TPMDC

Are We There Yet? Health Care Summit Could Be Final Play Before A Merged Bill Passes

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), President Obama, and Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV)

Read More

Health Care

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

Key House Democrats said today they think the White House health care summit will yield some sort of final agreement allowing Congress to pass a compromise reform measure and get it to President Obama's desk.

When and how remain large outstanding questions, but lawmakers stressed Obama's invitation to bipartisan members to the televised summit is among the last steps on the long road to reform.

Rep. Loretta Sanchez (D-CA) said on a conference call with reporters today they are "not starting from scratch" despite Republicans calls to do just that.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen said repeatedly the compromise is 90 percent done, and said Obama would put "all the facts on the table" and give Republicans another chance to present their ideas.

"The House and Senate are very close to reaching a final agreement," Van Hollen said.

Sanchez pointed out that several key GOP planks outlined on the Republican National Committee Web site already are part of the health care bills passed by the House and Senate.

Rep. Rosa DeLauro (D-CT) said not passing a measure given the dire state of the health care system will mean that lawmakers "will pay a heavy price at the next election."

DeLauro offered "a strong and vigorous yes" that talks are continuing despite what seems to be a standstill on Capitol Hill since Republican Scott Brown won the Senate election in Massachusetts.

Even though the White House specifically said that Obama would post "online the text of a proposed health insurance reform package" before the summit next week, these Congressional leaders today repeatedly dodged saying they weren't sure if the president would present a plan orally or in written form. (White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs said yesterday people should "stay tuned" and refused to offer any more details.)

Meanwhile, the Washington Post reports that Senate Democratic leadership aides say reconciliation is still an option and that members want health care "off the agenda" quickly.

The Post also reports that most of the health care talks are about the tax on high-end plans and "the House leadership may sign on to the compromise even without a tweak to the Cadillac tax, according to a senior leadership aide."

Comments (34) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

February 17, 2010 2:33 PM   

I think it's good the press has let this discussion go away for a while. It's allowed Congress to work in peace instead of the press asking the same question of each vulnerable member on if they are in the final vote count or not.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 3:53 PM    in reply to mike from Arlington

Why it might be against Rahm Emanuel's wishes, the compromise better include a Public Option.
The Independent voter is in favor of it.

Because here are the statistics:
Quinnipiac poll, 14 Jan 2010.

Nationwide sample, conducted 5-11 January 2010, 1,767 registered voters, MOE +/- 2.3%

Question #28. Do you support or oppose giving people the option of being covered by a government health insurance plan that would compete with private plans?
Results:

Support: 59%. Oppose: 35%. DK/NA: 6%.
Democrats: Support 82%. Oppose 12%
Republicans: Support 34%. Oppose 59%.
Independents: Support 61%. Oppose 34%.

Liberals (self-described): Support 85% Oppose 11%
Moderates (self-described): Support 69% Oppose 26%
Conservatives (self-described): Support 35% Oppose 59%

Support fairly evenly spread across all age groups 18-55+ (spread 53%-68%)
Support even more evenly spread across all income groups $100K (spread 57%-62%)
****
Read those numbers again. 69% of MODERATES support a public option. 61% of INDEPENDENTS support it. Good God, over a third of conservatives, and over a third of Republicans, support it.

Can we tattoo these stats on RAHM EMANUEL'S FOREHEAD to remind him and the White House? remember, Independents aren't Centrists: http://dumprahm.wordpress.com/2010/02/12/rahm-and-centrism/

What seems to be missed on Rahm and the White House is that the Independent voter is NOT a Centrist. Independents are skeptical of the political system because it is so ineffective and as a result, they refuse to identify themselves with one of the two political parties. Rarely are meaningful pieces of legislation ever passed or campaign promises fulfilled. An Independent shakes his or her head, and says: “Throw the bums out.” Case in point: HCR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:05 PM    in reply to Tommy Douglas

Yes, of course. Omnipotent evil genius Rahm Emmanuel. It's all so clear. He must be the reason we don't have a public option in the bill. He must be the reason Nebraska's voters are so conservative. He must be the reason Lieberman is such a loathsome, smarmy pile of slime mold. He must be the reason the clerk at the 7-11 shorted me on change for a five last night. He must be the reason I don't have my unicorn and rainbow yet. He must be the reason my bank's ATM was out of cash at lunch today. . . .

