting line in the sand – no more controversial legislation through the House unless the Senate acts first. Some are getting upset at her, but I agree – why sacrifice her majority for the Senate’s dysfunction? If a manager’s amendment does come bopping back from the Senate, I think the House should vote it down.
Let us all keep in mind the following: I believe that at this time the underlying bill being debated in the Senate is still the Reid bill from a few weeks ago with the public option with state opt-out, the minimum most progressives were prepared to accept.
So any effort to strip that from the bill will require 51 votes. We already know that all Republicans plus 5 Democratic senators, Lieberman, Bayh, Landrieu, Lincoln and Nelson, will vote to strip the public option. So in order for this Liebercare deal stripping the PO to go down, six pro-PO senators will need to vote to kill the PO. Or only five will be needed if Biden is willing to be the sixth vote to kill PO.
So that’s our next pressure point; let’s see if we can establish which PO “supporters” are getting ready to walk the plank for Lieberman and destroy PO. If we can amass such a list of, say, the most likely 15 senators from among whose ranks Reid/Lieberman will find his five or six turncoats, then we may be able to bring pressure to bear from their constituents NOT to go back on their word with respect to PO.
What do you think?
The problem with using reconciliation is the Obama does not want any kind of public option or Medicare buy in. Unfortunately.
That is why it is a myth.
I guess I state the obvious. Again.
Off to post this at DKos!
please give us a link when you do so we can help rec it up.
I think what you say is right, except that I’m not sure that stripping it from the bill won’t require 60 votes, as long as Sanders or another strong supporter of the PO refuses to give Reid unanimous consent to allow a majority vote on an Amendment stripping it out of the bill. In other words, in order to get a vote on such an amendment, doesn’t Reid need 60 votes for cloture, and doesn’t ha fail to get those if some of the progressives say “no”?
For me and my house, I stand with Howard Dean. Since 2003 he’s been a full election cycle ahead of the Democratic Party.
Excellent point. If it is correct that unanimous consent is required in order for the Senate to hold a simple majority up-or-down vote on an amendment to strip the public option, and if a senator like Sanders were indeed to withhold is consent to the UC request, then it would appear Reid/Lieberman’s hurdle in terms of getting the necessary 60 votes to strip the PO just got raised by 10 votes.
If that is the case, then what we need is to get 41 Democratic senators to agree NOT to strip the public option.
Not to mention the fact that there might even be a few mischievous Republicans who might vote with Sanders and Burris and so on if they thought including the public option would increase the bill’s chances for defeat.
we were outflanked by the rightwing groups.. the force of faux news network and relentless attacks of the rethugs… not to mention the stupidity of americans who swallow rightwing swill.
And it didn’t help that the rest of the MSM did not cover the actual issues or report happening based on merit. They were happy to report the noisiest
Of course, the Byrd rule itself is not in the constitution or anything — it’s just another rule the United States Senate acts as if it’s carved in stone. There’s nothing stopping the Senate from getting rid of the Byrd rule, and taking the incredibly brave step to actual majority rule on every piece of legislation they encounter.
And you would think they could have sweetened it alittle with the importation for drugs question….just alittle bit, please.
unfortunately you’re right tho msnbc at night does cover but viewership doesnt reach as far as fauxnews…
The only real downside to reconciliation is that it makes it more difficult in the future for Senators to give eachother reacharounds at the expense of the voters. That’s the only reason they’ve objected to it.
Did ya’ll just catch Mitch bitching about Sanders’ ‘rude’ withdrawal of his amendment…! The GooPers got bit again…! *g*
Olberman has a “Special Comment” diary over at the Great Orange Satan.
Tonight’s gonna be a doozy…
Dean in 2012!
Dean on Hardball now
In the mid 90s, Bill Clinton triangulated the Democratic Party, the Republican party and Wall Street into a reconcilation that has had enormous [terrible] consequences for the rest of us ever since. Obama is cut from this same Bilderberg mold.
What progressives must do now is reconcile the Democratic Party with the liberalism that brought into existence historically both the New Deal and The Great Society.
The reconcilation we are talking about above is just a procedural gimmick the rich and powerful use [tax cuts for the rich] or do not use [health care for the rest of us] when it is convenient.
I say do what we can to use it to our advantage on health care today, but we must broaden our thinking to recognize that if we can bring more and more genuinely progressive woman and men into local, state and federal government it won’t be necessary to resort to “parliamentary” devices like this.
I think one of the problems in the Senate is they are all too old to realize how much the wold has passed them by. And I have no idea how to solve that problem, as long as the voters keep sending these dinosaurs back…
“I say do what we can to use it to our advantage on health care today, but we must broaden our thinking to recognize that if we can bring more and more genuinely progressive woman and men into local, state and federal government it won’t be necessary to resort to “parliamentary” devices like this.”
