Health Care Stakes Heat Up--Kennedy, Baucus Meet With Obama
Last night, with the typical eloquence of a 75 year old man using Twitter, Sen. Chuck Grassley (R-IA), the ranking member of the Senate Finance Committee wrote, "The prez is meetin w Finance and Help Demo bc doesn't appear they on same page Finance working biparty HELP more partisan. Where Prez land?"
Translated roughly from the Twitterese, that means that President Obama met with Democrats from both the Finance Committee and Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions (HELP) Committee because they disagree about the direction health reform should take. Unsurprisingly, all signs indicate that the more liberal HELP Committee--chaired by Sen. Ted Kennedy (D-MA)--will soon introduce a fairly dramatic reform proposal, with a truly robust public insurance option. Soon thereafter, though, the Finance Committee will unveil a rather less progressive proposal of its own with the issue of the public option--how robust it will be, or whether it will be included at all--still unsettled.
Grassley's spinning this as a rift between partisans and centrists within the Democratic party, and in a way that rift really exists. But the political play here is somewhat more complicated.
Keep in mind that Democrats have an ace up their sleeve in form of the reconciliation process. Nobody expects the Senate to sign on for a HELP-style bill, but if Republicans don't get on board with something (like, say, the Finance bill) the Democrats can pass the HELP legislation via the budget process.
Meanwhile, if Republicans in the Senate do play along, the bills can be merged into a single piece of legislation, that looks, for the most part like the Finance Committee's proposal. Then the House (where Henry Waxman's Energy and Commerce Committee takes the lead) can pass something along the lines of the Kennedy bill, and the final reform bill will be negotiated in conference committee.
That syncs with the political direction Democratic party leaders have been saying the reform process will take for some time. There's virtual unanimity among Democratic leaders on the Hill that the reconciliation process should be both a bargaining chip, and a tool of last resort, but that ideally a bill will pass through regular order. That's why it makes sense for the Senate to advance two very different bills.
We'll try to get you more details on yesterday's meeting, but keep this bigger political picture in mind as the legislative process moves forward.
Josh
Matt
Eric
Brian
DD's talking about language today. What does he make of Grassley-speak?
That said, I'm glad this is moving forward, one way or the other. The lack of health care is one of those things that should not be absent in a civilized society, IMHO.
June 2, 2009 11:30 AM | Reply | Permalink
All I care about is the how the votes pan out and to determine where the lobbyist money has bought the influence to keep a public option off the table. This is the critical test for Obama and one the public has a huge stake in. If we get no public option or single payer approach, then Obama is at risk for a second term. Reform of the current profit driven health care system where the individual loses out to profit motives we will see no benfit to the averasge person, there will be a huge backlash of against the democrats!
June 2, 2009 11:33 AM | Reply | Permalink
>>If we get no public option or single payer approach, then Obama is at risk for a second term. >>
Only if he gets challenged in the primary. The notion that he would lose to a republican who WANTS no reform because his reform wasn't liberal enough is not credible.
June 2, 2009 11:44 AM | Reply | Permalink
He will at risk from a challenger in the primary or from a republican in the general election if he can't assemble a health reform package. It is the number one issue besides the economy that effects millions of Americans.
June 2, 2009 11:50 AM | Reply | Permalink
I hear what you're saying, but ... how much credibility would a Romney have, should he get the nomination, when he spent his whole primary battle with McCain running against the very health care reform he signed as governor of Massachusetts?
June 2, 2009 11:54 AM | Reply | Permalink
Of course, he's going to get a challenge from a republican; it's called an election.
But there won't be any real primary challenge to te president. Democrats have learned from what happened when Kennedy challenged Carter--the challenger loses and so does the president.
Besides, *most* people understand that he's president--not a king--and can only sign the bill that emerges from Congress.
June 2, 2009 11:55 AM | Reply | Permalink
Never underestimate Democrats' appetite for the taste of their own tribesmen's flesh.
June 2, 2009 12:03 PM | Reply | Permalink
This is one of the best executed bits of political analysis of Congressional activity I have ever seen on this site. Sophisticated, informative yet concise.
June 2, 2009 11:34 AM | Reply | Permalink
Give the Repugs enough twitter and they will tweet themselves into oblivion.
June 2, 2009 11:42 AM | Reply | Permalink
Two weeks ago I heard Baucus' Finance committee was meeting to discuss health care but no person who had positive comments about single payer or national health were being allowed to the "public" meeting. I then called Baucus' office and was forwarded to the Finance committee where I was put on hold for 25 minutes. I called back to Baucus' office and the lady apologized and said they were being swamped by calls on health because of this issue. She said she would take my comments and forward them to Baucus.
I politely went off on her and left her stuttering. She had no reason why Baucus would NOT allow single payer comments to even be spoken. She then inadvertently let this slip out. "Sen. Baucus has narrowed the choices down and is only letting the feasible plan ideas be addressed." That's when I hit the roof. It was like that scene from Charlie Wilson's War when he was in Pakistan having the meeting with the Pakistan Premier. I told here that an idea that 60 million American's with no health coverage supported should be at least heard. Maybe it wouldn't be chosen but has the right to be heard. I told her that the Baucus was just as corrupt as the Republicans.
June 2, 2009 11:51 AM | Reply | Permalink
Recent blog posts have reported that Baucus's staff was getting flak at Montana town hall meetings in opposition to the Baucus position on single payer health insurance. Montana voters want single payer without involvement by bloodsucking insurance companies. Who would have thought that Montana voters were that intelligent? I am of course blinded by the stupidity of Texas voters and would move to Montana if it were not so cold.
June 2, 2009 12:49 PM | Reply | Permalink
Hey, its only cold ten months a year. Besides, can't be any colder than the inside of a Dallas office building in July.
June 2, 2009 3:20 PM | Reply | Permalink