
At a special evening meeting of the Democratic caucus tonight, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid outlined, in broad strokes, the details of his health care bill, which the CBO has found, in a preliminary analysis, will expand coverage to 94 percent of Americans while reducing the deficit. And earlier in the day, during a separate meeting about floor procedure, Reid let three of his party's key skeptics know that if they join Republicans at any stage of the process to block the bill, he still retains the option of passing major parts of it through the filibuster proof budget reconciliation process.
In response to a question from TPMDC Nelson told reporters that, at a meeting this afternoon with Sens. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) and Blanche Lincoln (D-AR), Reid "talked about process, procedure, discussion about reconciliation and a whole host of issues of that sort."
"Nobody's really jumping up and down to push for reconciliation," Nelson said, "he's not threatening that, but anybody can conclude that if you don't move something on to the floor, that is one of the possibilities."
Nelson said he has still not committed to vote for even the first procedural vote, but in a sign that he's leaning toward bringing a bill to the floor, he emphasized his view that the floor debate is a chance to improve the legislation. "I wanted to make it clear that that is, unlike some are suggesting, is not the vote...it's a motion to enter into the debate and possible amendments and improvements of the legislation" Nelson said. "The vote is the second cloture vote, and that is the cloture on a motion to cease debate, and I wanted that clear, because I've already begun to see people out there say, 'oh no, no, if you vote [to take it up] you've voted for health care."
Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has explicitly stated that the Republican party will treat Democrats who vote for any procedural motion as if they've voted for the entire health care bill.
So what's in it exactly? Tonight, Reid described some of the key controversial provisions to the full caucus.
The bill will include a public option with an opt-out clause for states, though the public option itself, and many other key provisions in the bill, including the exchanges and a Medicaid expansion wouldn't be available until 2014--one year later than previous versions of the legislation, and the House bill call for. It also includes new language prohibiting federal funds from financing abortions--though the exact mechanism remains unclear.
"There is a strict wall between a woman's private funds and federal funds," said a supportive Sen. Barbara Boxer (D-CA), one of the Senate's leading pro-choice members.
Boxer could not elaborate about whether or not the bill would, like the House's legislation, preclude people who receive federal insurance subsidies from buying health care plans that cover abortion, but Sen. Bob Casey (D-PA), a pro-life Democrat, told TPMDC, "I think that's certainly the intention."
According to a number of senators, the language differs from both the Stupak amendment and the less restrictive Capps amendment. But though most details remain unclear, the public option would not be permitted to provide abortions, and insurance companies in every exchange in every state would be required to provide at least one plan that covers abortion, and one that does not. "There will be no public money spent on abortions...there will be a requirement in each state that they offer a plan, one without any abortion and one with so that you cover bases appropriately," said Sen. John Kerry (D-MA)
As expected, Reid raised the floor on a controversial tax on high-end "Cadillac" health care plans, so that fewer policies with more luxurious coverage will be immediately impacted. At a baseline, insurance companies would pay a 40 percent tax on purchased plans that cost individuals $8,500, and $23,000 for families of four. To account for the lost revenue, Reid increased the Medicare payroll tax for high-income earners.
Under the terms of the bill, Medicaid would be expanded to cover everybody up to 133 percent of the poverty line. And in a move that will disappoint progressives, tax credits to buy health insurance would be limited to those between 133 and 300 percent of poverty line. (People between 300 and 400 percent of poverty would not be provided any direct federal assistance, but insurers would not be able to set their premiums at more than 9.8 percent of their annual income.)
And, to address one of Ben Nelson's concerns, Reid stripped out a provision that would have overturned the insurance industry's anti-trust exemptions.
As they trickled out of the meeting, Democrats sounded optimistic. "We're going to pass this legislation," Kerry said. "That means we're going to get it to the floor, we're going to debate it, we're going to pass it."
