Not a single mention of unequal access to care for women of reproductive age? Are women who have sex as invisible to you as to most of Washington? You offer hope for improvement to everyone but the 1/3 of women (therefore 1/6 of the population) that will need an abortion?

I’m disappointed.

I have address abortion repeatedly in dozens of other post. But bills have terrible abortion language so I would not want to take the language for either bill which is kinda what conference must do.

I guess I’d like your honest opinion of the best case scenario re: abortion coverage. I see that there’s no way around it, access to insurance paying for abortion care will be extremely limited, but all I’m hearing from Planned Parenthood et al is that the current language is unacceptable and there should be no limitations.

We all know that the final bill is guaranteed to have some pretty strict language. You’ve clearly given a lot of thought to how to get the best possible bill in the other aspects, I’m wondering if you can see any way to make it less bad re: abortion in the final bill. Or is it just one of those things that is not subject to reason on the part of anti-abortion politicians, and therefore there’s no way to predict what might appease them?

Nicely done once again, Jon.
I take your point on the bad abortion language; it stinks in BOTH bills.
Since when do we negotiate away women’s constitutional rights to satisfy senators from states with populations of less than 2 million people?

As I have said before in discussing this with you and others, if we are going to give up the public option, we should get something for it.
The exchanges and other actual insurance providing provisions should start in 2013. Forget the impact on the CBO score, or hike the medicare tax on 200k earners to 1.2%.

what else?
If we can’t have a public option, we should require insurance companies to spend 90 percent of premium on medical care, pre-existing condition ban for everyone not just kids starting in 2010, the House 2x rating for older insured and, we must have a permanent COBRA extension for workers who lose their jobs.



Particularly important is for the HOUSE to stand up for COBRA extension for the unemployed, which is in the House bill, Section 113. 
We need to help the unemployed keep their insurance until the exchanges start, without forcing them into expensive high-risk pools.
Section 113 of the House bill permits the unemployed, many of whom can’t get individual coverage because of pre-existing conditions, to buy into their old group insurance until the insurance exchanges start in 2013.

Until PP, NARAL and NOW score the bills because of their ‘objections’ there will be no price paid for this rollback of womens rights. It’s shocking that a Democratic Congress and Democratic president will make this happen.

Neither of these bills is acceptable as long as they contain mandates. I could stomach mandates if we had access to a robust, fully inclusive PO, but that’t not the case with either bill.

They’re gonna do what they’re gonna do. It’s gonna get signed by the State of the Union address.

The day it’s signed, the Republicans crank up their repeal campaign with as much misinformation as possible. Odd because there’s enough honest stuff in the bill to criticize.

If progressives, fail to kick of their “Improve It” campaign with a bullet point lists of improvements, we’re gonna be stuck with the turkey past 2010. If we do, we’re likely to be able to pry loose some Republican seats. Instead of primarying, let the Republicans take the Blue Dogs down. Exception for when there is a winning challenger, such as against Blanche.

How can they just skip committee?

Fantastic post!

Are there any provisions in one of the bills which really has to be killed, leaving aside the abortion and mandates issues we’ve already been discussing?

I don’t hold out hope for improvement after months of back and forth this piece of shit bill that will only make things worse is supposedly all the conservatives would go for. And that was after buying off a few states.

I agree with your choice. Unfortunately, the Senate Bill will probably be the matrix which determines the final bill. I just don’t see enough hue and cry, enough sustained outrage, on the part of house progressives, unions, and others to force through the kind of changes you advocate. In the end, I suspect that most house progressives will vote for something close to the senate version of the bill and justify their vote on the grounds that it was the only way to pass health care reform and that passage is critical at this time — this, even though the individual mandate as well as the excise tax are poison for the party…yes, it will come back to bite the party big time.

Great concise lists to use when communicating with congressional offices.
The only problem is that, given how things have played out so far,
we should expect that whatever comes out of the sausage factory
will combine the worst of both bills, not the best.

The North Carolina Secretary of State, Elaine Marshall (D), who is running for Senate against Richard Burr has in her official capacity released a 485-page report of nonprofit donations and funds development consultants. It’s very instructive about a whole lot of progressive causes that are getting less, sometimes much less than 50% of the funds contributed. The remainder is going for the “costs” of the funds developers.

