TPMDC
Why Democrats Don't Want to Pass a 51-Vote Health Care Bill--and Why That Has Liberals Fuming
Brian Beutler | September 21, 2009, 12:14PM
Share
Send to a friend!
As I noted on Friday, there's a rift emerging on the left between some reform activists who want Democrats to pass health care legislation as part of the filibuster-proof budget reconciliation bill, and Democratic leaders, who see the reconciliation process as a tool last resort, and a dangerous one at that.
But as so often happens in inter-coalition disputes, the leaders of the two factions are talking past each other, and their arguments are getting lost in the cacophony. So what are those arguments?
There are many of them. But in the end the dispute boils down to a question of whether Democrats should be willing to test the limits of what's technically feasible under the law and Senate rules--whether they should go farther than even the Republicans went when they used reconciliation to pass the Bush tax cuts--or whether doing so would steer U.S. politics on to a course so fraught and unpredictable that the consequences could outstrip the substantive gains they'd make by passing a comprehensive health care bill.
Right now, on Capitol Hill, Democratic leaders and staffers are having complicated discussions about how to structure health care reform legislation in the event that they're faced with no alternative but to use the budget reconciliation process. As we've noted before, that process isn't straightforward at all. Complicated Senate rules hold that the reconciliation bill is meant to contain measures that are relevant to the federal budget. But many health care reform measures aren't budgetary at all, and the circle Democrats are now trying to square is how to write those measures in such a way that they arguably do have a budgetary impact, if only indirectly. For instance (and completely hypothetically) creating a Comparative Effectiveness Review board doesn't in and of itself have anything to do with the budget, but if that board was tasked with making changes that lowered Medicare spending, then Dems could argue that it's inclusion is "integral" to other parts of the bill.
In the end, Democrats would take a bundle of such packages to the parliamentarian and make the case, much as a lawyer makes a case to a judge, that they satisfy all of the relevant rules. If the parliamentarian agrees, then Democrats can move ahead confident that reform will pass with 51 votes. But, Democrats say, the parliamentarian isn't likely to greenlight the whole set of reforms. And for each of his objections, Republicans are likely to raise a "point of order" to strike the provision--a maneuver which can only be circumvented with 60 votes.
Marty Paone--a reconciliation expert who's advising Democrats--says many provisions "may not survive and as such the bill will not be as comprehensive as many would prefer."
"Also," he says, "depending on the CBO scores, parts of the bill may have to be sunsetted if they add to the deficit."
Though this is all certainly true, many activists say it's all incidental. Some of them think the Democrats should pass what they can--including a strong public option--through reconciliation, and past the rest in a separate, less controversial, regular bill. (This, skeptics would remind them, would take up significantly more time; and in a poisoned political environment might not produce a complete reform package anyhow.)
Others say that under the terms of the Budget Act, the majority can do whatever it wants--that the Chair (also known as the Vice President) is the person with the authority to say what survives and what doesn't. This is technically true: Yes, customarily, the Vice President just defers to the parliamentarian, but, as budget expert Stan Collender notes, there's nothing that a determined majority in the Senate can't pass if they're willing to ignore custom and use the rules and laws that garner the budget process to their advantage. They could fire the parliamentarian and replace him with a partisan, or else Joe Biden could just ignore his averse findings.
At least in theory.
Skeptics have a number of strong objections to this line. Among them: that there probably aren't 51 votes in the Democratic party to run roughshod over custom, and even if there were, to do so could have dramatic consequences.
"The Republicans did not do it," argues Mark Schmitt, editor of The American Prospect, and a former Finance Committee staffer. What they did, he says, is "not a role model for anyone, but they didn't do whatever they wanted."
They passed the Bush tax cuts through reconciliation, yes, but to do so they had to twist and contort the cuts in ways that infuriated them. They didn't want the Estate Tax to gradually go away and then pop back in 2011! They didn't want to let all the tax cuts expire, essentially making it relatively easy for Obama to get some revenue back. But they chose to trim their ambitions to the constraints of reconciliation rather than deal with the constraints of compromising with some Democrats.
Why is there such hesitancy in the Senate to go all the way in reconciliation? Because if the majority party begins passing whatever it wants in reconciliation bills, it would significantly undermine the power of Senate elders.