"We're not going to allow a procedural hurdle to deter the effort to get to what the American people want us to do, which is their business with respect to health care," Kerry said. "A procedural hurdle is a minor, minor inconvenience in the process of getting this legislation addressed and on the floor."
Dick Durbin (D-IL), the second highest ranking Democrat in the Senate, said the caucus had a "very positive response to the legislation."
Tomorrow, Reid will file for cloture on the motion to proceed, which will set off 30 hours of debate before the cloture vote itself is held, likely on Saturday. That could set off yet another delay before the motion to proceed is actually passed, which could take until Monday. If that happens, the debate on the bill--including a reading of its 2000+ pages, won't likely begin in earnest until after Thanksgiving. Got that all? Good.

Barack ObamaJob Approval |
45.3%Approve | 50.0%Disapprove | -4.7Spread |
CongressionalGeneric Ballot |
41.1%DEM | 45.4%GOP | +4.3SpreadR |
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com

FreeRider
November 18, 2009 6:49 PM
Go, Harry! These conservadems can either get on board now and have an opportunity to help shape the bill for they can get steam rolled through reconciliation!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 8:58 PM in reply to FreeRider
Reconciliation is a poor option. It cuts out the possibility of solving some of the obvious problems of the current system. Everyone suffering from those problems is going to be asking which politicians are making them suffer.
There is a positive aspect to using reconciliation. HCR is a big experiment at best. The health care financing system (NOT the health care system overall, just the financing - we all know money is an unreal fiction, don't we?) is being changed because it has failed, but the exact solution is not at all clear even to the best of us. So there will be problems with HCR no matter what is done. Plan on it. Pass it and there will remain real problems unsolved, and probably some new ones thrown in.
If the Republicans and the Blue Dogs force HCR to go through reconciliation, then it will be less than the best currently anticipated solution. That means that once HCR is passed, everything that goes wrong, old and new problems both, will be the fault of the Republicans and the Blue Dogs who did not permit the full program to be implemented! None of those problems can be attributed to Obama, Pelosi and Reid!
If it comes down to reconciliation, I'd love it to be because of only Joe Lieberman and Ben Nelson on the Democratic(?) side. Every flaw in the system will be properly laid at their feet.
Imagine the advertisements against them during their 2012 reelection bids. Everyone whose premiums go up, who is denied coverage for a preexisting condition, who is refused treatment by a profit-hungry insurance company, or any of the myriad other pieces of crap the current system inflicts on the public will vote against them.
As it is already, if the DCCC and it's Senate equivalent do not have a PR firm archiving the stupid and irrational quotes and videos of every Republican who is going to run for reelection in 2010, they aren't as smart as I think they are.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 18, 2009 9:35 PM in reply to Richardxx
I know all about reconciliation and the challenges of using it. That's why it's a last resort. But if it's the only way to do it, then saddle up and ride!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 10:50 PM in reply to FreeRider
I'm just trying to point out the really negative results for those who force the process into reconciliation. It will cost them. Big time.
They won't win.
Neither will anyone else. But they damned sure won't win, and I want to make sure that is the case. Vengeance has its place in politics.
Liberals don't seem to like thinking that way, but we are looking at it. Lieberman and Nelson are looking for it. Give their seats to Republicans if we have to. It's time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 10:52 PM in reply to Richardxx
I don't think the Republicans can win Lieberman's seat.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
davcbr
November 19, 2009 7:45 AM in reply to Richardxx
I agree with you on this. If they can't vote FOR THIS, then what have we really lost by letting a repub replace them?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
November 19, 2009 9:34 AM in reply to davcbr
Not even just "vote for 'this'," but vote with the caucus on procedural motions for 'this.'
