Reconciliation will NOT include public option

[deaniac83]

From The People's View (my blog):

http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/02/pelosi-reconciliation-will-not-include.html

There has been a big push by some on the ideological left (and I do not, at all, use the term negatively) about a reconciliation bill to "fix" the Senate bill before the House passes the Senate bill as is. A big part of the push, though, has come from those who consider a public option sacrosanct and believe that a reconciliation bill is the way to push it through. Indeed, some are positively giddy about the prospect of the public option being revived now that any fix going through the Senate must do so by reconciliation and thus only require a majority vote.

However, those who are cheering on a "Reconciliation first" strategy simply or primarily because of the possibility of having the public option should take a breather. Speaker Pelosi - who yesterday said that the Senate has no obstacle to move to reconciliation (and thus elated the supporters of the 'Reconcile First' strategy) - today poured cold water over the idea of a public option being included in a reconciliation package. In no uncertain terms: "The Senate never supported the public option."

There was talk that there would be 51 votes for it, but it never passed on the floor of the Senate. It did pass in the House and, of course, I think it would be the way to go. But it isn't the way that the Senate went. And so I think that what you might see coming out of some reconciliation would be those areas of agreement that all three--the White House, the Senate and the House--had already agreed to...more than two weeks ago.

The Speaker is correct. According to the Washington Independent's count on Nov 12, the public option had 51 likely supporters in the Senate. However, many of these Senators, including Jim Webb and Claire McCaskill, who will not support comprehensive reform done through reconciliation (read: public option). As it is, there are more than enough Democratic (and Democratic-caucusing) Senators on the fence to derail reconciliation altogether. Some sort of reconciliation is still possible, but only given some of these Senators' willingness to pass narrow measures through reconciliation, not broad measures like a public option.

...

The choice before us, then, is rather stark. When you clamor for a reconciliation bill, you must realize that it will not include your (and my) favorite thing: the public option. It might include :

* a national exchange (some progressives, including Howard Dean happen to think state based exchanges are better when a bill like the Senate bill is the underlying bill; see my comparison for detail)
* closing the Medicare prescription drug donut hole faster (although the Senate bill, as is, does eventually close it also)
* adjusting subsidy levels (which I pointed out might be considered a wash between the Senate and the House bills, but the House bill does have more money devoted to subsidies - hence the greater coverage)
* "fixing" and exempting unions from the excise tax for a period of time ("fix" that wouldn't solve any of its underlying problems)
* giving all the states the Nebraska deal on Medicaid.

That's it. These are the "fixes" you get in a 'sidecar' reconciliation bill. To me, they seem like smoothing out what the House considers are rough edges - but not big titanic policy issues that should, in the alternative, stop the biggest expansion of social safety net since Medicare (those are Paul Krugman's words, not mine). To be sure, these might all be good fixes. Now, I want you to ask yourself this: even if you support the House's position on all five of the above, are they so important that you want to hold the underlying Senate bill hostage to a sidecar bill? Must these fixes hold up what James Clyburn has called a 'very good bill'? Or do you think that while the Senate should certainly act on a reconciliation package to address these concerns, the House should make history by enacting historic health reform into law, by its passage and consequently, the President's signature? The sidecar isn't derailed if the House passes the Senate bill as is, rather, in my judgment, momentum is created with final success and enactment into law of the Senate bill.

Read the full article with all the sources linked at The People's View:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/02/pelosi-reconciliation-will-not-include.html

[begin_within]

1. Well, then, November elections will not include reelection.

[deaniac83]

2. You have a vote in all 435

Congressional districts? Wow.

[polichick]

4. Seems they took the wrong lesson from Mass. nt

[avaistheone1]

71. Bunch of slow learners at best.

[ibegurpard]

3. the senate bill is not healthcare reform

It is codification of the insurance industry as our healthcare gatekeepers.

[deaniac83]

6. There is a LOT more to it than that

If you are inclined, I invite you to read and provide feedback on:

What actually is in the Senate bill that helps:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2009/12/can-you-live-with-killing-bill.html

You may not think it's enough, but it's a good starting place - even admitted to by James Clyburn - a staunch supporter of the public option.