Schmitt says, "If reconciliation became a free-for-all, it's not just the minority party that would be cut out, the institutional prerogatives of most of the committees other than Budget and Finance would be drastically reduced, especially Appropriations. That's why, political will or not, there are more than enough Dems who aren't willing to blow open the process, for institutional reasons."
What if the Democrats tried anyhow? Well Republicans could become even more obstructive than they already are. With appropriations bills coming up, Republican delays could all but shut down the government. And though the GOP would be taking a huge political risk by going that route, some Democrats aren't willing to put the country through something that traumatic.
As it stands, Democratic leaders have settled on a course. They've been very clear that they're not going to go out on a limb--that if they use reconciliation, they'll do so by the books, and, for a number of reasons, will wait until they're out of other options first. That has liberals upset. And the task for Barack Obama and Harry Reid and the rest is to convince their already frustrated base that they're not caving to GOP and industry pressure. They have a lot of material to work with, but so far, it's proving to be a hard sell.
Other Stories Featured at TPMDC
Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
PollTracker
Most Popular
- Senate Debates Historic Health Care Bill
- Landrieu To Reid: No Triggers, No Bill--Negotiating Compromise With Schumer
- Senate prepares for key health vote
- 60! Blanche Lincoln Says She'll Support Health Care Debate
- Sarah Palin Goes Rogue With Bill O'Reilly
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- Tea Partiers Admit Defeat In Health Care Fight?
- Landrieu To Vote For Health Care Debate
- Tomorrow's Health Care Vote: A Cheat Sheet
- Busting Rhymes In The Name Of Tea Parties
- Tea Partiers Admit Defeat In Health Care Fight?
- What a mess! (Updated)
- Landrieu To Reid: No Triggers, No Bill--Negotiating Compromise With Schumer
- Busting Rhymes In The Name Of Tea Parties
- Is the "Tea Party" Really An Appropriate Name?
- Extraterrestrials: Space Nazis or Fluffy Bunnies?
- CNN's Blitzer Suggests New Cancer Guidelines Are Gov't Rationing
- Reid Slams Broder As A Retiree Who 'Writes A Column Once In A While'
- 'President Or Jihad?' Billboard Replaces Birther Sign In CO
- Obama's Mideast Failure: What's Going On? ++ Shocking Gaza Video
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2009 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
The Decider
September 21, 2009 12:19 PM
So, the majority doesn't rule? Well then let's please remember that a filibuster is just a means of extending debate. Make those who want to filibuster stay in session all day and all night. Trouble is, the Dems always cave. Always. Rich Feingold the exception. Oh, and that independent from Yankeeland.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DrToast
September 21, 2009 1:11 PM in reply to The Decider
"Make those who want to filibuster stay in session all day and all night."
How are you going to make them do that when the filibuster rules don't require that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 21, 2009 1:24 PM in reply to DrToast
Didn't you see "Mr. Smith Goes to Washington"?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MasonMcD
September 21, 2009 2:08 PM in reply to DrToast
How about tasking someone to get 3 or 4 republican senators dead drunk with some hookers/pages some night, and pass it then.
Shouldn't be too hard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
September 21, 2009 3:02 PM in reply to MasonMcD
I like the way you think ... I know a certain house on C street that is ripe for just such an operation!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FrJackHackett
September 21, 2009 2:27 PM in reply to DrToast
But they allow it. Reid could hold the Senate in session and force the Republicans to keep debating in order to avoid a cloture vote. That's the purpose of filibuster--to prevent a vote by keeping debate going. It takes that 60 vote margin to halt debate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TaraV
September 21, 2009 3:12 PM in reply to FrJackHackett
I suppose that is technically correct but the current agreement/custom in the Senate does not require actually keeping debate open. So while new customs could be established, do we really think Reid is the one who's going to do it??
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 21, 2009 10:05 PM in reply to TaraV
Harry Reid in January 2008:
Of course that was when a pair of Democrats wanted to filibuster a bill -- specifically Feingold and Dodd, who were prepared to mount a filibuster against an eariler (and even worse) version of the amendments to FISA that finally did pass in July 2008. Oddly, when Bush, the Republicans, and an influential arm of corporate America wanted to ram a bill through, Reid was right there for them, standing up for the Up or Down Vote.