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kenneth Thomas
November 19, 2009 1:52 AM in reply to Richardxx
Reconciliation need not mean getting rid of everything that won't fit under the budget rules. It just means a second HCR bill will have to be introduced with the non-budget items. This would include things like the ban on recissions and no exclusion of pre-existing conditions, which are highly popular and shouldn't have trouble getting 61 votes or more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mophan
November 19, 2009 10:36 AM in reply to Kenneth Thomas
I agree, yours is the most likely scenario if reconciliation is used. My question is why would they even bother with a second HCR bill to introduce non-budgetary items. I'm sure much more knowledgeable legislative experts than myself can make the argument for a government run health insurance to be truly cost effective it most be open to all Americans -- irregardless of current health status, economic status, and currently insured/not insured. This could get through the reconciliation process by itself, I think.
IMHO, with the insurance fighting tooth and nail against health reform, this will give them a great big up yours. Will this be possible? I don't know, but it sure would have a bunch of people out in the streets dancing in the rain.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
eb123
November 19, 2009 8:46 AM in reply to Richardxx
Although the bill wouldn't be in effect until 2014.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Latino
November 19, 2009 9:19 AM in reply to FreeRider
Since benefits don't begin until 2014 - Republicans can run on repealing in the next 2 elections.
Why use reconciliation when it will just guarantee losses for the Dems the next 2 cycles?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
November 19, 2009 1:08 PM in reply to Latino
What a moronic conclusion. 1. You actually think people will vote on having healthcare reform repealed. Like they did with Medicare, right?
2. You think Democrats would be better if they passed nothing?
Use your cabbage for something besides making soup.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CVille Dem
November 18, 2009 6:51 PM
Go Harry! Reconciliation is the only way to truly have majority rule. If you stick to 60, you get a watered down version to bring the obnoxious blue dogs kicking and screaming into the arena. There is no reason to have the minority ruin this effort! It is wrong to pass a bill that plays to the lowest common denominator. Let's hear it for majority rule -- and if reconciliation is the only way, so be it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Walter Mitty
November 18, 2009 7:02 PM
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
November 19, 2009 9:52 AM in reply to Walter Mitty
I believe you mean ">50 vote majority." Because if the GOP ever did have a >60 majority, or even just the "60" that the Dems have now, you can be damn sure they would have unapologetically rammed through legislation as fast a Grover Norquist and Pat Robertson could write it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 18, 2009 7:04 PM
Okay, I like the idea of reconciliation but please explain to me AGAIN, the cons of reconciliation!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arugulachomper
November 18, 2009 7:12 PM
I'm thrilled to hear him imply that he's grown a pair by making that reconciliation threat - but I'm just a tad dismayed that he didn't make it clearer that the bill put forth would protect the status quo re: women's reproductive rights. (I couldn't decide, either, whether I should read something into the fact that, in the gaggle of Senators there to back him up, absolutely none of the Senate's women were present.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
arugulachomper
November 18, 2009 7:18 PM in reply to arugulachomper
(I stand corrected - looking at the video again on MSNBC, you can see Debbie Stabenow is there. But I'm still somewhat uncomfortable that Reid didn't come out more emphatically about not supporting Stupak-like language in the Senate bill. Then again, he's such a wet noodle in general that I'm amazed that he found a few vertebrae at all today, so I guess I shouldn't complain.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
November 18, 2009 7:31 PM in reply to arugulachomper
Why? It's not in the bill PERIOD. No need to start a fight about it, plus it's time to play up the bill in general, not specific provisions. We will have plenty of time for that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cool Blue Reason
November 19, 2009 9:54 AM in reply to theone718
Yes -- grandstanding for the sake of grandstanding is not always (indeed rarely) productive. Reid did the right thing in this case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 10:55 PM in reply to arugulachomper
He hasn't grown a pair. He is feeling threatened.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 19, 2009 9:07 AM in reply to Richardxx
Blanche Lincoln feels threatened, too. The only thing I've seen it cause her to grow is a a larger and larger yellow streak.
