TPMDC
Democrats Prepare To Pass Health Reforms Through Reconciliation Process
Brian Beutler | August 20, 2009, 8:55AM
For months now, Senate Democrats have been preparing for what they regarded as the unlikely contingency that they'd have to pass health care reform--or some elements of health care reform--in a filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill. But the deadline for that bill is October 15, and with legislative talks still stalled in the Senate Finance Committee, aides are now beginning to say that reconciliation may be inevitable.
The Wall Street Journal confirms this account this morning: "The White House and Senate Democratic leaders, seeing little chance of bipartisan support for their health-care overhaul, are considering a strategy shift that would break the legislation into two parts and pass the most expensive provisions solely with Democratic votes," report Jonathan Weisman and Naftali Bendavid.
Senate rules give the Senate parliamentarian the authority to determine whether provisions of legislation are germane to the budget (i.e. whether they substantially impact the deficit).
If they are, then they can be included in the bill. If not, then either the provisions are either dropped or the majority party must overrule his finding. The thinking behind the new strategy is that a number of provisions--including taxes and subsidies and, perhaps, the public option--could be included in the reconciliation bill, while other measures--insurance exchanges, and other insurance regulations--would be included in a separate bill that would travel through the usual channels.
Aides are careful to say that leadership and the White House still hope that the Senate Finance Committee's bipartisan negotiations will bear fruit, suggesting that the reconciliation leaks are also intended to kick those negotiations into high gear. Yesterday, Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, said that Democrats would pass a health care bill "by any legislative means necessary."
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
- Top 10 Things You Didn't Know Before Reading Plouffe's 'Audacity To Win'
- The Biggest Dem Scandal You've Never Heard Of
- From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill
- Party Crashers: Who Are Michaele And Tareq Salahi?
- Friends In High Places: The Salahis And The Famous People They Take Pictures With
- Secret Service Director: We Are 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over Party Crashers
- The Salahi-Obama Meeting
- New Statement Out from Secret Service
- Police chief: Woods' wife helped after accident
- Backlash Grows Against NC Health Insurer's Anti-Reform Campaign
- From Dollars To Death Panels: How Republicans Distorted Debates On Capitol Hill
- TPM Reader Challenge: The Sex-Scandal Haiku!
- Why is Healthcare Reform Too Expensive, While the Sky is the Limit For War?
- CT Report: Green Party 'Picketing' Ralph Nader In Hopes He'll Run For Senate
- FUN REPORTERS: Where the Hell IS Sam Kinison When We Need Him?
- The REAL Patriots were the Republicans who voted for Obama.
- Secret Service Investigates State Dinner Party Crashers
- Hey Prez! Do you feel lucky? (Army Study: Pashtun men's blood testosterone levels 3X U.S. Norm! Tom Ricks: "Afghans are Clint Eastwood with a turban..." )
- The Biggest Dem Scandal You've Never Heard Of
- Secret Service Director: We Are 'Deeply Concerned And Embarrassed' Over Party Crashers
- Big Deal or No?
- New Statement Out from Secret Service
- Watch Out
- Does It All Fit Together?
- Let The Scrubbing Begin!
- Why is Healthcare Reform Too Expensive, While the Sky is the Limit For War?
- FUN REPORTERS: Where the Hell IS Sam Kinison When We Need Him?
- Haiku Contest?
- Bumps
- Democratic Party: Get Your Dumb War On
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Stiggs
August 20, 2009 9:17 AM
Yes, please! Obviously not how I'd like this to go down, but it's about time the Dems start working the system rather than letting the GOP call all the shots.
How many bills do the Dems have to got for bipartisan support just to have no GOP votes before they wise up? Looks like we might be nearing the threshold.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
August 20, 2009 8:00 PM in reply to Stiggs
Sadly, Obama has learned that there is NEVER ANY BIPARTISANSHIP EXCEPT BY THE DEMOCRATS! The repubs's have yet to vote on an issue that the people want without being bludgeoned ..They have Not since Lincoln been for the people only the corps and their own CYA...
Pitiful... but Obama has allowed it to be blatantly obvious to the World and the voter! And maybe , all but the low information or rabid will see this and have a wholesale political slaughter of the repubs in 2010...Like 1993-94!
