There hasn't been a single rational explanation from anyone as to why Obama would push a trigger

[ProSense]

Follow the logic: With a key opportunity to pass a robust public option---Pelosi and the progressive caucus are on board, it will pass in the House, key Senators are willing to stand up and fight for it, 49 Senators have indicated that they will vote for it and not stand in its way, and the Democrats have the option to use reconciliation, Obama decides to push a trigger because...?




Edit typos, missing word

[valerief]

1. He gets an offer he can't refuse?

:shrug:

[Enrique]

2. there are several

maybe he's not sure about the Senate, maybe he doesn't really want it, maybe he wants to honor some deal he made, maybe he thinks it's better politically for him.

[ProSense]

6. Let's see

"maybe he's not sure about the Senate"

Given the reality stated in the OP, that's a lame reason.


"maybe he doesn't really want it"

Have to deal with the facts we know: He says he wants it.


"maybe he wants to honor some deal he made"

Obama is a sellout is not a rational explanation.


"maybe he thinks it's better politically for him"

Better to not deliver real reform, alienating the large progressive caucus and ignoring that it has the support of a signficant majority of Americans?

[Enrique]

29. fine

those are rational answers to my rational explanations. But they are rational explanations.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

3. Good question

I've been wondering about this myself. The odds are looking better every day for a Public Option, so why would he want to push this "trigger" proposal that essentially "punts" the possibility of a government insurance plan down the road? Certainly, Snowe's input can't be THAT important, can it? :shrug:

[ProSense]

11. Agree, it makes no sense. n/t

[Phx_Dem]

4. Larry O'Donnell on Hardball said about reconciliation

something I hadn't heard before. He said we only need 50 votes + the VP for the final reconciliation vote, but (and it's a big but), there will be countless reconciliation votes on the Senate floor that require 60 votes before it can go to the final vote. Yikes. That sounds ugly.

I am all for reconcilation IF it can work, but getting 60 votes on "countless" amendments sounds like a pretty steep climb. I think that's why the White HOuse is working so hard to avoid reconcilation.

People who continue to claim it as a relatively simple act of 51 votes, need to learn more about it becuase that is not the case.
It could be a crash and burn scenario for us, which would be a huge victory for the Grand Old Party of Hate.

Edited: We need a Senator from Mass ASAP!!

[ProSense]

8. I don't buy O'Donnell's explanation.

Credible people have expressed the viability of reconciliation.

[karynnj]

28. O'Donnell is a former chief of staff to the Finance committee

I have heard credible people who have argued that there are drawbacks of doing this with reconciliation, which is why they would like to try the regular process first. Here, I think Sanders idea of strongly pressuring all Democrats to vote for cloture - even if they need to vote against it sounds like a good compromise if it could work.

[jefferson_dem]

16. You are correct. At the very least, reconciliation would be messy as fuck

and allow for many opportunities for procedural roadblocks on this and that. The Senate parliamentarian (who?!) will effectively set the initial benchmark and it will be a battle royal from there. It's not as if the Dems can just say "whatever, we'll call it reconcilation and shoot for the 51 votes instead of 60."

[ProSense]

24. No, that's not correct.

That's a mischaracterization, as the Republicans have used it sucessfully in the past with lesser majorities. Daschle on reconciliation.

[jefferson_dem]

27. Actually, it is correct.

Check out what Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum say.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/can_reconciliation_work_for_he.html

Reconciliation, generally speaking, can only be used for provisions which are budget-related or budget-neutral.

Anyway, we won't know until/unless we have to "go there".

[ProSense]

30. Why should I take Ezra Klein and Kevin Drum's word over

Kerry's? Drum, particularly, is prone to faulty logic.

[jefferson_dem]

31. Because Kerry is a politician perhaps?

:shrug:

As such, he is prone to political posturing and advocacy rather than objective analysis. So he says reconciliation is a viable option. Ok.

[ProSense]

32. WTF? n/t

[Phx_Dem]

39. But one thing we do have to remember with the Republican

reconciliation is that Democrats are weinies. They almost never stand tough in the face of adversity. The Republicans do, even when it's a bad move. They're stubborn to a fault and they stand together and hold the line just like they did on the budget and stimulous votes.

The Dems may have "allowed" the Repukes to use reconciliation during the Bush years because they didn't stand up to them.

I don't know the rules of reconciliation so I'm not sure who to believe, but I do know that Dems are wishy-washy and that scares me.

Edited to add: No one is more wishy washy that our dear majority leader, Harry Reid, and that is really scary.

[OHdem10]

5. IMO, the trigger is a pacifier. Some say PO could be there if instead

Put the PO on hold. Have a trigger to be hit if Insurance
companies do not bring down costs whatever.