Reid changed his tune again in February 2009. That, or the Senate rules (specifically, Rule 22) changed substantially in those 13 months, or Reid in January 2008 was a complete ignoramus of the rules of the body of which he'd been a member for 21 years, and Majority Leader for close to two. I'm not about to judge which one it was.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AndrewPDX
September 21, 2009 2:20 PM in reply to The Decider
I agree. The Dems can pass a good bill with a 51-vote majority without going the reconciliation route, barring a never-ending and potentially ruinous filibuster by the Republicans. I seem to recall that when the Republicans were in charge, the Dems ran like hell from even mentioning filibuster, for fear that they be seen as obstructionist. But now, it's like they think the filibuster is the worst thing in the world -- but most powerful tool -- in the minority's arsenal. They have no flippin' idea how to use their power to their advantage.
The public will support a strong bill. Put together a good package with clear and understandable benefits for the average Joe -- not the insurers -- and esentially dare the Republicans to stand in the way. Remember the "nuclear option," and "an up or down vote"? Let's turn the tables a bit, but not in a way that makes the Dems appear inderhanded or sneaky (as proceeding via the reconciliation process might).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Chris
September 21, 2009 12:21 PM
Explains a lot as to why we don't have a bill for the president to sign. But if infuriating the elders or risking future appropriations is causing such a stir to hold back health care reform, then we are in a much worse a mess than I previously thought.
Make the Repubs obstruct or go find a different job. It's not like we are dealing with a sane opposition group or anything. The debate is sprawling around death panels and communist takeovers. Making them keep up their charade of opposition sounds like a good plan to me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
September 21, 2009 12:56 PM in reply to Chris
We don't have a bill for the president sign yet because getting it on Obama's desk has always been targeted to happen in the fall just before Thanksgiving break. If you've been under the impression that it was going to happen any earlier you've been mistaken.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AndrewPDX
September 21, 2009 2:24 PM in reply to markg8
I'm beginning to think that I've been under the wrong impression that Obama and the party elders really wanted serious change. The way this has played out, I am beginning to believe that watered down incremental change consisting primarily of consumer protections, while protecting insurers' profits, is really all the powers that be ever really wanted, and that sadly, that's all we're really going to get.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
September 21, 2009 5:02 PM in reply to AndrewPDX
That's not gonna happen. Covering everybody at current rates will bankrupt both the government and American business. Crapping all over the legislation as it passes through the sausage grinder because it's not happening fast enough for us isn't helping.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
September 21, 2009 12:45 PM
Do you really think that if Republicans had 59-60 Senate votes, they would be wringing their hands about it?
Doing healthcare through reconciliation is politically risky but only because the Senate parliamentary rules are so f--king stupid.
I would prefer a rule change to how the filibuster/cloture system works. If the Republicans want to filibuster something, they should have to stand up and fill time constantly the way they do in the House.
But that is something that is even less likely to happen. So reconciliation seems like a fair way to go.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 21, 2009 1:53 PM in reply to PorkBelly
If ideology was the alphabet, the Senate Democrats would run from C to somewhere in the LMNO group. The Senate Republicans run from Y to Z. That's why we're the majority and they're the minority but it's also why it's a minority that rarely walks in lockstep the way the Republicans do. It's an annoying little paradox.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
September 21, 2009 12:47 PM
Help me out here, Brian. How could Democrats say that a 2:1 community rating affects the budget? How does capping out-of-pocket expenses affect the federal budget? How about creating an Exchange? How does that affect the budget? These are core provisions of the bill. The 2:1 community rating is the entire point of the bill. If they can't pass that through reconcilliation, then how good can the bill be?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
markg8
September 21, 2009 1:03 PM in reply to jimbomoron
These are all provisions that put more of the cost on the insurance cos. instead of federal and state governments, providers and individuals. We have 50 million uninsured that are forced to use underfunded Medicaid as a rescue health care service when their neglected medical problems metastasize into requiring very expensive treatments. The whole bill is predicated on cutting federal expenditures to the tune of $500 to $800 billion out of waste, fraud and abuse in the system. These provisions sure as hell effect the budget.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
USgreentech
September 21, 2009 12:48 PM
The legislation doesn't have a choice but to pass.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
McMia
September 21, 2009 12:50 PM
Yup, those fearless Dem leaders.
