 |
 |
   Memo: The way forward on health care reform in 2010.
 A dark legacy of the Vietnam War is creating a whole new set of problems.
|
   |
|
|
August 2, 2009
THE RECONCILIATION INSURANCE POLICY.... I was talking to a Senate aide this week, trying to wrap my head around the details of the reconciliation process. The staffer conceded that she, too, can get tripped up on how reconciliation works. It comes up from time to time, and in light of recent events, it's becoming more of an issue all the time. Reconciliation, in the most general sense, allows legislation to be voted on, up or down, sidestepping a filibuster. In the context of health care reform, that matters a great deal -- even if some center-right Democrats in the Senate sided with Republicans on reform, if proponents simply needed a majority vote, the bill would very likely pass no matter what Nelson, Bayh, Lieberman, and Landrieu thought. It's why reconciliation language was added to this year's budget a few months ago. There is, however, quite a bit more to it than that. The NYT's Carl Hulse considers the reconciliation question, which is apparently about as convoluted as the reform proposal itself.
Reform advocates could, in theory, work around the Byrd Rule, but that would require still more procedural acrobatics. That said, Hulse reported that Senate Democrats, unsure of what's likely to happen, are talking "reluctantly" and "very, very quietly" about the reconciliation possibility, looking at the tactic -- which Hulse said is "doable" -- as a "last resort." In other words, if it's a choice between reconciliation or failure, some reform advocates think the choice is obvious. A former budget expert for Senate Republicans who now works for a health insurer, concluded that reconciliation is the Democrats' "insurance policy for health reform." Mark Schmitt had a good item on this, too, this week. —Steve Benen 11:30 AM Permalink | Trackbacks | Comments (13)Comments
To hell with the Senate and its arcane rules. A good bill is worth exercising the nuclear option for. Posted by: PeakVT on August 2, 2009 at 11:43 AM | PERMALINKYeah, because California, which needs a supermajority to accomplish anything legislatively, is the model we should be emulating on a national scale. The way to pressure the Blue Dogs to vote for cloture is to keep repeating examples of Republican insanity -- the Birther nonsense, the federal government will come to the doors of seniors to schedule their euthanasia, health care reform will be Obama's "Waterloo", etc. And then finish by asking the Blue Dogs why they're even talking with these nuts.
I'm like the nuclear option to. If Health Care Reform fails, or sucks, then I think the American people would understand. Besides, Democrats did fuck all with the filibuster anyway, and you know the "60 votes needed" will turn into "51 votes" as soon as the republicans are back in the majority. There isn't a single damned thing to lose by doing so. Congressman Bobby Scott (D-VA) came to a health care discussion 8/1 in SE VA, run by Democracy For America (Dean's outfit.) He explained the plan as best he could, and I don't remember that clearly but he said there's be a public and a private option, and they'd compete. But the private insurers would have to follow rules, like discussed in earlier threads. It sounded good enough that even a local libertarian/teaparty activist going as "Alexander of York" said he could accept such a plan. That isn't a bad thing per se; the public interest is presumably best served if a wide range of them can support a plan. Well I wonder, should progressives support it? But at least, better than what we have I suppose ... Posted by: Neil B on August 2, 2009 at 5:07 PM | PERMALINKMatt Yglesias had some good discussion on reconciliation a few weeks back too. http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2009/07/the-reconciliation-option.php My basic take is that reconciliation will work only to the extent that Harry Reid wants to be a badass. You can't play the reconciliation game without knowing in advance that you are going to 'go nuclear' or strong arm or whatever. If the 18,000 Americans that die each year as a consequence of our current dysfunctional system aren't enough to move the Democratic Party to break some eggs while making an omelet then the Democratic Party is the party of FAIL and they only hold power because people tired of the party of CRAZY. Posted by: joejoejoe on August 2, 2009 at 7:25 PM | PERMALINKSomehow I believe that the Republicans under Bush (with less than 60 senators) would be able to easily pass something like this. (That is, something that they wanted passing.) Our political system does not work anymore - at least not for the good of "the people". Posted by: JohnBubba on August 2, 2009 at 8:50 PM | PERMALINKI can think of no acceptable reason to use the so-called nuclear option except for the purpose of putting a good health-care reform bill on the President's desk. Posted by: j h woodyatt on August 2, 2009 at 9:17 PM | PERMALINKDavid Waldman (Kagro X of DailyKos fame) has posted some fine details about the process in this post at Congress Matters: What's up with the budget and reconciliation, anyway? How could Bush ever have used reconciliation for tax cutting bills when the process is designed to ensure budget neutrality? If you can get rubbish like Bush tax cuts thru, certainly you can do healthcare overhaul. Posted by: bob h on August 3, 2009 at 6:34 AM | PERMALINKQuite frankly, if "reconciliation" is what it takes to pass at 51, then so be it. Every bill that goes to the Senate floor should be able to pass with 51 votes. The simple THREAT of a filibuster these days requires every bill to get 60 votes. I say if someone wants to filibuster then put the old rule back in place. The one who calls it has to stand on the Senate floor and speak non stop until 60 votes are gathered to stop it. Posted by: Wayne on August 3, 2009 at 9:17 AM | PERMALINKI prefer this health care bill passes with no republican votes. I want it to go the reconcilliation route. I don't want those fuckers to get any of the credit when this turns out to be a successful program. I hope this is what Reid is planning. ANd if the blue dogs want to side with the republicans, they can accept the penalty and will deserve it. Posted by: Patrick on August 3, 2009 at 10:01 AM | PERMALINKWe really need to stop worrying that we will piss off the republicans. They don't give a SHIT about us or the American people and they will shit on us every chance they get. If we don't get this passed, we do not deserve to lead. Posted by: Patrick on August 3, 2009 at 10:03 AM | PERMALINKPost a comment
February 2010
January 2010 December 2009 November 2009 October 2009 September 2009 August 2009 July 2009 June 2009 May 2009 April 2009 March 2009 February 2009 January 2009 December 2008 November 2008 October 2008 September 2008 August 2008 July 2008 June 2008 May 2008 April 2008 March 2008 February 2008 January 2008 December 2007 November 2007 October 2007 September 2007 August 2007 July 2007 June 2007 May 2007 April 2007 March 2007 February 2007 January 2007 December 2006 November 2006 October 2006 September 2006 August 2006 July 2006 June 2006 May 2006 April 2006 March 2006 February 2006 January 2006 December 2005 November 2005 October 2005 September 2005 August 2005 July 2005 June 2005 May 2005 April 2005 March 2005 February 2005 January 2005 December 2004 November 2004 October 2004 September 2004 August 2004 July 2004 June 2004 May 2004 April 2004 March 2004 February 2004 January 2004 December 2003 November 2003 October 2003 September 2003 August 2003 July 2003 June 2003 May 2003 April 2003 March 2003 February 2003 January 2003 December 2002 |
|
|
    |
|
||||||
|
|
|||||||
|
||||||||
|
||||||||