I have to say Fox had it right tonight. Barnes, indicated
the unbelief. He knows the Insurance COs will not cut premiums
and all the things required to cut costs. He is correct
you can have a really weak trigger. In other words no one
is going to pull the trigger. Rarely do I agree with Fox
but more and more they have it right on Health Care.



I

[ProSense]

9. That's not reform. n/t

[robo50]

12. Can you explain that a little more in detail for someone like me

who didn't grasp this, do to the words Fox and agree in the same paragraph.

If Barns knows insurance companies won't cut costs, (because they need to make big profits and the expense of the sick and injured, and bankrupt foreclosed upon) this is what? Rationale to wait until a few more tens of thousands go broke?

[LooseWilly]

7. Near as I can tell, the magic word is Snowe.

Lots of the pundits are saying that, if Snowe signs on, then the Blue Dog types can use that as cover ("I voted for a bill that also had Republican support") in their home districts, and Voila... it should be able to get through the Senate.

I still think the whole line of reasoning is rather cowardly. I think the public wants reform. I don't think moderate Democrats will be unseated for voting for health reform just because of a public option. I think that standing up and fighting, even forcing the Republicans to actually show up on the floor of the Senate and physically speak non stop in a real fillibuster would eventually succeed... and would do wonders for the public opinions of Democrats.

I mean, what's the point of electing a huge Democratic majority, if the Democrats are afraid to pass anything without Republican approval? If this is how it's going to play out, why bother?

Of course, that's just my interpretation.

[ProSense]

10. Don't need Snowe.

A trigger could be weak enough to get the votes of every member in the Democratic caucus, including Leiberman.

And even if she was insurance, it doesn't explain why Obama would sacrifice a robust public option for a weak trigger when so many Democrats, including Senators, are threaten to oppose it.

[LooseWilly]

38. I agree it doesn't make any real sense.

Apparently that's why all the "stop whining" folks like to say I don't know shit...

I think it's a bad idea. A lot of Senate process insiders would have us believe that it's necessary... but personally, I'm not buying it either.

[karynnj]

13. Because 49 is not enough?

I would assume though that we are still not at that point. There is still time and negotiating that can bring more along. While getting 60 might not be feasible, maybe 50 is.

If a trigger is needed to get votes, maybe we can make it a real test that would not impact the timing at all of when the public option became available. The House bill sets the implementation a few years in the future - likely because time is needed to set it up. What if a trigger were set for that point in tme. Then the work to develop a public option would go forward on the same schedule as planned without the trigger.

If the insurance companies meet stiff specified guidelines of reducing administrative costs and lowering their premiums, then the plan is put on hold - but a public option staff is maintained that could update the plans and also analyze results in the private world. If, as may more likely be the case, the private companies failed to meet the guidelines, then the public option is introduced on the same schedule it would have had there been no trigger.

In this case, the threat of a public option would have created the same effect created by the public option itself.

The important things to fight for then include:
1) a trigger this short
2) Yearly triggers to insure that as there are efficiencies, part of the lowering of prices is passed on.
3) Tough definitions for the trigger. (Consider that all companies will see their cost go down as the cost for uninsured people goes to zero.

[ProSense]

17. They could do many things to get another vote. As for the timing, I agree with exception.

The trigger would have to have a short time frame. Not sure that such a time frame makes sense in terms of compliance by the insurance companies.

Here is the suggested time frame from the Finance Committee bill (PDF):

Effective Date. The effective date for these changes could be January 1, 2013 (or sooner if possible), which would provide states sufficient time to enact legislation by June 1, 2011. This schedule anticipates that plans could develop offerings by June 2012 and then begin marketing.

The public option is a new program, and would be given time to ramp up. It would be impossible for the insurance companies meet those dates with noticeable results.

If a trigger is designed as a fail-safe mechanism in the event that the insurance companies don't meet affordability standards, who is going to determine that the insurers have met the goals? What if the determination is that it's working, but needs more time? How is that reform, and how does that serve to ensure that all Americans are covered and to lower costs and the deficit?

If advocates are certain the insurance companies will be unable to meet the objectives, triggering the public option, why would anyone push this? It's like stalling the inevitable.

[karynnj]

26. I prefer they go straight to a public option

The insurance companies would have 3 years to lower their rates by introducing efficiencies and passing on the gains received by there no longer being a huge pool of uninsured people. (I think both the mandate and the subsidies start before 2013).

I know that any plan takes considerable time to ramp up. Here, the federal government can pay the comparatively small costs to design the system(s), in case it is needed. It is completely routine for the government to fund two independent defense companies to design in parallel a needed system. They do this knowing one project will go nowhere. Here, it is needed to make the trigger a real threat - if there is no plan to implement, what would a trigger mean? It would lead to a 3 year period during which a public plan is designed. That would delay the implementation.

If there are enough advocates who are certain that the insurance companies can not meet the objectives, then they will simply pass a public option. Now, think what the best insurance company reaction would be if that happened. If they know that in 2013 the public plan would be available, they should work very hard to cut their rates and improve their service to become more competitive with the new plan. This might mean that even before the public option exists, we will see major improvement.