If they had a 98 to 2 advantage a "gang of 49" would instantly materialize...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
xargaw
September 21, 2009 1:02 PM
If something has to do through Harry Reid, you know we are scr***d.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbe1
September 21, 2009 1:04 PM
For Reid, having any kind of opinion is dangerous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 21, 2009 1:08 PM
There is simply no excuse for the cowardly and 100% bullshit excuse of reconciliation being somehow fraught with problems. Was there any discussion of these dangers when Republicans were using reconciliation whenever they liked? No. While there is no excuse for this pathetic "concern" of Democratic insurance whores there is a reason for it and it is this: those who voice these faux concerns are doing all they can to prevent any real reform because they are corrupt and beholden to the insurance and other greedy interests that oppose reform at all costs. Reid and all the so called moderate or blue dog Democrats of Washington, including President Obama have every intention of selling out, shoving expensive and unworkable insurance mandates down the people's throats, slapping the label "reform" on it and then letting the insurance men reap the windfall without doing a damn thing for the average American by way of establishing any real alternative and that is a strong public option. Progressives need to kill any bill without a strong public option and teach Reid, Obama, Emmanuel, Axelrod, Baucus, et al a very important lesson and that is that progressives will no longer go along with rotten half measures more beneficial to the special interests than the average American. That is the only way to make them understand that when the idea of dramatic, substantive changes won the votes of the vast majority of people that they were serious and they won't settle for less any longer. It's the only way.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
calchala
September 21, 2009 1:13 PM in reply to oleeb
Did you not read why they aren't going that route? BUSH DID NOT GET WHAT HE WANTED. He wanted the estate tax for a while, and that wasn't there. He didn't want the expiration of his tax cuts. Relatively, passing a tax cut bill is a lot simpler as the core gist of the proposal relates to the budget. Healthcare is significantly more complex than a tax cut bill. Without some proposals not relating to the budget, the whole bill might not work. It's not that way with tax codes.
So, while you're ranting, it would be prudent for you to actually think about the consequences.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
PorkBelly
September 21, 2009 1:18 PM in reply to calchala
I agree with you in principle which is why I would favor a rule change to cloture/filibuster.
But, you have to play with the rules that you currently have.
Health care is and has been the Democrats signature issue for a very long time. It is probably worth the risk.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
September 21, 2009 1:26 PM in reply to calchala
"So, while you're ranting, it would be prudent for you to actually think about the consequences."
Since when do ranting and thinking go together?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mad Dog Rackham
September 21, 2009 1:28 PM in reply to calchala
Not only was that then and this now but, more importantly, that was those Republicans, not the ones we have now.
Do you really think that the current crop of Republicans would hesitate to do *anything* required to get their bills passed?
I know all about the risks of demonizing one's opponents, but the cynical use of the teabaggers and the current rhetoric from the right gives me no reason to think that Republicans care about Senate tradition, rules, or comity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bp23
September 21, 2009 1:55 PM in reply to calchala
My recollection of the Bush tax cut process is different. Many of the sunset clauses were put into place not because of reconciliation as much as the need to hide how deeply in the red the cuts would place the country. They couldn't get to 51 Republican votes without hiding the costs over time (hence, many of the cuts disappeared after ten years, so the long-term budget projections wouldn't look as bad). It wasn't the "constraints of reconciliation," it was the same players (Snowe, Collins, fiscal hawks) arguing for smaller cuts and deficits that forced the compromises. At least that's what I read at the time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Philv
September 21, 2009 2:09 PM in reply to bp23
My understanding, which forms a big basis for my skepticism of reconciliation as a magic bullet, is that anything passed through reconciliation must be deficit neutral to be permanent. Otherwise, it has an automatic sunset clause (I believe this is the Byrd rule, could be wrong on that), which is why the Bush tax cuts aren't going to be voted on, they're just not going to be renewed. And I hope everyone here understands that we do not want to going back every ten years to try to renew massive health care legislation. Of course, if they can get everything in as deficit neutral than this isn't a problem. But I have my doubts, Senate arcane rules being what they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
September 21, 2009 1:56 PM in reply to calchala
Yeah, this would be that "talking past each other" thing he was talking about.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 21, 2009 2:32 PM in reply to calchala
You assume that what they will pass outside of reconciliation is worth having and that's the problem with assuming you are dealing with honest people. If they don't use reconciliation they have all the cover they need to deliver a rotten insurance subsidy bill without a public option of any kind. Don't get snookered by their pretty easily detected lies and obfuscations. They can pass healthcare reform either way, but if the don't use reconciliation they don't have any excuse for ditching the public option as their insurance companies masters are demanding. It isn't just ranting you see. It's knowing when you're getting played which is precisely what those lying, corrupt Democratic accomodationists are up to.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
henk
September 21, 2009 2:52 PM in reply to calchala
"He didn't want the expiration of his tax cuts."