Credit where credit is due. The way he's handled this over the last several weeks was far from the only possible response to feeling threatened, whether from the left or the right. And, indeed, the standard DLC-Beltway Consultant-CW response would have been equivocation, followed by loss of bladder control and complete collapse into a trembling, cowering, placating lump of goo (*cough*deedslincolnlandrieu*cough). There are plenty of politicians in D.C. who colmpletely lack the even the modest quantum of brains and vision to conclude that doing the courageous thing is also the politically smart thing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
November 18, 2009 7:27 PM
Excellent job Harry Reid!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
theone718
November 18, 2009 7:29 PM
The Devil is in the details folks. The main question is HOW AFFORDABLE is this plan. If you force people to buy insurance they can't afford, Dems will be SEVERELY punished in the elections. We will see.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jimbomoron
November 18, 2009 7:39 PM in reply to theone718
Bingo. The big question is affordability. Can people afford the premiums? If they can afford the premiums, can they afford the cost-sharing? These are the core questions that will determine the bill's fate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
November 18, 2009 9:06 PM in reply to jimbomoron
It kinda depends on what you consider affordable. The reality is insurance is expensive. A typical middle income worker that has employer-based coverage pays in the neighborhood 5-10% (or more) of their pre-tax income for family coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 9:39 PM in reply to mans_best_friend
Retirement is expensive, too. That's why the FICA tax is 15% of total income up to a certain level. Of course, it is thrown all on the middle class and the wealthy escape because of the top limit on FICA taxable income.
Get rich. Avoid any responsibility for supporting society. Being responsible for society is just so very middle class.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 10:59 PM in reply to theone718
Not if the Dems are forced to pass it through reconciliation. The flaws can be blamed on the Republicans and the Blue Dogs because of the difficulties getting it past the filibuster.
The Blue Dogs and Lieberman will be the first blamees.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
sunnysteve
November 18, 2009 9:31 PM
Well, I see Schumer smiling in the background. That makes me feel good.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Socrates
November 18, 2009 10:07 PM
It would seem to me that having an abortion clause wouldn't add to the cost of a policy, as the alternative would be paying for a delivery, etc. So, what if some insurance companies didn't made abortion a standard part of their policies, but let any customer add it for another $10? Would that get around the Stupid (sic) amendment problem?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
November 18, 2009 11:04 PM in reply to Socrates
So the antiabortionists will be blamed for the cost of the program if Stupak is included?
If it can stick, I like it.
That's a PR problem. They have to be blamed. What are the negatives?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Jackster
November 18, 2009 10:36 PM
Well, at least Harry's boys are putting up a tough offense. I'm just concerned as to whether they got the stamina.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JadeZ
November 18, 2009 11:40 PM
this bill doesnt tell me how much the insurance companies will profit by forcing people to buy their plans.
the problem all along has been for profit healt h care.
i realize corruption prevents anything meaningfull in this country.
but lets see where the money goes before we can judge this.
and i say any bill that increases profits for the drug and insurance industries is a failure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
agio
November 19, 2009 12:05 AM
... and what? McConnell will stop sharing his pudding cups with Nelson in the lunchroom?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
pinson
November 19, 2009 12:48 AM in reply to agio
Exactly. Mitch McTurtlecloset is set to scorched-earth 11 at all times. What's he going to do next, start shooting people? Please. I love me some TPM, but Beutler's breathless coverage of non-events on the HCR front has been tiresome for awhile. Hello, Brian? Let's try to focus here OK?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ericf
November 19, 2009 12:55 AM
I wrote to Arkansas' senators and told them that though I'm not a constituent, I did donate to the free clinic Saturday in Little Rock, and they need to get there to see for themselves just how bad it is outside the beltway bubble. I hope a bunch of similar letters might move them to go and I hope the clinic, well, moves them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
November 19, 2009 8:08 AM
Haven't read the bill myself, but understand it doesn't limit premiums. Risk adjusters are supposed to be weak and their enforcement isn't nailed down. I'm very happy for any insurance reform the bill provides (making it impossible or difficult for companies to drop patients once they get sick, disallowing them to turn down patients for pre-existing conditions). The health care reform parts of the bill sound like something Rube Goldberg came up with...a Rube Goldberg who was in the pay of the health care industry. They should strip the bill of the parts that don't work, keep the rest, come back to cost containment next year.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dragnet
November 19, 2009 8:58 AM
If Reid going to use reconciliaton, then why not make the bill as liberal as possible?? If you're going to burn the fucking house down, then at least make sure the public option is tied to Medicare rates---or better yet, just expand Medicare for everyone.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
numediaman
November 19, 2009 9:06 AM
As I mentioned yesterday, there are about a million voters who soon will be looking at the Democrats cross-wise, and it's not because of health care reform, its because they screwed up the renewal of unemployment benefits.