[jefferson_dem]

14. Fact: If a reform bill with a robust public option can be passed through Congress...

Via reconcilation or otherwise, it will be passed through Congress.

The only reason we land on the tigger compromise is if it's the only best option.

Respectfully, I don't think you can assume:

1. A reform bill with the robust option will pass the House.
2. There are presently 49 firm votes for the public option via the reconiliation process in the Senate.
3. Reconciliation can be used to enact the public option without sacrificing other key (non-budget and related) elements.

[ProSense]

20. "I don't think you can assume...A reform bill with the robust option will pass the House." Going by

Pelosi's statement, I can.

[Joe Bacon]

15. Bottom Line: Obama does NOT want a public option.

He wants his trigger with the condition that there's enough Krazy Glue squirted on the trigger that it can't be pulled.

You will get a toothless bill that will charge people with preexisting conditions like me 5X more than the base premium. You will be forced to buy worthless policies. The beancounters will still deny claims. People with very low incomes will have the government pay their tribute to Bill Mc Guire, RIck Scott and their ilks.

Now millions of additional people will have the opportunity to get fucked by insurance companies the same way I have.

Welcome to the club, fellow victims.

I will now only concentrate on passing and implementing single payer in California.

[jefferson_dem]

19. Bottom Line: You're full of shit.

If not, provide a linky to support your claim that Obama doesn't want a public option and prefers a toothless trigger.

[Joe Bacon]

21. Are you saying Keith is full of it too?

Keith just led Obama's support of the trigger as his main story!

[jefferson_dem]

23. I don't know.

If he said what you did, without backing it up with some evidence...sure.

Things are leaning toward a trigger as compromise. That's pretty damn clear. And that's probably where we end up.

Does that mean Obama does not want a robust public option? No. Does it mean he only wants a trigger that doesn't work? No.

Sorry to be combative. It's been a long day...

[Joe Bacon]

25. As soon as I get Keith's clip, I will link it here so you can hear him

I'm waiting for it to get posted on Keith's site.

[Joe Bacon]

33. Go to Keith's web page and click on Story#5

Hear Keith say that Obama is going for the trigger

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036677/#32698331

[jefferson_dem]

34. Thanks for the link.

As I said, it's pretty obvious that the "trigger" is an apparant compromise option. That does not mean Obama does not want the public option or that he wants a toothless trigger, as you suggested.

[Joe Bacon]

37. Sorry, But I disagree. He has until Wednesday to decide if he is a leader.

Too many times I have fought for single payer, only to get slapped down again and again. These insurance racketeers destroyed my life and they killed my mother and got away with murder.

Tonight Keith showed how Bill Mc Guire's goons deny 40% of the claims submitted in California. They are allowed to kill and extort without any kind of penalty.

If he was any kind of leader he would be out front and fighting for Single Payer to put Bill Mc Guire out of business and prosecute him and his flunkies for murder.

The racketeers have destroyed my life. And with diabetes, I have that pre-existing condition that allows them to steal a lot more from me than others.

I fully expect him to sell us out on Wednesday night, I hope I am proven wrong.

If not, I will concentrate on passing Single Payer in California and give up on getting a Federal solution.

[jesus_of_suburbia]

18. He won't. There will be a STRONG public option for all. I'm sure of it.

Pres Obama wouldn't have said he was spending his political capital on healthcare if he wasn't going to get a public option.

He will.

[TayTay]

22. President Obama is not pushing a trigger for the public option

This has never been his position. He might, stress might, be reactive here to a suggestion for triggers, that is still speculative at this time.

Sen. Snowe may be pushing a trigger and telling President Obama that her vote hinges on a trigger option that would implement parts or all of a public option if a series of cost containment measures don't work.

This is all being discussed by pundits on the cable shows. Congress has not formally mentioned triggers and they are not in any bill that is in any committee or that has made it on to the floor of either chamber of the Congress.

[grantcart]

35. Talking with a Republican about a trigger for the Public Option further

undermines other Republicans trying to argue against a Public Option.


It also shows that the President was willing to consider a trigger for the Public Option but only one Republican would sign on - so they can't complain latter that they would have supported a trigger but the President wouldn't agree.


Now if 25 Republican Senaotrs signed on to vote for the bill if it had an ironclad trigger - we would have a problem.


They just continue to paint themselves in a corner.


Obama's willingness TO TALK ABOUT ALL THINGS serves to publicly demonstrate how intransigent the Republicans are.


And finally even if they don't get an agreement with Snowe on this issue this time - it doesn't hurt getting her to vote with us on another issue next time. She might even be persuaded not to vote for cloture.

[ProSense]

36. Republicans agree to vote for bills to get their amendments in

and then bail when the voting comes around.