The rabid and obstructionists will never be for the people...it is about power inside the Beltway!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
martingauthier
August 20, 2009 9:25 AM
Although this could be the only way to get this done, I see 3 potential downsides:
1) Passing the "noncontroversial" piece will stall momentum and the significant parts, i.e. those in reconciliation, will be cast aside.
2) Rs will claim they achieved health care reform solely on the basis of the noncontroversial pieces, i.e. gives them cover.
3) Ds will be blasted for going it alone on the parts that cost money and will pay a steep price, i.e. vote those tax and spenders out of office.
Again, if this is the only way to get health care reform, I support the approach. I only hope these possibilities are being considered as well and appropriate solutions, alternatives, or arguments are being prepared.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 20, 2009 9:32 AM in reply to martingauthier
I think it's a mistake to focus too much on the politics of how the gop will campaign and what not.
Get a good bill. Ignore the pundits, gop and polls. Get something that is good and WORKS. And the public will reward you when it bears fruit.
Overpoliticizing the policy leads to sham reform that only solves politicians problems not people's.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 20, 2009 11:43 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
There are those who think that the whole point of the gyrations of the last few days have been all about doing everything possible to get the MSM actually reporting that the failure of "bipartisanship" is entirely due to the Republicans before going it alone. This would be the next logical phase of that plan if such a plan existed.
And then there are those who think that's all just Obama worshipping nonsense from people trying to portray every self-evident sell-out of all that's good and decent to the forces of evil corporatism as 3-D chess. They're all weak, corrupt incompetents, batted about by forces beyond their (but not bloggers or commenters') comprehension who coordinate nothing and just do and say things at random with no coherent purpose or objective. If anything works out, it's just blind dumb luck.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fkaZk0sm0
August 20, 2009 10:45 AM in reply to martingauthier
if this process has taught anyone anything it should be that democrats can't avoid having republicans say mean things about them no matter what they do. it doesn't matter what the dems do, republicans will try to use health care reform against them.
your worry that the phony attacks might have a grain of truth and therefor might actually be effective is unfounded and irrelevant. instead of worrying how republicans will use something against dems, dems should focus on how they can get a good bill passed and use THAT against republicans.
the dems are the party in power. they have the ball. they need to focus on offense right now, not defense. republicans have admitted as much that they aren't going to vote for any sort of meaningful health care reform (most of them won't even vote for any sort of meaningless reform). dems should now focus on getting the best bill they can without the republicans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
August 20, 2009 11:08 AM in reply to fkaZk0sm0
That is absolutely true, but they should not use reconciliation to do it. Just go back to making them talk if they want to filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
August 20, 2009 11:47 AM in reply to Larry Geater
Yeah, turns out, that whole "make them talk" thing is a myth.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
August 20, 2009 11:59 AM in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
Wow! I just read the article you linked to and it is even better than I thought. They would look even more like a bunch of obstructionst bastards if they did it that way. Just keep calling for a vote and voting on cloture again and again whild some GOPer or the other is forced to say "I suggest the absence of a quorum." over and again each time a vote is called for.
We could make a montage of the clips from C-Span of one GOP Senator after another being the one who proclaims, "I suggest the absence of a quorum." Call the roll then call for a vote again. Lather, rinse, repeat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
August 20, 2009 11:16 PM in reply to Larry Geater
That's right. It's stunning how often that single article gets trotted out by the NCSteves of the world to attempt to give cover to Hapless Harry. Aside from the systematic take-down of the thesis in the comments to the article, based on a closer and less self-serving reading of the Senate rules, it turns out that not even Hapless Harry believes it -- at least not when it's Democrats like Dodd and Feingold trying to filibuster a draconian, sweeping "FISA Amendments Plus Telecom Get Out Of Jail Free Card" bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Former Federal Employee
August 20, 2009 9:42 AM
I don't know why it is that anyone expected anything different to happen.
Hopefully there will be enough of the American Clean Energy & Security Act and the Employee Free Choice Act covered by this exception to the filibuster to pass them as well. Contrary to the fantasies of those who wanted a figurative caning of Joe Lieberman, there are no moderate Republicans in the Senate; just some that we can occasionally buy off, without hopelessly compromising our legislation. It'll be budget reconciliation or a broken filibuster, all the way to January of 2010 at least.
If the Republicans (who ran things with little in the way of opposition for six years) didn't prefer the status quo, it wouldn't be the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
August 20, 2009 11:11 AM in reply to Former Federal Employee
My vote is for breaking the filibuster. Reconciliation is for wusses who want to have to fight this same fight ovaer and again. If we break a filibuster or two they will quit using them on every bill that comes down the pike!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 20, 2009 11:13 AM in reply to Larry Geater
I don't know. Could that backfire if we couldn't break the f?