A comparison of the two bills - with my opinion on what is better in which bill:
http://www.thepeoplesview.net/2010/01/damnit-this-isnt-about-blue-dogs.html

[ibegurpard]

8. How can it be a starting place for reform...

...when it does nothing to address the very issue that the arbiters of healthcare are for-profit companies with an interest in MAKING MONEY and not PROVIDING HEALTHCARE?
Why were the antitrust provisions stripped out? Why were the regulations on the insurance companies weakened to the point of laughability? Why do people have ANY CONFIDENCE WHATSOEVER that what regulations ARE there will be enforced when the insurance industry has been so successful in stripping out what they don't want?
What are we getting from the insurance industry in exchange for mandated purchase of health insurance?

[deaniac83]

11. The Senate bill does address that

There are:
+ A MLR requirement of 85% - if they don't spend it on care, they will have to cut you a check
+ Minimum coverage requirements, and it is NOT 'junk insurance'
+ Ability of state and federal regulators to further regulate rates and MLR requirements
+ Massively expand Community Health Centers, thanks to Sen. Bernie Sanders who called this a "revolution in primary care" - this will both provide actual care to the most needy and compete with for-profit providers, creating a downward pressure on cost.
+ The excise tax, coupled with MLR requirements, provides incentive to insurance companies to provide better value.

Now, do keep in mind that even with a public option, the vast majority of the people would be left in a for-profit insurance sector. Even under the House bill. So neither bill changes that.

If you are to be taken at your word, nothing short of single payer will do. But that's not what we were ever going to get - from the beginning of this debate. So we are not debating whether we should pass the Senate bill or single payer. We are debating whether we should hold back the Senate bill for what I think are rather 'smoothing around the edges' fixes in reconciliation.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

60. What, a four-figure out-of-pocket charge is not junk insurance?

Maybe you're affluent enough to think so, but I'm not.

[rapturedbyrobots]

64. EXACTLY!

I work in a lab at a major university with a REALLY good hospital. Hint: ted kennedy's brain tumor was operated here.

A co-worker with the University's own (supposedly non-junk) insurance plan, went to the University's hospital ER two days ago with severe abdominal pain. They checked her in, gave a CT-scan for her ovaries, prescribed some meds and sent her home.

WITH A $1000 BILL!!!!

this is with supposedly good insurance.

if this is what we're supposed to be happy about getting...well...i'm reminded of a quote from Malcolm X (completely unrelated to the original context but makes sense in many situations):

"If you stick a knife nine inches into my back and pull it out three inches, that is not progress. Even if you pull it all the way out, that is not progress. Progress is healing the wound, and America hasn't even begun to pull out the knife."

and if they did pull it out they'd send you home with a $10,000 hospital bill.

[slipslidingaway]

5. You can post the entire thing here instead of directing people to your blog. n/t

[deaniac83]

7. The problem with that

Is that I can't just copy and paste the HTML here - my blog post has a lot of links substantiating everything I say - I am going to have to place them all here, within a limited formatting capacity. It would both look bad, be lengthy to read, and take me double the work. The link solves that problem.

Besides, if someone isn't interested in the topic, I don't want them to have to read the whole piece before they get my point, so I just posted the main points I'm arguing and if someone is interested in the full post and my substantiation, they could see it on my blog.

[slipslidingaway]

36. Sorry I do not see anything fancy at your blog that could not be posted ...

on DU.


And no thanks...

"...So, I need to pick up the phones again. You need to call your member of the House and your Senators - even if you have already called. First, call the Capitol switchboard and ask for your member of the House. Tell them politely but firmly that you expect your member to vote for the Senate health care bill as is so that it can be signed by the President. Then urge them to follow up with a reconciliation bill to fix it..."

[spoony]

56. Maybe he's afraid of violating his own copyright.

That could explain the whole...oh I'm sorry, if you want to read the rest of my post you'll have to go to www.ineedmorewebtraffic.com

[ProSense]

9. This is really twisting Pelosi's words

...In no uncertain terms: "The Senate never supported the public option."

There was talk that there would be 51 votes for it, but it never passed on the floor of the Senate. It did pass in the House and, of course, I think it would be the way to go. But it isn't the way that the Senate went. And so I think that what you might see coming out of some reconciliation would be those areas of agreement that all three--the White House, the Senate and the House--had already agreed to...more than two weeks ago.

The Senate never voted on a public option, and if they had, it would have required 60 votes to end the debate. The fact is they stripped it from the bill before the vote.