Very interesting with regards to the pro-choice organizations (and the environmental organizations).

The name of the report is Charitable Solicitation Licensing Division Annual Report 2008-2009.

to NYCprochoiceMD @1 ( reply didn’t work)

The patriarchy is in full swing. Obviously, even in “liberal” circles, wimmin’s rights are not considered important…or it’s an “icky” subject.
MoveON, however is suggesting calling our Reps ( if they’re even going to be in on this)and demanding these changes:
*Give Americans the choice of a public option. Congress should model the final bill after the House version, which contains a national public option—the key to real competition, greater choice, and lower costs.3

*Make insurance affordable. Both bills require most Americans to have insurance. But even with subsidies, some people could pay up to 20% of their income on health care. The final bill must ensure families aren’t required to spend more than they can afford.4

***Protect women’s health care. Both bills impose dangerous new restrictions on women’s reproductive health care. While the House version is worse, neither provision can be in the final bill.5

*Finance health care fairly. The Senate would pay for part of reform by taxing the benefits packages of some working Americans. The House, on the other hand, pays for reform with a small surcharge on the wealthiest Americans—a far better approach.6

*Hold insurance companies to the same anti-trust laws as other companies. Right now, insurance companies are exempt from laws designed to prevent monopolies and price-gouging. The House bill would fix this, and so should the final bill.7

I hold hope of it becoming an election issue in 2010. We just need some alternative to repeal and back to square one plus waiting another decade (if’n the whole insurance system doesn’t collapse).

Kill these bills!

Expecting the House and Senate to do the right things is like expecting ebola to extend your life. SO eat raw hamburger today!

Great post! I really appreciate the way you’ve laid it all out.

Still, I honestly don’t think there’s going to be a “conference,” because they know we want one. That reason alone is enough to bypass the procedure…

It’s shocking that a Democratic Congress and Democratic president will make this happen.

Except that it is not.

From CQpolitics:

The House and Senate appear increasingly likely to bypass a formal conference committee on a health care bill and instead work out an informal agreement between top Democrats as a way to avoid further parliamentary delays by Senate Republicans.

Top Democrats probably will have the House call up the Senate-passed version of the health care bill and add the new compromise language via an amendment. Then the bill would go back to the Senate to be cleared

george:

And this means what exactly?

Report from your earlier thread:

Jon… if you’re still here… I read an article in the local paper yesterday that said mandates are only required if you have employer insurance, Medicare or Medicaid.

Isn’t that a complete lie?

I thought all Americans would be mandated to have insurance coverage… pls let me know which is correct.

Thanks so much for your EXCELLENT COVERAGE of this issue… your appearance on DN last week was amazing… again, I hope you get on some other shows, like KO and RM.

Why aren’t Grivalja, Woolsey, and Ellison making statements right fucking now?

Because no one wants to be left out in cold? Let’s hope that something’s going on behind the scenes. It’s awfully quiet out there right now. BTW, Bob Herbert’s column
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/29/opinion/29herbert.html?_r=1
really lays out the excise tax for what it is — “it makes a mockery of President Obama’s repeated pledge that if you like the health coverage you have now, you can keep it.”

That’s E-Coli.
Ebola you have to go to Africa to get.

any bill can still be filibustered by Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln, etc

Since these bills are such crap, is there any reason not to let the “Nellies” have their way with them and filibuster ‘em to death?

It requires everyone to have insurance. Include people not on Medicare Medicaid or with employer insurance. If you don’t get insurance from elsewhere you must buy it on the new exchange.

Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, and other senators will use their power (or people will use them as an excuse) to replace the pro-consumer protection provisions in the House bill with provisions in the Senate bill that greatly favor the insurance industry.