But it would be good for once to make these jackals actualyl put uip or shut up of the threat to fillibuster
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
August 20, 2009 11:50 AM in reply to AnswerFrog
The only thing that would prevent us from breaking a filibuster is lack of will. They cannot talk forever and while they do we need to have every available Democrat out on the steps of the Capitol talking to any reporter who will listen about the GOP shutting down the government with their obstructionist tactics. If Reid cannot sell that then he is the gutless wonder that he has been accused of being.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
August 20, 2009 9:47 AM
Not How I would like to go but we do what we must to get the job done. I commend Democrats for making the hard decisions.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tommyo
August 20, 2009 10:08 AM
Well it's about time they did this. There is no constitutional requirement for 60 senate votes for a bill to pass.
The fillibuster is nothing more than a parlimentary rule and can be discarded at any time. Just ask the GOP. They did it over and over for tax cuts.
This is good news, but I don't think Reid, or the Democratic Senators who elected him as their leader, have the spine to do this.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
brewmn61
August 20, 2009 10:22 AM
"Aides are careful to say that leadership and the White House still hope that the Senate Finance Committee's bipartisan negotiations will bear fruit"
I really hope this kind of BS is purely for public consumption, because if they haven't figured out by now that any reform that, well, actually reforms our health care system, will get ZERO Republican votes, then they're too stupid to trust with the reins of government.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
thomas1
August 20, 2009 10:37 AM in reply to brewmn61
I'm pretty sure it's purely for public consumption. It's a "we tried to work with them but they wouldn't compromise one bit" play. Sort of a sop to David Broder types.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MAX TARDCORE
August 20, 2009 11:36 AM in reply to thomas1
David Broder, Washington's Jizz-rag.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
August 20, 2009 11:06 AM in reply to brewmn61
They can make the GOP show just how disengenuous they are by making them talk if the want to filibuster.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dtr
August 20, 2009 10:42 AM
from Glenn Greenwald
http://www.salon.com/opinion/greenwald/2009/08/19/obama/
"The attempt to attract GOP support was the pretext which Democrats used to compromise continuously and water down the bill. But -- given the impossibility of achieving that goal -- isn't it fairly obvious that a desire for GOP support wasn't really the reason the Democrats were constantly watering down their own bill? Given the White House's central role in negotiating a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry, its betrayal of Obama's clear promise to conduct negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN no less), Rahm's protection of Blue Dogs and accompanying attacks on progressives, and the complete lack of any pressure exerted on allegedly obstructionists "centrists," it seems rather clear that the bill has been watered down, and the "public option" jettisoned, because that's the bill they want -- this was the plan all along.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
August 20, 2009 12:08 PM in reply to dtr
Yeah, I'm usually behind Greenwald, but that column seemed like cynical speculation. I mean, Obama had been talking about a deal with the pharmaceutical industry in which they pledged billions in savings for a while before this "secret deal" was revealed. Another problem with Greenwald's analysis is that he falls into the trap that, ironically, the most stalwart Obama defenders do: by suggesting he's playing some elaborate, 11-dimensional chess.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
August 20, 2009 12:14 PM in reply to dtr
I don't really agree with Greenwald here. He seems overly cynical. We will see if he is right by bill signing time. Alot of things will come to light by then.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
August 20, 2009 10:54 AM
I think this is a smart idea. Virtually everyone can get on board for the elements of the bill that don't have a significant cost (tighter restrictions on insurance companies, a structured marketplace for individual policies); and I think we should be able to muster up 51 votes in the Senate to pass the more controversial parts under budget reconciliation rules.
The problem with this whole effort has always been, imo, that we are asking a lot of politicians to take a substantial risk by voting FOR a bill that is easily demonized by the media and a fickle electorate. I'm fairly certain that once the public option comes into being it will be as bulletproof as Medicare and SS currently are. But getting risk-averse politicians to go out on a limb NOW for something that won't come into being until 2013 is a tough sell. I do believe however that we can get 51 Senators to take that risk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Strykur
August 20, 2009 12:47 PM in reply to agio
I agree that we are asking too much of their political will. I do think we should consider doing it a different way. I think we should ask Congress to pass a resolution that spells out general principles of health care reform. Up or down vote, at least we will know where everyone stands on the major issues.