Pelosi appears to be talking about what happened, not what will happen. The Senate, not Pelosi, is going to make the determination about what the Senate can pass.

[leveymg]

12. Good point. eom

[deaniac83]

13. In the post

I linked, I also told you why (with substantiating links) the public option will not happen under reconciliation (both because it doesn't fit and because the reconciliation votes aren't there -- any Senator who said they'd vote for a public option cannot automatically be counted on to vote for a public option under reconciliation or to override the parliamentarian if he rules it out of order).

[ProSense]

16. That's pure speculation.

Saying many Senators have said they will not support it (and it's only a handful), doesn't mean anything until the negotiations are over. Many Senators made a lot of threats before the bill passed with 60 votes.

[deaniac83]

17. No, it's not speculation

Read the links I've provided in the actual post. There are over 10 senators on the fence about reconciliation of ANY kind. 59-10=49. Then you have to get them to reconcile, accept the public option in reconciliation, and overrule parliamentarian on it. Not. Gonna. Happen. Some of the Senators already board with reconciliation are NOT for the public option. Between Senators who are reluctant on reconciliation at all and Senators who are opposed to the public option outright, a majority isn't there for the public option in reconciliation. And that's what the Speaker was talking about.

[ProSense]

19. "There are over 10 senators on the fence about reconciliation of ANY kind. "

That doesn't mean they will not support it in the end. You should know that by now.

You're declaring something dead while negotiations are ongoing.

[deaniac83]

22. Ahem, Pelosi declared it dead.

Once again, between the Senators who outright oppose a public option and those who are very reluctant on ANY reconciliation bill, the senate votes for *public option under reconciliation* aren't there. That's not even part of the negotiation, if the words of Pelosi and Rangel are any indication. The negotiations are now to get what was already agreed to before the MA election through in a reconciliation package. And that doesn't include the public option or Medicare buy-in.

[ProSense]

23. No, she didn't. n/t

[deaniac83]

25. Yeah, she did. n/t

[ProSense]

27. Pelosi can't declare it dead based on what the Senate will do. n/t

[Dawgs]

57. WTF!! Is Pelosi in the Senate now?

Give it up. You're wrong on this one.

[leveymg]

24. The reconciliation votes are there is Obama and Biden push and twist arms to put it in.

It's really as simple as that. The Parliamentarian's role is advisory. Biden writes the Instruction that directs reconciliation. Vote against him and the White House at your mortal peril if you're a Democratic Senator.

[deaniac83]

28. Yes, that's it.

Obama should have pushed. And Bully Pulpited.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/12/29/173522/52

The fact is that Democrats and Republicans are not cut from the same cloth. To think that all things are possible if only Obama and Biden twists arms is just not serious.

[deaniac83]

18. Umm, not twisting. Her words

That whole part you quoted - beginning from "The Senate never supported..." is Pelosi's words, not mine.

[leveymg]

10. If there's a substantial expansion of Medicare, then this will happen. If not, it won't.

There's a line in the sand that's been drawn, correctly or not, in the minds of the American people about what an acceptable HCR Bill contains. A PO or expanded Medicare is essential and necessary to cost containment -- it is the "meat" in the sandwich. Without this provision, there won't be enough votes in the House to pass it.

The House Democrats are not fools or ideologues - they're holding out for a decent bill they can take back to the voters in November because they, unlike their lofty colleagues in the Senate, understand that their political survival is on the line.

That line is the PO -- whatever you want to call it -- without which, there is no HCR, just a $900 billion Insurance industry bail-out.

[deaniac83]

14. It won't happen

If you read the whole thing, the things they are talking about are the five things I mentioned - i.e. things already agreed to before Brown's election. And the Medicare expansion isn't one of those areas.

[leveymg]

20. If Congress hasn't learned 1 thing since Brown's election, then they deserve to be voted out in Nov.

What won't happen is another Democratic majority if the PO doesn't happen - it's the only concrete part of the Bill that people understand, aside from the mandate, which they hate. The two balance out. Without the PO it's not politically acceptable. Anyone who votes for HCR without a PO will be retired.

[deaniac83]

21. Obviously, you and I have different political calculus

But the fact is, the public option won't happen as a matter of policy. Now the question, as a matter of policy, is, then do you kill the bill altogether? I am not for that.