You know, I don’t know whose job this should be – Kagro X, for one, comes to mind, as someone whose beat covers this and who may have helpful Congressional parliamentarian contacts – but shouldn’t someone in the blogosphere with the best interests of the American people at heart for this legislation (instead of the best interests of Party or their multinational corporate campaign donors, which are so slavishly served by “lawmakers”) attempt to find out and report which of these two is reality? Meaning whether the “60 votes” is just an excuse based on empty threats, or actually an immovable object, absent Senate revisions to Rule 22′s cloture provisions.

Someone in America – aside from Harry Reid and Mitch McConnell staffers, who close-hold their knowledge in service to Party not nation – knows current Senate rules and procedure well enough to answer this definitively on the public record – and we should be searching for that person or persons.

In my opinion, the dirty little secret is that a genuine filibuster is no real threat at all to the passage of whatever final deal gets done (or to almost any bill, for that matter). Provided that the majority Party wants a particular deal done with less than 60 votes. But we need some authoritative experience or citation backing that up – to call the 60-vote-bluff that has everyone (I think) erroneously blaming the cloture rule (applied against the threatened filibuster), instead of blaming the responsible majority leader and Party – but thus far I haven’t seen any such authorities being quoted or cited. [Ryan Grim took at face value erroneous information from Reid's staffers for his February, 2009 piece at HuffingtonPost about the filibuster, as commenters to the piece made clear. I don't think Grim ever further pursued the matter with more-objective sources, though.]

Meanwhile, off the top of my head, here are some of the ramifications of foregoing a formal conference between the two houses of Congress on this health reform legislation (aside from the further institutionalizing of secrecy, as was used to “great” effect in 2008 to concoct the FISA Amendments Act):

1. A net of two cloture motion-caused delays (to overcome objections from Senators) will be avoided with this approach (each delay would have lasted two days, for a total of four days of delay, if Republicans, as they did the week before Christmas, declined to use every possible delaying objection available to them) – over motions to insist on the Senate amendment to the House bill and to request a conference. [It could have been three cloture motion delays totalling 6 days, except that one is cancelled out because a conference report, as opposed to what will be a non-conference report, is "privileged" when brought to the floor, and therefore a motion to proceed to it cannot be debated or objected to. Thus the non-conference report will add in a cloture-motion-related delay that a conference report could skip.]

2. Conference reports cannot be amended. Non-conference reports can be amended, although the majority Party will doubtless abuse its power again – as it so-egregiously (meaning undemocratically) did, to little or no public notice, on the Reid Manager’s amendment – by “filling the tree” so as to prevent any possibility of meaningful amendments being offered on the floor of the Senate to the final deal. [In the House, the Rules Committee will, as usual, ruthlessly enforce the will of the majority Party leadership to prevent any amendments from reaching the floor there.]

3. Conference reports, according to the Senate rules, must be publicly available on a website 48 hours in advance of a vote on passage. Non-conference reports, not so much.

4. Without a conference, Senators and Representatives are unable to offer motions to “instruct conferees” about various desired outcomes of the conference (which are non-binding, as a rule).

5. Points of order against conference reports may be made (and waived only by 60 votes in the Senate) if the report contains policy not originally submitted by either house to the conference. A non-conference report is “open sesame” for any such new provisions inserted by the backroom, unaccountable wheelers and dealers doing the deal, although certain budget points of order probably remain available.

In short: A conference process is intended to be run by federal legislators of the House and Senate in public. A non-conference negotiation is run in complete privacy, off the public record, by political powerbrokers of a Party – not necessarily in, or representing, our Legislative Branch of government – primarily in order to avoid accountability and to trade favors and votes under the table.

But then, who really cares. It’s only democratic self-government being tossed out the window, after all.

Grijalva capitulated two weeks ago. Now the progessive caucus wonders why none of the leadership take them seriously. There’s a direct connection there.

I’m incredibly demoralized by the likely outcomes here. My bet is that a really bad bill ends up getting passed and the Dem’s are (rightly) blamed by the voters. Since there is no progressive alternatives the rethugs will win big. This in itself would not be terrible, this is a long term struggle. If the powers in the Dem’s would take the correct lesson from their coming defeat this would be OK. I have little faith that will happen though.

First, two comments:

Undocuments immigrants aren’t going to get any love from this Congress. Fuggedaboutit!