This resolution that passes could guide the House and Senate as they craft the detailed legislation. This resolution would be a bill that people could really read and understand.
I propose a short bill of no more than 2 pages with simple declarative sentences, such as:
1) No health insurance plan may decide to drop coverage on a person because the value of their life is not deemed worth coverage.
2) When a person leaves one insurance plan, their previous insurer must maintain coverage for six months or until they get their new coverage in place.
3) No health insurance plan may choose to ration care by creating wait lists for care procedures.
4) Health insurers can no longer deny coverage on basis of pre-existing conditions.
5) All citizens will be required to have health insurance coverage.
6) All citizens can retain their existing health insurance plans.
7) All citizens whose employers do not provide health insurance must purchase their own health insurance.
8) The Federal Government will allow citizens who are currently ineligible for Medicare benefits, the option of enrolling in Medicaire by paying premiums. This optional Medicare coverage will help bring down the cost of health insurance for the uninsured who work.
9) The optional Medicare coverage will work just as Medicare does: reimbursing private doctors for covered services.
10) The optional Medicare coverage must be self-sustaining financially, not draining any benefits away from enrolled Medicare recipients.
11) Those citizens who cannot afford private health insurance or optional Medicare coverage will get government vouchers to cover the extra cost of the optional Medicare premiums.
12) The vouchers will be paid for by the extra revenue generated by the cap on health insurance tax exemptions for those making more than $250,000 per year. No one making less than $250,000 per year will have their exemption for employer paid health insurance capped. Those making $250,000 per year or more will have their health insurance tax exemption capped and their tax deduction for health care costs capped.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 20, 2009 3:48 PM in reply to Strykur
1) Socialized Medicine often deems treatment too expensive or not proven effective enough to spend the resources on when it can save other lives. Look up about Canada and the guy with Colon cancer as an example of socialized healthcare.
2) Who is going to pay for 6 months? The other people still paying premiums. Those just went up again.
3) See Point #1. Socialized Health plans do this often.
4) I agree, but it will raise costs for other people on the same plan as you typically. They calculate the premiums based on the previous years expenses. The Broker gets a LARGE cut of course.
5) So much for Freedom of choice.
6) No comment, but I don't disagree.
7) See #5
8) Medicare loses money. Companies that process the claims lose money on it. People with private plans are charged more to make up for the losses and keep companies profitable.
9) I'm not certain of compensation given to doctors, but I don't see many clinics going up near public housing to think it is profitable.
10) agreed, but do more benefits need to be added each year? Part of the reason Medicare cost sky rocketed, so I've heard, but haven't seen exact evidence myself.
11) no comment
12) We've all heard "Cap" numbers before on taxes, I won't trust them now either.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Larry Geater
August 20, 2009 11:03 AM
Reconciliation is the WEAK WAY to do this. Do it through standard rules. Just make those GOPers talk till they colapse. If they wish to filibuster keep the senate in session 24/7 365 until you get cloture. Quit being filibuster wusses!!!!!!!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MAX TARDCORE
August 20, 2009 11:38 AM in reply to Larry Geater
Larry, you're entering a world... of pain. A world of pain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jerryfatheart
August 20, 2009 12:09 PM in reply to MAX TARDCORE
Have you ever heard of Vietnam, Larry? ... You're killing your father.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
August 20, 2009 11:17 AM
Glad to hear reconciliation is the backup plan. Now, if that is the path, I hope the bill is as liberal as possible...just go for 51 votes to get it through the Senate. This will get us a better bill and it will make the disingenuous obstructionists pay a price for sabotaging true efforts to build a broader base of support. They cannot have the benefit of gains for their special interests and ideology without supporting a real bipartisan effort.
Just one example: "So, you now say no coops,'cause they're no better than a public option. Not a problem, then we'll just go back to the public option."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnmccsf
August 20, 2009 12:08 PM
Strike the tent at Circus Baucus
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
readerOfTeaLeaves
August 20, 2009 12:13 PM
Health care affects government budgets for cities, counties, states, and the fed.