[leveymg]

26. We agree on that much. Bottom-line calculus is political survival of the Democratic Party

If there's a deficient Bill passed, we're history as the majority. That's why a decent Bill will have to pass, in spite of what individual members of the Senate might want.

[deaniac83]

29. A deficient bill can still be decent

The Senate bill is. Al Franken and Jim Clyburn agree on that.

[ibegurpard]

32. nope

not enough regulation of the industry in exchange for throwing the public at them.

[deaniac83]

34. Regulations-wise

the House and the Senate bills are almost the same with the exception of the national exchange (once again, Dean prefers a state based exchange), and the revocation of the antitrust exemption.

Besides, no one is "thrown" at them. The mandate is moot if you can't find insurance for less than 8% of your income in premiums. If you can and choose not to buy it, the penalty is at best 2% of your income (so you know, we can fund emergency room for when you show up there because you chose not to buy health insurance even though you could afford it).

[leveymg]

33. Would you buy a deficient car, twice?

Think of it as a commercial decision. That's all it is for most voters who aren't committed partisans.

[deaniac83]

35. Deficient and decent, yes

I think we are going round and round - and to me, the deficiencies are not fatal. If I had a choice between a deficient car (I liken the deficiencies in the Senate bill *as compared with the House one* to the speedometer not working and maybe seats are torn, but no essential operational damage - it still runs and it stops when you break). Yes, I would take a deficient but decent car, if the other option is no car at all. I would also take a deficient and decent car and then happily fix it up later.

[ProSense]

15. Delete n/t

[yurbud]

30. instead of subsidies,control premiums, profits, and exec compensation

and add criminal penalties for violating those.

[deaniac83]

31. Just because you say "add"

doesn't mean they have the votes or that it can legitimately all be added under reconciliation. I'd like to see YOU deliver the votes.

[yurbud]

39. the democrats negotiated back-asswards. they started with what was acceptabe to the corrupt

and negotiated down from there. I'd have more respect for the votes argument if they aimed higher and negotiated down.

[deaniac83]

42. Thanks for the Monday morning quarterbacking

But even if your cunning political insight was correct, we can't go back and change the past. We have what we have right now, and I don't think we should let it go down at the alter of whatever it is that one or two things we want to hang tough on.

[yurbud]

47. that's a great talking point. Should criminals be allowed to use it as a defense in court?

''Whether or not my client killed her, we can't go back and change the past.''


Also, if you don't hang tough on ANYTHING, why should you expect to get anything?

[yurbud]

49. So you think being 3% better than the GOP and shitting on your base is a winning strategy?

Or is that demoralizing proof that the DLC wing of the party would rather be corporate compliant than actually win?

Why don't you business owned Democrats get together with the business owned GOP, form your own party without any pretense of being progressives OR cultural conservatives, and see how many people actually vote for you.

[bvar22]

37. If The Dems push the HCR Bill through reconciliation WITHOUT a Public Option...

It is an open admission that the Democratic Party no longer represents the Middle/Working Class of America.
It IS that simple.
Lieberman is no longer an excuse.
"Obstructionist Republicans" are no longer an excuse.
THIS is a completely DEMOCRATIC Bill.
It WILL contain what The Democrats WANT it to contain.

In 2008, The American People gave the Democrats:
The White House
The Senate
The House
AND a STRONG Mandate for CHANGE.

If THIS is the BEST they can do,
then THIS is the BEST the Democratic Party WANTS to do.

The responsibility for the betrayal of the Middle/Working Class lies squarely on the shoulders of the Democratic Party Leadership.

No.More.Excuses.

LESS than 35% of ALL Americans support Mandates without a Public Option.
Good luck selling this piece of shit to the American People.

"By their works you will know them."


"There are forces within the Democratic Party who want us to sound like kinder, gentler Republicans. I want us to compete for that great mass of voters that want a party that will stand up for working Americans, family farmers, and people who haven't felt the benefits of the economic upturn."---Paul Wellstone

[harun]

40. Well said. No way mandates w'out a public option is going to win at the ballot box.

They will be severely punished.

[ibegurpard]

41. well said

eom

[leveymg]

43. Well said. And that's exactly what's going to happen.

If the Public Option does not make it, the Democratic Party will be held fully accountable.