I agree with you. Well put.
Dean’s right, the Ds only need to be tough. That is literally ALL that is standing in the way of decent health care for Americans.
WORD! Couldn’t say it better myself, I bow in you virtual direction.
And if any doubt the power of myths over facts, when it comes to managing electorates, ask yourselves, what jacked our health care reform debate: well reasoned arguments grounded in facts? Obviously not!
As you may know, Brother Jon, myth and lie are not the same. A lie is a distortion of factual circumstances. A myth offers a way of seeing and being in the world. It’s what we leave unsaid, but is heard or seen loud and clear, that distinguishes the language of myth from prose. As in, “Change we can believe in.” Or, “The perfect must not be allowed to be the enemy of the good.”
As I’m endlessly on about (and forgive me if you’ve heard this one before, but I think it bears repeating), jacking public opinion with carefully scripted myths is the state of the art in manufacturing consent.
GREAT POST JON!! (sorry for yelling but this is making me dance a jig). Kos just posted 20 answers to Nate Silver too.
Progressive bloggers ROOOOL :-)
Off the subject, but why is it always hit or miss with Olbermann on Countdown? Over the past couple of months you never know when he will be replaced by someone else. Is he ill or something?
Don’t get get wrong, I like the show whoever hosts it, but Keith’s razor sharp wit is what draws me back again and again. The guy can be a beast in the fake news world of Fox and the MSM. And a beast is just what I want [and need] at times in going up against these corrupt, reactionary bastards.
Sen Harkin was on Rachel last night earnestly explaining how it was necessary to get our foot in the door with this bill, that it wasn’t perfect (and we shouldn’t let perfect be the enemy of the good), but that once we get this bill passed, congress will be able to go back later and fix it. When Rachel asked why we shouldn’t just kill this bill and start over, he then turned around in practically the same breath and asserted that congress had waaayy too much stuff to do next year, and we needed to get this finished and on to the next job. So, apparently congress is too busy to start over and do the thing right, but they’re not too busy to go thru the same fights all over again in order to fix this crappy bill. What are the odds that the Dems will pass this POS, and walk away patting themselves on the back? And then they’ll be surprised and offended that their Dem base (and many others, besides) have deserted them at the polls.
These seem so obvious that I keep thinking there must be something I don’t understand. If people pay for either Medicare or whatever the public option is, minus the same subsidies that would be available for private insurance, why are they not revenue-neutral?
I’m less clear on expanding Medicaid, but I suspect that if you compare it to the cost of subsidies for the poor, it’s probably close to a wash.
His father is very ill.
Olbermann’s Dad is ill, and has been in the hospital.
I’d counter that the problems are that most of them are far richer than the average American, and have all the health insurance they need already. Being old might be a problem, but I really think that many are profoundly out of touch with what most Americans are going through, regardless of age.
Yeah, Kos had a nice response over there at the Orange.
In fact, that was the focus of his special report on health care a couple of months ago. Very good report, BTW.
I’d like to see Obama veto a bill with the Public Option in it.
Having Republicans vote against specific, popular provisions as described could be a pretty good campaign issue next year.
I think Nate needs to pull his head out of the numbers once in a while and look around. Numbers without context, which is what his article struck me as being, are not very useful for understanding reality.
I only glanced at his numbers, but didn’t he say that his analysis of the numbers had a PO included? Stopped reading after that since, of course, there is no PO in the bill.
Well, exactly! The whole point of a medicare buy-in was that the individual would pay a premium designed to cover all or most of his actual costs to the plan- without the 25% profit margin of the private corporations, virtually all the premiums would go towards providing medical care, and thus bring costs down for everyone. It not only got a lot of people covered, it did it cheaper for them, and ultimately cheaper for everyone else.
The low info voters seem to be understanding the kabuki that’s playing out before them.
BTW, I put up a diary with a couple of links to petitions. The second one is particularly interesting – it tells your Senators and Representative that you’d pay for Medicare if it were offered. If you’re in that position, I think it would behoove you to sign it.
It’s likely there would have to be real crises as a result of this bill to get them to come back to it.
if we could get a more progressive congress in the near future it might be a different story.
That would be a welcome surprise!
As with many such discussions, I wasn’t sure what plan(s) were being compared. That’s part of the problem. There seem to be some rather irrational assumptions made – just as a fer instance, many of the figures I see for what insurance premiums are now or would be for individuals and families strike me as far below current reality. I judge “current reality” with what I see people paying, BTW. If that’s true, then how can I believe any of the numbers?