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:25 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

With you on number one.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 7:33 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

The deal with PHRMA is a good example of Rahm's corporate objectives that have made this Senate bill so unpopular and hurt the entire Democratic Party.
RAHM's deal with PHRMA has turned the voting public against important legislation.

Rahm cut a deal with the head of PHRMA even though Obama went after the head of PHRMA, Billy Tauzin, during his campaign, saying: "The pharmaceutical industry wrote into the prescription drug plan that Medicare could not negotiate with drug companies. And you know what, the chairman of the committee, who pushed the law through, went to work for the pharmaceutical industry making $2 million a year."

Rahm then made sure Max Baucus was the point man to solidify deals with PHRMA which slowed down the legislative process making it impossible for Congress to meet the White House's announced August recess deadline for passing health care reform.

Once the deal was leaked, the popularity of HCR began to plummit, Then with Rahm's recommendation, the White House never came out in support of the Public Option. Eventually RAHM pressured Harry Reid to strike a deal with Lieberman, and the Senate bill officially stunk.

So I think RAHM IS VERY MUCH TO BLAME.
The public wants strong and real reform, not watered down corporate dribble that Rahm has negotiated.

Read more how HCR went wrong due to back-room corporate deals directed by RAHM:
http://blog.sunlightfoundation.com/2010/02/12/the-legacy-of-billy-tauzin-the-white-house-phrma-deal/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 3:02 AM    in reply to Tommy Douglas

Thanks for the post. Its good to refute DLC dimwits with clear, solid facts. They've thoroughly wrecked everything Dean's built up over just a few years, and if they aren't put in their place, the rethugs will end up controlling both chambers while they get to work on a new strategy to fail harder.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:30 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

EXACTLY!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:32 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

EXACTLY!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:33 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

EXACTLY!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 6:16 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

I hear ya. It's all Rahm's fault!! LOL

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 9:56 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Rahm Emannuel is a COLLASAL part of the problem make no mistake about it.

We wouldnt have a problem with blue dogs if Rahm hadn't given them so much importance.

The reason why the finance committee bill became the final senate bill was because RAHM EMANUEL and the whitehouse threw their muscles BEHIND the finance committee bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 3:04 AM    in reply to 3star2nr

This much is obvious. If you're arguing against this you either have no idea what you're talking about or you're trying to marginalize Rahm's involvement to insulate him from attacks for such.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:46 PM   

Great start, now please get it done.

http://randomthoughtstd.blogspot.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:47 PM   

"Sanchez pointed out that several key GOP planks outlined on the Republican National Committee Web site already are part of the health care bills passed by the House and Senate."

This is part of the problem.

WHY THE FUCK are any GOP ideas built in if no GOP are voting for it?

We need a rule: Want an amendment or compromise? You vote yes for the bill, or it gets stripped out.

I thought this was obvious but it is apparently not.

Dems need to actively strip out ideas that don't get the votes of the people who asked or it. Voting for the bill is the price of modifying it. When they reneg, you remove their proposal. This goes for Snowe, Grasshole, all the GOP jackasses.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 3:11 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

You mistakenly assume that Democrats object to everything the Republicans want. They don't and neither do you or I. Some of the things the Republicans are screaming about now were a part of even the most liberal bills and the majority of the Democratic caucus wanted it, too.