Is 6 the Wyden voucher idea? It makes perfect sense to me…now that I’ve read a little about it. Sometimes a big plan requires such ‘filling the gap’ features.

———————————–

We want
———–

== Cost control for individuals and the nation:

National Public Option
Medicare negotiation of drug prices
Close Medicare Part D donut hole
Out-of-pocket limit
No lifetime limit on coverage!
More money for Community Health Centers (lower-cost salaried doctors)

== Cover more people

Better affordability credits
Keep SCHIP
Temporary COBRA

== Choice of Insurer

National Exchange
Wyden’s vouchers

== Better quality of healthcare

Higher actuarial levels for qualified insurance
State waivers for innovation

Millionaires’s tax to pay for it

They want
————–

No Millionaire’s tax
No anti-trust exemption repeal
Higher rates for older people 3:1
No out-of-pocket limit
No Public Option
No national exchange (do state based)

Compromise ?????
————————–

We let them keep their anti-trust exemption.
We let them have state-based exchanges AS WELL AS national.
We let them have the higher Community rating #.
We limit subsidies/affordability-credits, closing of donut hole, out-of-pocket & lifetime coverage and other financial benefits, so as to keep the millionaires tax as low as possible.

===========

Is something like this doable?

I guess I forgot to write in the obvious at the end.

And we get everything we want!!!!!

What happens to those that don’t comply with whatever ,if anything ,comes out of this? Jail? Will they be “insured” then?

What is their plan for unemployed and the poor, who can’t afford insurance, even if Big Brother says “you have to have it”? Where does the shrinking middle class get the cash for mandated insurance? Obviously, if they had the money, they’d already be insured, not? Can’t understand why anyone supports these bills that seem to be utter garbage. This is reform? For who?

With what? Those without insurance, are without it for a reason. No money. Then what?

You will face a fine for not carrying insurance.

Thanks… so then if you don’t have insurance and you have to buy it on the exchange… then you start paying right away but don’t get insurance til 2014?

Or do you wait to pay til 2014?

ths again.

There will be subsidies, a subject that Jon mentioned in the article. They’re different in the two bills. As you might expect, the House bill has higher subsidies.

Of course, your question remains, because for most people who are between 150-250 percent of FPL, there’s little if any money left after housing, food, medical expenses, auto, etc. As Marcy Wheeler pointed out not too long ago, if you have a mortgage or kids in college even higher income levels don’t provide enough spare cash.

These are both bad bills. The Senate’s is going to be disastrous for the middle class, and I’m convinced the Democrats really don’t give a shit. Their campaign money will keep rolling in if they vote for these things, and if they lose they no doubt figure they’ll become lobbyists or political consultants for the financial industries or medical industries.

We.Are.Completely.Fucked.

If I was without insurance (and last year at this time I got kicked out of mine) I would really be upset that I would be waiting 4 years to get some kind of crappy insurance.

Thanks for the response Cujo. It just seems stupid of these politicians to expect this money to appear out of thin air. Guess the ol’ jails will get pretty crowded with those who can’t pay even the fines. “Whatcha in for?” “Failure to pay an insurance company”

If the ‘tossing out of democratic self-government’ (as per powwow) doesn’t result in a massive public revolt, we’ll rightly deserve all that will ensue.

That possibility was part of the inspiration for this article a few weeks ago. How this situation looks to you has a lot to do with how much you’ll be giving up to pay for it. That clearly isn’t a problem for Congress. I think we need to start reminding them that it is a problem for the people who vote for them.

What about a petition for recall of every one of the bastards? If people from Jane to Grover authored it, even the scalded scrotum folks would sign.

Wow. Great blog Cujo! You expressed my feelings exactly. I am by no means rich, but I am not that senile to not remember being poor growing up. We didn’t have extra cash for anything. Forcing people with no money to buy insurance will fix nothing. Politicians don’t see that because, most of them have never been poor. Starting to wonder about other blogs that are saying exactly what you pointed out. Pass it and we’ll fix it later. Later won’t come, and we all know it.
*PS..bookmarked your blog..hope you don’t mind if I stop by*

Think that would work? It would certainly create media attention.

