51 Vote Rules May Force a Public Option Too Liberal for Some Dems

So the Conservative Democrats want to avoid passing a bill that's too effective. Great.

Corporate Dems are selfish. They're more worried about getting re-elected than passing a bill that would be too effective in the long run, but leave them open to political attack in 2010.

And the problem is?

Nelson, Landrieu, Lincoln, Bayh, Conrad, Baucus is only 6. Who else is conservative enough to vote no?

Maybe I'm dreaming -- probably -- but I wonder if there aren't Republican congresspersons who understand that health care reform with a public option is what's best for their constituents, but who at the same time need to make a hell of a good show of opposing health care reform so the health care industry doesn't take their money elsewhere. Thus, we might have the craziness on the surface (and how!) but underlying it the understanding that Obama can still put the ball through the goalposts using reconciliation. Watch carefully to see how hard they fight in this very arcane and technical battle to frustrate the reconciliation process, should it end up being Obama's choice for getting things done.

They have no choice. They WILL need to support the public option,, and fall in line, This is exactly what we want to happen.

Its not liberal enough after all its not single payer

But its looking like a good bill. I hope they include the kuccinich amendmentt

Judd Gregg's going to lead the Byrd Rule Fight

I still don't understand the Gang of 6 strategy. Did Baucus intend to use Grassley and Enzi as surrogates for moderate/conservative Dems or as a stalking horse to secure their support? The former is just plain dumb, the latter too clever by half for why do by indirection that which you can do directly?

There's another way a public option could be included in the final bill - enforce party discipline and demand that all 60 Democrats (including Lieberman and Kennedy's replacement, who hopefully will be named by the Mass governor soon - yes, I know, a lot of moving parts here) vote for cloture, even if they plan to vote no on the bill itself. This would require Harry Reid (I know) and the rest of the leadership (I'm looking at you, Mr. President) to arm-twist, cajole, and if need be threaten with removal of committee chairmanships any Dem caucuser who refused to vote for cloture. Maybe it's asking too much for the Democratic Party to actually take advantage of the historic opportunity they've been given, and maybe there are too many of them who are afraid of losing their corporate financing. But if a lousy bill gets passed (no public option, mandated coverage, weak regulations on the insurance industry) then Obama is looking at a one-term presidency, and Democrats are looking at being back in the minority by 2012.

Thanks to Beutler for finally helping dispel a myth that has captivated too many progressives for too long - the Myth of Reconcilliation.

"Now if we can't do a bipartisan bill, then we will do a partisan bill. I don't want to do that," [Reid] said. "Under the rules of the Senate, we passed a budget resolution that says we can do, with a simple majority, we can do education and health care. I don't want to have to do that. Because if you're talking to me right now about what I could do with reconciliation, it would be only three-fourths of what I could do with a bipartisan bill."

One thing a bit further down the road..

If as seems likely reconciliation produces, if not a "Swiss Cheese", then certainly a 3/4 health care bill, the Senate can still go to conference with the House.

The key now it seems to me is to pass a House Bill next week and turn up the pressure on the Senate

Help me out.

I know the House Democrats had a dial-in caucus during the recess and voted to support a public option.

Here's the statement from the article: "Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option." The rest of the article interchangeably uses Senate and Congress.

Does this statement refer only to the House dial-in caucus? Has the Senate also held a caucus like the House and voted in support of the public option? Or are we referring to our own nose-count of Democratic Senators being for/against the public option?

I want to know why the Big Dog hasn't been sent to meet with some of these conservative Dems. I mean, if Bill can secure the release of political prisoners from North Korea, surely he could get at least a couple blue dogs to see the light.

Right?

WWLD?

What Would Lyndon Do?

The Times Picayune and other Louisiana papers are pressing hard right now for more effective Katrina recovery assistance. No question but that this is THE issue for Louisiana at this point. I believe Obama is set for a visit soon

Would you advise President Obama to send Rahm over to Mary Landrieu's office with a message?

Agree with Viva, Obama's got to show leadership and get this done. Chicken Harry can't do it.

Wow! TPM can't wait to push the "Dems FAIL" headline as hard as they can. Awesome job.

Obvious: pass the strongest bill you can devise with 51 votes.

This sounds like the elements of a deal. Make each side bear the risk that their assumptions are incorrect. The progressive Dems get a robust public option but it sunsets if it doesn't save money. The Blue Dogs can say that it will lose money, and therefore will sunset, so it's worth the risk. Of course it exposes the Blue Dogs' real problem--they want to save money only at the expense of poorer people and not at the expense of their donors and high-end constituents. But still. What's the
harm in trying it for 5 years? That it might succeed and expose the insurers? Let's say so then.

"Saving money" "Cutting costs" "increased competition"

All being talked about and all the bane of private insurers.

60 votes to invoke cloture or 50+1 votes and reconciliation?

How about the third option: let the Republicans filibuster! But make them do it old school - a quorum always in session, speakers on the floor speaking at all times, and no other Senate business until the filibuster ends and the vote is taken! That's how the Civil Rights Act of 1964 was passed.

Let's not kid ourselves. Health Care Reform is the most important item on the Senate agenda this session. It is perfectly reasonable to halt all business until the vote is taken.

Listen to James Carville, who recognizes that a filibuster would be a disaster for the Republicans, a flashback to Gingrich shutting down the Federal Government, the move that assured Clinton's re-election.

I do wonder if we have a consensus as to why the public option is necessary?

I mean, what is the indispensable element that it represents?

And I don't mean just viewing it as a poor man's single payer alternative....

This problem is a reflection of our weaknesses in our organizing. The people who live in these Blue Dog senate states need to start/keep organizing. If we as progressives have friends/relatives/folks in these states we need to call/email/organize them to attend a HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM EVENT- by going to Barackobama.com

We are at a critical time in our nation. The Civil Rights Act was passed because of the CIVIL RIGHTS MOVEMENT. We need to keep pushing these politicans by way of organizing ourselves. We need to educate and convince the American people and keep momentum going- old school style.

Dems will NEVER have 60 votes because Bayh is married to the health insurance industry.

They could get Snowe and likely all of the Corporatist Dems and a few other Republicans if there was a public option trigger that would only be enacted if the insurance industry didn't lower/control costs to an agreed to (by Congress) level. If the Dems gave up on the PO now in exchange for writing the trigger level, that might be the way to a compromise bill.

Still think, if they beat back the public optin, there's a chance for a non-profit to be created that does essentially the same thing via the private sector.

Call it predatory policy writing.

Just form the cheapest, most basic slimmed down, V*%gra/ rogaine-free health-care system ever devised, let people buy into it until there's no big-profiteers left who can compete, then craft legislation to transition that non-profit into single payer.

Simply put, create a private sector insurance provider that is cheap, denies all vanity medicine and treatment, and is modeled after a single payer system. Then convert to it completely once the wasteful, profit-centric providers have been forced out by simple capitalism.

However, the more we look at the polls and the more we see these town halls getting past the angry outbursts and allowing the majority to voice an opinion, the more obvious it becomes that WE ARE WINNING, no matter how often we hear "the votes aren't there."

Like Bob said...

This is a fascinating argument! Who needs the Finance committe bill, or 60 votes?

I will say I thought the public option should be geared to make a modest profit after setup costs and the first year or two, and those profits should go to support Medicare. I hope that wouldn't make it ineligible for reconciliation?!