AP:
"More than 1 million people will run out of unemployment benefits in January unless Congress quickly extends federal emergency aid, a nonprofit group said Wednesday..."
"If the program isn't renewed, after Jan. 1 recipients who have used up their 26 weeks of state benefits won't get any extra coverage. The National Employment Law Project estimated Wednesday that 450,000 people will fall into that category in January.
An additional 600,000 will run out of extended coverage that month, the NELP estimates. Since the extra federal benefits are provided in stages, recipients won't be able to continue to the next one after Jan. 1, unless the emergency program is reinstated..."
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., said Tuesday that Congress would consider continuing the federal emergency program and other benefits included in the stimulus package as part of a bill focused on jobs. But Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid has said the Senate will finish work on health care before taking up a jobs bill, which could mean that it won't act until next year..."
"Maurice Ensellem, the NELP's policy co-director, said state agencies will start notifying recipients next month that their benefits will run out, unless Congress acts.
"That's going to create a lot of anxiety," Ensellem said. "Every interruption in benefits creates real chaos."
-----
Demonstrating that a Senator can not chew gun and walk at the same time, Reid will let a million Americans lose their unemployment benefits now, so that the Senate can pass HCR that won't effect them for a few years. By then the Republicans will be back in control . . . thanks to the anger caused by the Democrats acting like a bunch of Herbert Hoovers.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve
November 19, 2009 9:11 AM in reply to numediaman
Oh, bullshit. Show me one time that Democrats failed to extend unemployment benefits during a recession, by whatever means necessary. That's chapter one in "The Complete Idiot's Guide to Being a Democratic Politician."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 19, 2009 9:15 AM in reply to numediaman
I thought I read last week that they did extend the benefits? Someone explain please
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 19, 2009 9:19 AM in reply to numediaman
It ain't gonna happen. They will extend the benefits
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
November 19, 2009 9:17 AM
I knew I read it.
http://blogs.wsj.com/economics/2009/11/06/unemployment-extension
-adds-up-to-99-weeks-of-benefits/
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lok52
November 19, 2009 10:28 AM in reply to lousgirl84
Different extension. There are a couple of things that end on Dec. 31 (From the Recovery act.) that will leave the millions out. Also, the extra $25 dollars a week will end then also, even if your benefits don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hound
November 19, 2009 10:27 AM
If Reconciliation is such a great idea why didn't they use it already?
Empty threats, just more hot air and posing from the progressives.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
DKDC
November 19, 2009 11:07 AM
Since some asked, and it needs to be emphasized, reconciliation refers to instructions included in the budget agreement passed earlier this year. Therefor, it only applies to those provisions concerned with revenue within health reform, meaning the scope of a reform bill passed in the Senate under reconciliation instructions would be very limited (Medicare/Medicaid changes, tax provisions, etc.) Other provisions - such as insurance reform - would be ruled "non-germane" and would not be included, so as some have pointed out, they would have to be dealt with in separate legislation.
Pros of reconciliation - force the fence-sitters to sh*t or get off the pot, let them know some kind of reform is going to pass with or without them.
Cons - nightmare stripping out non-germane items, and another nightmare trying to reconcile with the House bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?