I don’t know. Not at all up to speed; the wackos were out with thrir guns and flags in Alamogordo, NM yesterday, but they’re scared to death of socialism. From the looks of them, they should be more worried about diabetes.

Well, 45 was supposed to be a reply, but I forgot to hit the button. But the way everyone is trying to punish women, seems like there will be some kind of hell to pay. But the media just works for one side, so I don’t know.

Spot on comment – I agree.

The temp reins pool should be permanent and be used to replace the need for a “mandate” in the sense the risk is reduced and the companies can get away from cherry picking insureds and denying claims as the way to up profits.

Face it – no politician in Congress is really for the people – if they were, these bills would be much different. They are there to get re-elected and we have to deal with that. Some politicians represent Liberal views – others conservative, but everyone is for themselves and not the people alone.

To expand on my opinion about the overlooked/ignored feasibility of forcing the filibuster when threatened on such a major piece of legislation, which may highlight some specific questions that need asking of the powers that be, below are some excerpts from a 2003 Congressional Research Service report.

First, excerpting what I surmise to be the real obstacle preventing Harry Reid from forcing a filibuster – some inconvenience to the majority, proponent Party that supports the filibustered legislation:

Today, all-night sessions are very unusual. The Senate may not even convene earlier or remain in session later when a filibuster is in progress than it does on other days. One reason may be that filibusters are not the extraordinary and unusual occurrences that they once were. Another may be that Senators are less willing to endure the inconvenience and discomfort of prolonged sessions.

The latter point is important because late-night or all-night sessions put as much or more of a burden on [more of] the proponents of the question being debated than on its opponents. The Senators participating in the filibuster need only ensure that at least one of their number always is present on the floor to speak. The proponents of the question, however, need to ensure that a majority of the Senate is present or at least available to respond to a quorum call or roll call vote. If, late in the evening or in the middle of the night, a Senator suggests the absence of a quorum and a quorum does not appear, the Senate must adjourn or at least suspend its proceedings until a quorum is established. This works to the advantage of the filibustering Senators, so the burden rests on their opponents to ensure that the constitutional quorum requirement always can be met.

If someone can get recognition in order to recess the Senate for the night, however, such late night sessions aren’t a necessary feature.

During a filibuster, however, the clerk may be directed to call the roll more rapidly [than during the fake quorum calls of the modern idling, empty Senate chamber], as if a [real quorum] rollcall vote were in progress. Doing so reduces the time that the quorum call consumes, but it also creates the real possibility that the quorum call may demonstrate that a [physical, Constitutionally-mandated] quorum [consisting of a majority of Senators] in fact is not present. In that case, the Senate has only two options: to adjourn, or to take steps necessary to secure the presence of enough absent Senators to create a quorum. Typically, the majority leader or the majority floor manager opts for the latter course, and makes a motion that the sergeant at arms secure the attendance of absent Senators, and then asks for a rollcall vote on that motion. Senators who did not respond to the quorum call are likely to come to the floor for the rollcall vote on this motion. Almost always, therefore, the vote establishes that a quorum is present, so the Senate can resume its business without the sergeant at arms actually having to execute the Senate’s directive.

[...]

When Senators suggest the absence of a quorum, however, they lose the floor. Also, “[i]t is not in order for a Senator to demand a quorum call if no business has intervened since the last call [further "debate" or speeches do not qualify as such business]; business must intervene before a second quorum call or between calls if the question is raised or a point of order made.”7 These restrictions limit the extent to which quorum calls may be used as [a] means of conducting filibusters.

Note that the Senate, during the conduct of an actual filibuster, will in fact not want to adjourn, because recessing (instead, unlike adjourning) continues the “legislative day” into the next calendar day, thereby helping to impose the limit on any particular filibustering Senator of two speeches on any particular matter:

Rule XIX places no limit on the length of individual speeches or on the number of Senators who may speak on a pending question. It does, however, tend to limit the possibility of extended debate by its provision that “no Senator shall speak more than twice upon any one question in debate on the same legislative day without leave of the Senate, which shall be determined without debate.” This provision, commonly called the “two-speech rule,” limits each Senator to making two speeches per day, however long each speech may be, on each debatable question that the Senate considers. A Senator who has made two speeches on a single question becomes ineligible to be recognized for another speech on the same question on the same day.