I love that the writer uses this as an example. These are SET to expire and Obama has made noises about allowing that to happen but it hasn't happened yet. Talk about ranting, you can bet your bottom dollar there is a going to be a major hissy fit thrown by Republicans and their Blue Dog pals if he does. Actually its already started. Google Bush Tax Cuts.
This has been the plan from the start. Republicans, when they don't get what they want, as with Bush and his tax cuts, know full well that they can always bully Democrats into doing what they want. And if you think that they wouldn't have done ANYTHING to get their tax cut bill passed you haven't been paying attention.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
trblmkr
September 21, 2009 2:51 PM in reply to oleeb
Like I said in another thread, I dread reform is dead. The only way it happens is if pro-reform corporate donors pony up more than anti-reform corporate donors. It's not enough for, say, progressive individuals or PACs to out-contribute anti-reformer for one or two election cycles. Our Sens. and Repos, like corporate dodnations because they are seen as more or less permanent unless you REALLY piss them off somehow.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
September 21, 2009 11:00 PM in reply to trblmkr
And what we got now ain't nuthin. Just wait till the Supremes rule on the Citizens United case and the floodgates for corporate money in elections really open up.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Winski
September 21, 2009 1:10 PM
WHERE have the dems balls gone?? I'm appalled at how stupidly these people are acting with regard reconciliation! I don't give a tickers hoot what the republicans had to do to use it. They did - end of discussion.
Either use reconciliation and win OR don't and lose - you pick you spineless weasels...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
September 21, 2009 1:19 PM
These bullshit filibuster rules are slowly but surely killing the American experiment in democracy. If a simple majority cannot ever pass a widely supported reform idea like a public option over the objection of small state conservative morons then we are in the long run completely doomed. Our way of life is already drifting off to Third World status and this inability to effect progressive change just seals the deal. The American 'healthcare system' has us ranking 37th in the world in providing for our people yet paying more per capita than anyone else by a mile. What a fucking shame we are all held hostage by the small state redneck morons. Alabama and Mississippi have the same votes in the US Senate as New York and California. That is what is wrong with us and it is literally killing us!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
An Outhouse
September 21, 2009 1:26 PM
if the majority party began passing whatever it wanted in reconciliation, it would significantly undermine the power of party elders.
and?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dougom
September 21, 2009 1:26 PM
Ah ha, the truth comes out; it's the "party elders" that would suffer. Not the minority party; not the majority party; not the people of the United States; no, the "party elders." It's the traditions and habits of the Senate that are at stake. 200 and more years of barnacles have covered and weighed down the hull of the ship of state, and the "party elders" don't want to scrape them off. "The ship might sink!" "Maybe the hull has been completely eaten away!" "The barnacles slow down the ship, which is a good thing!"
Bushwah.
The Republicans can either filibuster for real--stand up in the well of the Senate and start reading out the dictionary or some such--or it's time to scrape off the damn ship and ditch this absurd super-majority nonsense.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theWalrus
September 21, 2009 1:37 PM
The current "party elders" need a good ass whoppin'. Get rid of 'em. They're useless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom65
September 21, 2009 1:38 PM
I don't want to hear shit about fundraising until the Dems start taking advantage of the majority we all worked to provide.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
obamaman
September 21, 2009 1:40 PM
"party elders"--you mean like the ones who can create secret committees-within-committees and hold leglislation hostage for months while doing absolutely nothing?
why should anyone be concerned about them or their precious prerogatives?
and I agree with others who essentially say that this web of rules and procedures has made governing and passing good legislation almost impossible. I know the Senate is supposed to be more deliberative and all, but it's now representative of the people(not appointed or chosen by state legislatures), and it needs to be responsive to the will of the people. The primary consideration should have nothing to do with what some a-hole "party elders" want.
The fact that a committee chairman can establish a much smaller secret committee in order to please campaign donors and an obstructionist minority--well, it's just plain repulsive to the average person's notion of democracy.
and I know some Repubs are sitting out there saying "I told you so" or whatever, but enough is enough--and the numbers don't lie, Repubs are filibustering far more now than any party ever did in the past. Enough is enough.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnswerFrog
September 21, 2009 1:41 PM
I think Harry Reid's poor polling in Nevada is showing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
September 21, 2009 1:58 PM
The floor vote is the much better option. I'd go as far as saying the Dems should tighten the reconciliation "loophole" so that the GOP can't run with in when they're next in power.