Accountability will be harsh, because our crime is basically that of betraying our pledges of "change and hope". The other side was not stupid enough to set themselves up for that wrath.

[DCBob]

44. I dont think it is wise to force through a "completely DEMOCRATIC Bill"..

This country is polarized enough... that will only make it worse. IMO.

[bvar22]

52. The Republicans are going to become MORE polarized?

Oh yes.
We should do more to keep The Republicans happy?
They don't want a Public Option, so OUT IT GOES!

America voted for CHANGE,
not keeping the Republican happy.


Who could have predicted that letting Joe Lieberman write the HCR Bill would have Pissed Off so many Democrats? :shrug:

[DCBob]

55. Yes, and it could turn Independents away as well..

The answer is not ramming through "Democratic" bills. This country needs a nation-wide reconciliation or we are all f'kd.

[bvar22]

61. You don't understand....

No matter WHAT is in the Bill now, it IS a completely Democratic Bill.
NO Republicans are going to support it.
Passing it through reconciliation IS "ramming it through".

The WORST thing the Democrats can do now is to "ram through" a bill that less than 35% of the American People support. (Mandates + No Public Option).

[Dinger]

45. I Love Your Sig Line. May I Borrow It?

Paul Wellstone, *sigh*

I wish we could just bring him back.

[bvar22]

51. Paul said it,

and you are more than welcome to it.
You may have the photo too.
I took that photo at a Labor Day Picnic on Harriet Island in St Paul shortly before Paul was killed.

Paul is gone, but WE can keep his spirit alive.

"When everyone does better, everyone does better !"---Paul Wellstone

[Dinger]

54. Thank You bvar22!

:)

[Puglover]

46. Sing it brother!

I like what this poster said. Sometimes 2+2 does = 4.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x168974#168977

And when that happens I cannot wait to hear the DLCers whining that it's all the progressives fault.

[polichick]

68. "By their works you will know them." Indeed. nt

[AlinPA]

38. What reconciliation? The Democrats don't want to anger the republicans, so it will not happen. nt

[niceypoo]

50. Ding, ding, ding!!

We have a winner

'Reaching out to the other side' is more important than winning elections.

[WI_DEM]

48. I never doubted that. The whole thing has been for the senate to make improvements thru

reconciliation of the Senate bill while the House passes the Senate bill. Nobody ever spoke about a public option.

[quiller4]

66. Public Option couldn't be done through reconcilliation even if

Senators wanted to. It doesn't meet the budgetary test.

[freddie mertz]

53. Am I right to presume that the "death" of the public option would please you?

You seem to love the Senate bill so much that even Prosense, who did her best to convince us it was better than nothing, is not buying it.

It's interesting to be on the same side as she is. Yo Prosense! :fistbump: :headbang:

And she gets it right: It ain't over till it's over.

[karynnj]

58. Why postulate that they are against each other?

I don't know Deaniac, but all of his posts have been coherent, intelligent descriptions of what seems to be happening. Saying that there are enough good things in the Senate bill to welcome its passage (with the reconciliation fix to get rid of some bad deals) is NOT saying that this is better than a bill with a strong public option or singlepayer. Nor is it saying that he wouldn't prefer a bill with a public option.

[freddie mertz]

59. From my experience, this particular "deaniac" is a dedicated "centrist" and lefty-basher.

Thus my (unrefuted) characterization.

[karynnj]

63. I totally disagree

I see someone seriously looking at the bills and carefully analyzing them. I have seen more bashing from the left from people who simply attack rather than dispute the analysis in a civil, non-emotional way.

As to centrist, I assume his name, which is the same here as at Daily Kos, indicates some of his political leaning.

But if anyone to the right of Dennis Kucinich is a "centrist", I would agree that I am - though I have been a liberal since the early 1960s.

[freddie mertz]

65. I assume nothing, and am in fact an actual Dean supporter-then and now.

And believe me, true Deaniacs to not prowl boards trashing progressives, DK or whomever.

Meanwhile, the Dems in DC dither as Rome burns.

[Milo_Bloom]

62. Then, luckily, this bill will die and we can start over again in the future.

[Bodhi BloodWave]

67. out of curiosity; how many deaths is this victory worth for you?

[Milo_Bloom]

70. The bill saves 0 lives.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

69. If the final bill doesn't offer something like a PO or Medicare buy in I fear for the Dems in 2010