The GOP seems to be stuck in the 1960s nostalgia of Gidget, and 30 cent per gallon gas. The Dems need to move on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
August 20, 2009 12:15 PM
For goodness sakes TPM can you fix the messaging to where YOU DON'T GET TAKEN TO ANOTHER PAGE! Just let the message pop up it's so annoying when I have to go back to the page just to keep reading
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MAX TARDCORE
August 20, 2009 1:16 PM in reply to theone718
TPEEZY FIX YO FACTS.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Strykur
August 20, 2009 12:44 PM
"You are like the fishers for eels; in still waters they catch nothing, but if they thoroughly stir up the slime, their fishing is good; in the same way it's only in troubled times that you line your pockets." Aristophanes parodying Cleon, the Demagogue
The current mob rule has done nothing but fire up the Republican fundraising machine and stimulated the economy of Hitler picture purveyors and ammunition sales outlets.
The structure of the Bill is not the problem. The fact that Obama won is what is being protested here. The whole thing started with arguments against his immigration status.
Its about greed, guns and demagogues!
We are living in the Summer of Hate!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 20, 2009 3:33 PM in reply to Strykur
Wow Strykur you are almost as extreme as the people you are against.
Let's break down Greed, Guns and Demagogues..
Greed, like news papers and Television news?
Guns, Just get rid of the freedom of press and speech and no one will complain when we get rid of them. Which may be why we have both present in the constitution.
Demagogue - Almost every Senator and Representative we have in Office, regardless of PARTY.
They give themselves raises without having to vote. They have different healthcare. Half the laws they create don't apply to them. When the representatives no longer have to follow the same rules as the people they represent, they are no longer part of those people and don't deserve to represent them.
How long would it take education to get fixed if all Congressman had to put their children in public schools from their district?
How long would it take Social Security to get fixed if they had that as their retirement?
Most of our politicians care about the next election and not the benefit of this country regardless of party.
As far as Hitler. He first took power then used that power and platform to silence anyone speaking against him. Much like many of the Democratic Senators were trying to do at first. Obama paid a heavy price for their lack of discretion.
This reform may break the US economy. Don't you think it is worth taking slowly? Don't you wish they had taken going to war in Iraq Slowly? Don't you wish they had taken more time on TARP and bailing out the banks?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
August 20, 2009 2:32 PM
Health Care HypocrisyMany of the pundits attacking government health insurance rely on government health insurance for their own families.
By Daniel Gross
http://www.slate.com/id/2225664/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 20, 2009 3:22 PM
I find it odd, that so much hate is being projected here at "groups" that are collaborating. Didn't Obama run under "We are Americans?" Didn't he run under transparency? Didn't he say we should put things on the table and debate it to find he best solution?
So how is it we're suddenly trying to PUSH "reform" when we're not even sure how we're going to pay for the debt we already have? Where is the truly open debate between parties that are transparent to the people so we can SEE what is going on?
This isn't the Obama that ran for President, where did he go?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MAX TARDCORE
August 20, 2009 4:03 PM in reply to Garlyn
Oh, he's still there. The Right has just managed to kick up enough clouds in a pout to make him -- momentarily, at least, & certainly in the eyes of the MSM -- disappear.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Docb
August 20, 2009 4:05 PM
Mr. Chicken neck reid is not pushing this...he is being pushed never the less we need to support them and give them small carrots till it is done!
Garlyn we a pushing this because NOTHING HAS BEEN DONE IN 40 Years and 46 million and growing [ 14,000 a day]everyday need it..The lilly livered in Congress have buckled-Dems or obstructed- repubs- every time!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Garlyn
August 21, 2009 2:23 PM in reply to Docb
Docb, Reform was tried in the past to slow/decrease Medicare/Medicaid spending increases during the Clinton administration. By Republicans actually, who were trying to reduce the growth rate to 7% a year 5 to 7 years I think. It was twice the rate of inflation at the time.
Democrats countered that the bill was trying to cut medicare and medicaid.
That should have also been a bi-partisan effort to curb the crazy growth rate of Government spending on health care, while not neglecting those who need it.
So we don't need to PUSH anything through, we need to take measured steps as we proceed with trying to correct health care.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael Kirsch, M.D.
August 20, 2009 4:47 PM
Go for reconciliation and stuff in your public option! Then, you all will own the program and the public will know exactly who to target when the details of this unaffordable program become known. This will be the GOP's best hope in 2010. Most Americans are satisfied with their health care and a majority oppose the president's health care policy. I hope that the GOP, independents and the 'Blue Dogs' stay true to their beliefs. www.MDWhistleblower.blogspot.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?