You want to see a Republican wave in 2010, force the healthcare bill though reconciliation. Come 2012 President Obama may still be President, but he'll be facing at least one Republican majority in either the House or Senate.
The PO would have to be up for a sunset vote before it's even enacted in 2013 AND would get voted down.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rommelo
September 21, 2009 2:01 PM
just wondering... what about using reconciliation for a very very very strong public option for all? nothing else.. take it off the table and pass this through the reconciliation process.. it neednt be pages long.. just a simple clear bill that establishes the public option. and a very very progressive one at that,,,
is this possible? can we pass a bill with everything in it and then pass public option through reconciliation?
and what about the kucinich amendment allowing states to set up single payer systems?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jonathan Swiftboat
September 21, 2009 4:01 PM in reply to rommelo
I am not familiar with a Kucinich amendment permitting the states to set up a single payer option, but I think the best approach to breaking the approval logjam is that the finalized bill requires each state legislature to vote on whether to include a public option or a co-op or implement a single payer system for its residents. I suspect most states, especially the most populous ones, will quickly vote to include the public option. Gradually, as the anticipated beneficial experience of these states is publicized, pressure will build among the residents and businesses of the other states to add the public option. Conversely, if the co-op or single payer approach is adopted in individual states and proves successful, it too may win approval among states that either declined all options or that had a negative experience with the public option.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hollywood
September 21, 2009 4:22 PM in reply to Jonathan Swiftboat
I want states to be able to set up their own single payer plans. To hell with the small redneck southern bullshit states, I am sooooooo tired of having Alabama veto what California wants to do. The most illiterate and ignorant states have way too much power in the US. When Arnold's term is up in 2010, California is going to get a good liberal Democrat as Governor and I hope we can set up our own single payer government plan and move on to the future with the rest of the civilized world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
September 21, 2009 2:12 PM
Seems to me it would be a miracle if the dems get any substantive HCR legislation passed.Just the way the Dems & the Prez are willing to contort to the GOP's suggestions(minor party by a long shot)means (Dems)are playing for the corporations.
Just ask yourselves,why is the Prez palying to Max Baucus's corporate insurance bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tomanjeri
September 21, 2009 2:26 PM
The problem as I've seen it is that Obama and the Dems that support health care reform that includes the public option aren't negotiation with Dems that don't support it, they are negotiating with Big Pharma and Insurance Giants. All they need to do is flip a few hold-outs like McCaskill who, I have no idea why, goes out of her way to bad mouth the public option. She should be told in very straight terms that without her vote, she gets nothing, literally nothing for the remainder of her term and that everything will be done to support an opponent to her in the next election. I'm tired of Dems not supporting the foundation of the Democratic party at a time when this *should* go through smoothly, these DINO's need to go or they need to tow the line.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
oleeb
September 21, 2009 2:38 PM in reply to tomanjeri
McAskill's husband is a Republican who made a fortune in nursing homes and other health related industries. She's a nominal Democrat at best and should be eliminated by a primary challenge regardless. She is an embarassment to the Democrats, the Senate and to her state.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
izzatxeaux
September 21, 2009 2:47 PM in reply to oleeb
she is also one of the President's designated spokesproxy
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kgb999
September 21, 2009 2:57 PM
Observation: One thing the republicans DID do when pushing through Bush's tax cuts was fire the parliamentarian and replace them with someone who agreed to rubber stamp the legislation. That's a pretty big fact to leave out of an analysis such as this.
Question: HOW could the republicans become more obstructive? 80% of Obama's appointments still aren't on the job and we can count the total number of republican votes ... on all legislation combined without even needing to use toes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ru4862
September 21, 2009 3:14 PM
Can we all agree the democrats are spineless and weak?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
September 21, 2009 4:47 PM in reply to ru4862
Hate to say so but I'm beginning to agree. I don't think we should go the recon way because we'd probably be embarrassed when the blue scum changed their minds in mid-vote.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
burndtdan
September 21, 2009 3:34 PM
What a terrible state of affairs we would be in if you could enact legislation by merely winning an outright majority of the votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
busdrivermike
September 21, 2009 4:32 PM
I have an idea:
How about if the Democrats pass a health care bill that forces the poor and middle class to ensure the Insurance companies get to have profits forever with no government option trying to control costs.
