
John Podesta, the president and chief executive officer of the Center For American Progress (CAP), offered tacit support today for having the House pass the Senate's health care bill but only with guarantees that it could later be amended through a reconciliation bill.
Podesta described this as the "consensus" approach. He was speaking at a CAP event on jobs, health care and the state of the American worker.
TPMDC reported yesterday that (CAP), the most influential Democratic think tank in Washington, had been silent on where it stands as House Leadership tries to navigate a path ahead for health care reform. The political calculus had become even more difficult since Republican Scott Brown (R-MA) won the Massachusetts special election to fill the late Ted Kennedy's seat. Brown became the 41st Republican and vowed to help filibuster the legislation.
(Reporting by Brian Beutler)
Editor's Note: This post has been revised since it was originally published.
JohnMcCSF
January 26, 2010 10:48 AM
Do it please
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
georgecs
January 26, 2010 10:51 AM
They're like pathetic little kids, passively floating one bad idea after another to see which one gets them in the least amount of trouble.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jrh0
January 26, 2010 10:52 AM
Reconciliation on a Medicare buy-in at 55 could pass and provide publicly visible benefits quickly. While having the House pass the Senate bill seems like a reasonable way to pass the bill, the process may appear illegitimate to some, and this bill won't have any effect for several years. Republicans would continue to demonize the bill and the process, with no benefits yet apparent to the public over two election cycles. There is real danger Democrats could lose and see the bill repealed before it takes effect. Furthermore, the Medicare buy-in would not include the controversial mandate, something even my liberal soul resents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 26, 2010 11:05 AM in reply to jrh0
Bull. The Demcorats have significant majorities in both houses. Nothing unfair about it.
Portions of the bill--like pre-existing conditions going away, mandatory lifetime caps going away, etc.--go into effect immediately. These are significant reforms that the American public, known internationally for decades with their generosity, can view with great pride.
Republicans are the opposition--they will always be demonizing anything and everything. You must be covered in layers of fairy dust to believe otherwise.
Democrats may lose and the bill could be repealed. Okay with me. Let the Republicans campaign on repealing the bill. That sounds like a fair and reasonable election campaign debate. Bring it on.
A mandate? I don't want to buy no stinking insurance. I want to have state laws that require emergency coverage so I can get my treatment if needed and not have to pay one cent for it. So what if companies and individuals pay higher premiums because the hospital had to write it off. What do I care?
That sums up your position, I think. Sounds more tea-bag than liberal....but everyone can label themselves, even inaccurately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 26, 2010 11:40 AM in reply to jrh0
A mandate is the other side of universal coverage. The reason why single payer plans work is because the government charges everybody in the form of taxes. We are going the regulated utility route, so the people get mandates to buy insurance and the insurance companies get mandates to insure everyone regardless of their health and mandates specifying how much of their revenue must be spent on actual health care for policyholders(85%).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 26, 2010 12:29 PM in reply to Darrius
You left out one little thing: as presently proposed there will be a mandate to purchase a product from a craven oligopoly. What could possibly go wrong?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 26, 2010 12:33 PM in reply to wbgonne
CORRECTION: . . . WHEN they try to renege.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 26, 2010 12:59 PM in reply to wbgonne
As long as we tell them how much of their revenue goes to health care it doesn't matter if there is 100 or 1 of them, the same percentage of consumer dollars is going to be spent on actual healthcare.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 26, 2010 1:55 PM in reply to Darrius
Did your Magic Pony tell you that?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 26, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to Darrius
Also, the insurance companies have these guys called lawyers. And, you see, what these lawyers do is take some rule, regulation, requirement, or whatever and they look high and low for loopholes, exceptions, etc. . . .
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 26, 2010 10:55 AM
Fuck the bill, let people keep dying for another decade or so at which point the insurance companies will of priced most of the country out of the market and something can be accomplished that doesn't require us to pay for Wellpoints Jets and executive compensation packages.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 26, 2010 10:56 AM
tone deaf establishment mouthpiece. You guys were correct.
all the reasons Dean gave for killing the Senate bill still exist. All the reasons the Nurses Union came out against the bill still exists, etc. etc. etc.
Everyone always said it would be fixed in conference, and now they want to go back on that as well. I can see why the House is reluctant to trust leadership or the Senate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
cube3u
January 26, 2010 11:08 AM in reply to Indie Pro
Fixing in conference is reasonable ONLY IF the Senate has 60 votes. Brown from Mass makes it 59. Oh, I see, you're one of those who believes that Snowe or Collins or perhaps Grassley will ride in on a white horse to save the say? Got it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 26, 2010 11:22 AM in reply to cube3u
No, I'm not. I'm saying the Senate bill still sucks, as stated by those I mentioned, and there are many others as well, that it is not reform.
Dean, and some others backtracked on saying the Senate bill should be killed, saying that it could be fixed in conference. Now that fixing it in conference isn't possible, passing it "as is" isn't gonna happen.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 26, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to Indie Pro
No matter what, the Senate bill has to be passed by the House "as is." The question is only whether the Senate can get their act together to pass a reconciliation bill to fix the problems with the Senate bill.