The approval for the “reform” is dropping like a stone.
No covering people with Medicaid is way cheaper than private insurance like 40% cheaper.
Why do you say this? I seem to have missed the background info.
Why so much cheaper? What’s not included? Insurance markup is about 2/3 of that (25 %). Seems like there’s some other major cost that’s not there with Medicaid.
I’m in & out, but saw a poll on Tweety that showed a far lower approval rating for “reform” than previously. Something like 34%.
Wish us luck – my buddy Michelle is on the way over with 1 captive; we 3 (and 2 more “maybes”) start phone banking in about 20 minutes against the Stupak amendment.
I tell ya, my heart really isn’t in it since this thing is turning into a fiasco, but at least it’s one thing to fight the stupidity they’re trying to do to women.
I’ll admit it; I’ve got ABBA’s “Waterloo” cranked to lift my spirits!
I’ve only heard of one poll that bothered to ask why that was, though. I believe it was covered here a couple of days ago. Progressive concerns like no/lousy/limited public option seemed to trump teabagger concerns in that one.
No…! Sanders and Dean in 2012…! Love that Vermont Green Party…! ;-)
Good luck. The more progressive pressure that’s brought to bear the better, I think.
I say we replace the Byrd Rule with the Finger Rule and apply it to all the Republican’s, BlueDogs and all single payer opponents.
Too bad it wouldn’t apply to Pres. LiebermanNelsonObama who says no reform will bankrupt nation. Better to force families to pay 22% of their income for hcr, let them go bankrupt. Oops! We already have that!
I want my vote back.
Here.
I’ll admit it; I’ve got ABBA’s “Waterloo” cranked to lift my spirits!
Tragically, Sen. Demint might just be right…!
The insurance companies have about 23% overhead and Medicaid has about 4%
Plus Medicaid is larger and able to negotiate better rates with providers.
You should see Suz’s post here http://seminal.firedoglake.com/diary/19124
Thanks. That makes two polls, it would appear. It will be interesting to see if there is any real movement on the teabagger side. I bet that’s pretty much the same.
OK, that could explain it.
There was an item on wnyc today about some insurance corp raising dividend by 25% (iirc, don’t trust the number though). Seems like NYS insurance commish might be looking into it.
I like the idea. I think President Obama needs to win this one way or another. Failing now and 2010 is not an option if progressives are going to get what we want, now and after 2010.
To Whom It May Concern:
I am disgusted with the American congress! This country is broke, our infrastructure is in shambles, our banks are reaping billions of tax payer money and now, NOW we are held hostage to the health insurance companies. We were promised by Senator Obama during his campaign that we would have change. I thought he meant change for the good of our country, but what he must have meant was that he would leave us a little change in our pockets after he was done with us! He has helped the banks, the insurance companies and the military industrial complex but not the people who truly need a voice; that would be the rest of the 90% of the American people. I know that big business is important to our country and that they employ millions of people, but if they keep sending our good jobs overseas for slave labor and business are enslaving American people by making them pay for broken banks, pharmaceutics and insurance companies and sending our young people overseas to fight in shameful wars, there is no way this country can maintain a healthy standard of living except for the top 1%. It amazes me that the congress and president Obama so blatantly help big business when the democrats promised to help the middle class and people in need especially with health care. We the people need to have a stop gap if we feel that we are not being represented . We the people need a vote of some kind to override the horrible damage this congress and other congresses in the past, that have lied to us over and over, to fix the wrongs and make them right. We the people need to have some way to speak out, like a federal referendum, when the majority who put people in office, are not being represented. We need this option NOW even if it needs to go all the way to the Supreme Court to take back our country and begin a new age of democracy.
Here, here, George!
Reconciliation can’t be used because it might allow real reforms to become law.
I didn’t know that. And I’m sorry that’s the reason
Keith had a great special comment tonight. He talked about how the dots are connected between Wall Street and Washington in a way you simply never, ever here in the media.
He shamed the mainstream media.
The place to use reconciliation will be the future bills which amend and extend this basic one.
Dr. Dean is the head of democratic wing of the democratic party and as such should be brought into the talks with POTUS. If Dean says kill it, I’m inclined to agree.
To another comment (about age), it seems as though when one is too old to work, he retires to the US Senate. We need term limits to get rid of Byrd and many of the other fossils.
Dr. Dean is the head of democratic wing of the democratic party and as such should be brought into the talks with POTUS. If Dean says kill it, I am inclined to agree. To another comment (about age), it seems as though when one is too old to work, he retires to the US Senate. We need term limits to get rid of Byrd and many of the other fossils.