That will insure the Democrats lose in 2010.
And about reconcilliation as means to a public option: It may be that George W. Bush conceded some points to the Democratic Party. I also remember him lying his ass off about almost everything he wanted to get done. Mr. Obama has taken pains to be truthful. So, maybe Mr. Obama should have lied about universal health care, then reconciled to a public option. Either way, it looks like the Democratic Party has given themselves a pyhrric victory anyway it goes.
So they might as well reconcile to a 51 vote universal health care plan. They are dead anyway.
My vote is immediate Medicare for all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LuxVeritas
September 21, 2009 4:40 PM
Obama is being as gracious as possible with his attempts at bipartisanship. The Democrats have bent over backwards to appease the Republicans. Despite all of this, they are still shouting at the president during addresses to Congress, calling him a socialist, a Nazi, a brainwasher of children, and every other thing they can think of. They are working their asses off to kill health care reform. Enough with this "oh but they may try even *harder* if we make them mad" crap. Nothing is sacred to these people. We can play as nice as we want and they are still going to treat us like criminals, so we might as well get what we want if we are going to be ruthlessly attacked no matter what. Just pass what we need to through reconciliation, and ram the rest through with 60 votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
johnwmcn
September 21, 2009 4:40 PM
What I'm honestly not clear about is why we are stuck talking about 60 votes. Is it so obvious that Baucus, for example, will vote against cloture? I understand he doesn't want to vote for what I take to be a good health care reform proposal, but why are we sure that more than nine democrats would support a Republican filibuster. I suspect there is something wrong with my reasoning here, but I don't know what it is.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
September 21, 2009 6:05 PM
This is my policy on votes. I am now holding my Senators responsible for outcomes. I don't care if they need 51 or 61 or 81 or 99 votes, if they don't deliver they will not get my vote. No more excuses! No more hiding behind Olympia or Susan or even Joe or Max or Ben. Bottomline: If you don't pass a healthcare bill that delivers universal healthcare, then forget about getting one vote from me.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tosh
September 21, 2009 6:18 PM
"And the task for Barack Obama and Harry Reid and the rest is to convince their already frustrated base that they're not caving to GOP and industry pressure. They have a lot of material, but so far, it's proving to be a hard sell."
This piece had me in stiches in a number of places, but Brian saved the best punchline for the very end by going to the Harry Reid Leadership spot.
John
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxanne
September 21, 2009 10:32 PM
Here's what I want! I want the 51 majority to be just that. Since you can only have 100% of anything, 51 is the majority, not 60. This rule was put in place to prevent big states from running rough shod over the smaller states. Well guess what? The smaller states are running rough shod over the 70 million of us who voted for Obama and this huge majority. Chuck Shumer said that you would need 67 votes to change this rule and I'm hoping that this happens someday even if we do get a strong public option. If the GOP and their idiot supporters continue on this path, who knows. I hope we can pick off enough of those wingnut losers to do just that. It would be great on it's own but, watching them bitch and cry about it would be better than sex!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxanne
September 21, 2009 10:38 PM
Here's some good news for our side. House Liberals sent a letter to Nancy Pelosi today. "From Greg Sargent's The Plumline"
Looks like House liberals are serious about pressuring Nancy Pelosi and the House leadership to stand firm behind a real public option.
The latest: The two top House progressives have just fired off a letter to Pelosi that, in effect, urges her to stick with them and to ditch the Blue Dogs when the public option rubber hits the road.
The letter, which was sent over by a source, makes this point by noting that the version of the public option in the House health care proposal negotiated by Blue Dogs — the version that emerged from Henry Waxman’s Energy and Commerce committee — pales beside the ones created by two other key House committees, which have a more robust public option.
The two progressives — Dem Reps. Lynn Woolsey and Raul Grijalva — ask Pelosi for a meeting to discuss these pertinent facts. They write flat out that the version negotiated by Blue Dogs is “unacceptable” to them, because it results in far less savings than the two other versions.
You should read the letter yourself. But suffice it to say that it’s another sign that when it comes to the public option, House liberals are preparing for a showdown with Blue Dogs — and showing no intention to budge.
As Yogi says "It Ain't Over, Til It's Over! Rock on Lynn and Raul! Fight The Power!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
roxanne
September 21, 2009 10:41 PM
The letter is available on the plumline and the dailykos!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?