This just proves that Republicans won't vote for anything. Do you want the Democrats to be just like the Republicans? A couple of weeks ago, 7 Republicans who sponsored a bill for a deficit commission withdrew their support when Obama backed the idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 3:12 AM    in reply to FreeRider

You don't know what AnswerFrog objects to so its a little obnoxious to assume so just to hold up your stale argument. I do want Dems to act like the rethugs if it means playing hardball and forcing them to stand by positions they take. Maybe if the rethugs knew they wouldn't get what they wanted if they voted against legislation they supported, they'd be less inclined to obstruct legislation. FYI the deficit commission is a horrible idea that only vindicates the rethugs flawed economic ideals and nothing else.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 2:46 PM    in reply to loudprogressive

Biscuits

1/4 cup lard
2 cups flour
1 level tablespoon baking powder
1 teaspoon salt
1 tablespoon sugar
3/4 cup milk

Directions
Preheat the oven to 400 degrees. Cut the lard into the dry ingredients with a fork or pastry blender until the mixture resembles coarse cornmeal. Stir in the milk a small bit at a time, adding just enough so that the dough rounds up and leaves the sides of the bowl. Turn the dough out onto a lightly floured surface and roll it out until it is 1/2-inch thick. Then with a 2 1/2-inch biscuit cutter, cut out the biscuits and place them on an ungreased baking sheet. Bake for 10 to 15 minutes, or until they are golden brown on top. Serve hot with butter and jam or with syrup.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 3:12 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

It's not unthinkable that the Dems might agree with some of the GOP ideas. If your going to see everything through the lens of partisan politics you are no different than the people you rail against.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:52 PM   

I'm confused. How could there possibly have been any progress? You seem to be implying that things have gone on that haven't been evidenced by public pronouncements and chest thumping, or even "behind the scenes" negotiations reported in near real time through hourly leaks by "knowledgable staffers" and "sources close to the negotiations." That's just crazy-talk. Next thing you know, you'll be implying that there's some thought driving this show of bipartisanship beyond some transparent, simple-minded attempt to get a Republican to vote for health care reform.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 3:11 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

You seem to be implying that things have gone on that haven't been evidenced by public pronouncements and chest thumping, or even "behind the scenes" negotiations reported in near real time through hourly leaks by "knowledgable staffers"

You forgot "fighting" and "Obama showing leadership." As everyone knows, nothing gets done without those actions.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 4:09 PM    in reply to Xantar

My bad. Also been no prior indication that he's been "twisting arms."

Oh well, at least we can still denounce whatever happens as a gigantic sellout to the corporatist illuminati. They can't take that away from us.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:22 PM    in reply to Xantar

Not to mention, exhorting Obama to "grow a pair."

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 3:12 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

You silly goose! Democrats aren't working or thinking or planning unless they're on TV calling out the Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 2:52 PM   

AnswerFr - Exactly this should be standard procedure going forward with all bills

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

mcc

user-pic

February 17, 2010 3:46 PM   

"The House and Senate are very close to reaching a final agreement," Van Hollen said.

So... "very close" means "before the health care summit", right? Because they did say that the democrats would post a plan "a few days" before the summit, right? Surely the bill the Democrats intend to pass will be the thing they post to the web before the summit starts, not something that will emerge an indeterminate period after the summit? You know, so that we can go into the summit with "the democratic plan" on one side and "the republican plan" on the other as opposed to "the republican plan" on one side and "here are the several competing democratic plans' on the other?

...right?

"the House leadership may sign on to the compromise even without a tweak to the Cadillac tax, according to a senior leadership aide."

Why would they do this? The union grace period for the Cadillac tax, at least, is an easy and seemingly uncontroversial fix, and it seems pretty certain the unions will fight any plan that lacks it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 18, 2010 3:20 AM    in reply to mcc

Actually the union exception isn't so controversial. It opens up unions to attacks by the rethugs for getting exclusive deals that non-union voters will have the privilege of getting. Even the unions didn't want if they could avoid it. It would be better to scrap it and use the House's idea of taxing the super-wealthy. Of course that idea is objected to by the rethugs and corporatist blue dogs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:13 PM   

JUST.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:45 PM    in reply to Moose49

PASS

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 5:54 PM    in reply to Xantar

THE.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 6:04 PM    in reply to Moose49

SIDECAR.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 6:07 PM    in reply to Moose49

MEDICARE FOR ALL!

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 7:29 PM    in reply to Moose49

DAMN.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 7:53 PM    in reply to Moose49

SENATE.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

February 17, 2010 9:58 PM    in reply to Boidster

USELESS POS

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Follow us!