The “day” during which a Senator can make no more than two speeches on the same question is not a calendar day, but a legislative day. A legislative day ends only with an adjournment, so that, whenever the Senate recesses overnight, rather than adjourning, the same legislative day continues into the next calendar day. A legislative day may therefore extend over several calendar days. The leadership may continue to recess the Senate, rather than adjourning, as a means of attempting to overcome a filibuster by compelling filibustering Senators to exhaust their opportunities of gaining recognition.

So the Senate would actually have to be a Senate for a few days – with members physically present (or nearby) for hours or days, prepared at any time to respond to their names in order to avoid an early adjournment that would aid the filibustering Senator’s cause.

Is there any labor more burdensome than that for the majority Party, which would or should lead it to avoid an actual filibuster at all cost? To avoid watching Ben Nelson (HA!) or Blanche Lincoln, who rarely make appearances on the Senate floor, or Joe Lieberman, or a sequence of Republicans, speak for hours, on their feet, about their opposition to a bill in a droning monologue, without pause? Until their two speeches each were used up, and they no longer had the right of recognition on the question? Not that I’m aware of.

It simply takes the courage of principled conviction, equally by the proponents as by the opponents of legislation, to stare down an actual filibuster until a measure can proceed to an actual simple-majority up-or-down vote – consuming, in the process, quite possibly considerably less time than all the painless Rule 22 cloture-motion-initiated delays of the super-majority 60-vote response to merely threatened filibusters in the modern, make-believe Senate.

[Yes, fuckno @ 40, you summarized it well: we will "rightly deserve all that will ensue."]

And then they send you over to sit on the Group Dubya bench to play with pencils and rapists. :-)

The mandates are, in my opinion, a very bad idea which should be dropped whether we get the Public Option or not.

Happy to have you aboard, so to speak. Thanks.

Thanks for the rundown, powwow. Hopefully, I’ll be able to find this comment in the future. Maybe you could put this in a Seminal diary?

Whoa hey! Thank you for that, Cujo, I had missed your diary. I’ll look for them in the future. BTW, I’m a former dem (progressive now!) who’s looking to vote out as many punk dems as I can over their pitiful, piss poor performance during this fiasco.

women’s rights should not be impeded. A woman should have the right to abort at will and have it covered. It is a medical necessity.

Allegations of price-fixing, bid-rigging, exclusive sales contracts, local price cutting to freeze out competitors, and the dividing up of markets need to be fully explored through subpoenas and depositions (a law suit by all 50 States and joined by the Feds) so we can get rid of our dysfunctional corporate health care system that’s choking the economy to death.

Federal workers and retirees can select plans at a cost range from $100 dollars a month for the cheapest individual coverage to $500 dollars for the most expensive family plan. I’m voting “MY” pocket book – I want lower premiums and less money taken out of my paycheck – if they want to help spur on the economy they will make sure this happens for all – not just a select group.

Rockefeller’s Medicare plan should also be activated for qualified recipients who can demonstrate that the deductibles are unaffordable to them, and lower the age of Medicare to 55. Plus have a buy in option for those who can afford it – on a sliding scale adjusted to income. That will pump much needed cash back into the Medicare system and with everybody living longer and healthier lives (less red meat) it could eventually be a real strong, positive boost to the whole program across the board.

The bottom line is that 90% of the wealth concentrated in 1% of the population is no way to run a country, but a heck of a way to establish a royalty ruling class. Yacht sales can not sustain 350 million people. I’m for the public option, competition and a level playing field or break up the big insurers like we did AT&T.

A slavish focus on profit margin might be good for the individual or a business, but it is one helluva lousy way to “govern” a Country. The GOP being a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America has a hard time with that concept.

Paul Burke
Author-Journey Home

You’re welcome, Cujo. And in case you don’t see it before it scrolls away, I included the filibuster information from Comment #49 above in this Seminal diary today, thanks to your prodding.