The Senate won't do it without pressure. Contact your senators and tell them to pass a reconciliation bill now.
This is it for major healthcare reform efforts. Don't expect another chance during this or the next administration. There just isn't the political capital available to go through what we've been through in 2009 again, no matter who is the president.
Democrats now have the highest representation they ever will have, and it's not filibuster-proof. So we have to take the progress we have already made and improve on it later.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 26, 2010 11:59 AM in reply to mrut
semantics.
I use "as is" meaning the house passing the senate bill without it being altered, through recon or some other legislative process. It won't be passed "as is".
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 26, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Indie Pro
It's not semantics. The Senate bill cannot be changed or it will have to go back through the non-filibuster-proof Senate again.
Reconciliation has to be passed separately.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 26, 2010 12:32 PM in reply to mrut
I say to the House: Get it in writing. Better yet, get it carved in stone so you can smash it on the Conservadems' heads if they try to renege.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 26, 2010 12:51 PM in reply to mrut
you are still arguing semantics.
I said to change the bill through recon(ciliation) or some other legislative process, as Podesta says here, "...the only path...is to take the Senate bill as it is as a foundation, to find ways, whether through reconciliation or other legislative processes to fix the things that I think a lot of people agree need to be fixed, both now in the House and the Senate."
The only thing at issue is the way we are using "as is", which is semantics. For me, the House isn't passing the Seante bill "as is" if they require a recon bill, or somesuch to be passed first to alter the bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rbeats
January 26, 2010 10:58 AM
This message brought to you by AHIP.
Pass this bill as is and loose support from millions of Americans in 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnS
January 26, 2010 11:31 AM
So which is it?
Podesta told TPM's own Brian Beutler: "My own view...is that you have to insure that the Senate goes first. You have to have the fix before the package can pass the House. I just didn't see any way, if you will, that the House was going to bet" on the Senate acting later.
That's not the same as "having the House pass the Senate's health care bill but only with guarantees that it could later be amended through a reconciliation bill."
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mrut
January 26, 2010 12:25 PM in reply to JohnS
True. There are two articles here on Podesta's words with contradictory headlines (the House has to pass the Senate bill OR the Senate has to pass a reconciliation bill).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Juble
January 26, 2010 11:39 AM
Yeah! progressives go pass a shitty bill and you can bank on Obama getting'em to fix it later.
Anyone remember FISA.Vote for it and once Obama becomes Prez he will restore FISA to it's orginal intent.
It's been over 1yr has FISA been fixed to it's original intent.
The Prez has no credibility.He is almost as believable as GWBush at this point.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Memekiller
January 26, 2010 11:44 AM
People have wondered why Obama has no coattails, and why there is no Reagan-like realignment, but the answer seems obvious. Like Reagan, both are laying the groundwork and making the argument for conservatism, and the argument against progressivism, and embracing the ideology we just voted out every time people get fed up with the lack of forward movement.
He's like Eisenhower, in that he's not a Democratic champion or possibly even believer.
If he's honest about wanting to be a good one-term President rather than a bad two-termer, he'd pass HCR. He'd push for more stimulus. He'f fight for jobs.
If he's honest when he says he's not going to walk away just because it's hard, he wouldn't walk away before he even stepped up to the plate.
If he's honest about making the hard choices rather than the political ones, he'd make the hard choices rather than wetting himself, and if oratory is his only gift, he'd use it to lead and convince us of the right way to go, rather than following the failures of the past we 'thought' we were ridding ourselves of.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
drury
January 26, 2010 12:12 PM
The one thing that keeps coming to my mind is that we're plagued with really terrible leadership at all levels: White House, Senate, House, and now, "progressive" leadership (though why we are calling Podesta a progressive, god only knows). All of these leaders have abdicated responsibility.
I know that talk is cheap, and leadership is actually very hard, but this is ridiculous. If just one of these leaders (Podesta not included) would just make a real call, the rest of the sheep would follow, because none of them seem to be prepared, or willing, to lead.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
January 26, 2010 12:19 PM
How can it not succeed? Josh, are you serial? We are talking about Democrats after all. It's like watching the Buddhist monk in Vietnam all over again. The SOTU better have some"I am your leader" red meat in it or his base may just stop paying attention
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
IndyLinda
January 26, 2010 12:54 PM
I'm trying very hard to think of a Democratic president that the liberal base didn't turn on, and not succeeding.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
glblank
January 26, 2010 1:15 PM in reply to IndyLinda
I think the liberal base and what are termed as the obamabots are not necessarily the same crowd. PUMAs are already ginning up for a primary challenge from Hillary. Once the Rethugs throw up their right of Pol Pot candidate in `12, the liberals will fall in line. Let the Thugs go on masturbating over Brown. It distracts them from what happened in NY23. And Coakley was never a serious candidate. As soon as she won the nomination she went into the "crown me with many crowns" Hillary mode. Good object lesson, IMVHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
wbgonne
January 26, 2010 2:00 PM in reply to IndyLinda
Tell me who you consider liberal presidents.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?