TPMDC
Not Budging: After Summit, Pelosi Says Health Care Is In Senate's Court
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA)
Share
Send to a friend!
For all the happy talk, it looks like yesterday's health care summit didn't entirely end disagreements between House and Senate Democrats over how to finish up health care reform.
"It's up to them," said House Speaker Nancy Pelosi at her weekly press conference today, referring to the Senate.
Pelosi wants the answer to a few questions before she can proceed. "One, what is the substance. Secondly, what is the Senate able to do with a simple majority. And then we will act on that," she said.
On substance, Pelosi needs the Senate's affordability provisions strengthened. She wants the final legislation to close the prescription-drug donut-hole for seniors, to be stripped of the Nebraska Medicaid deal, and for the tax structure of the bill to be moved away from the controversial excise tax.
However, the House can't act, she noted, until "we see what the Senate will be able to do."
Now, Pelosi stopped short of saying--as she's said in the past--that these changes must be made before the House passes the Senate bill. And, in a surprising statement to reporters today, Congressional Progressive Caucus Co-Chair Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) said it would "help a lot" if the Senate simply wrote a letter--signed by a majority of members--pledging to make the fixes.
So perhaps there's been a small amount of movement in the direction of a solution. But Pelosi's not taking any steps until the Senate clears up a few, extremely important points
Comments (25) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
ottis
February 26, 2010 12:23 PM
A bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. A very intelligent lady.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
loudprogressive
February 26, 2010 12:24 PM
ADD A PUBLIC OPTION TO THE LIST, PELOSI!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
emears
February 26, 2010 1:01 PM in reply to loudprogressive
A public option would be the best idea if they had the votes. BUT, I have been in the Federal Employees Health Benefits Plan for 25 years and it is a good system. It is very like the exchange the Senate bill sets up. That would be satisfactory to me for now.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Maritza
February 26, 2010 12:32 PM
It's time that Obama steps in with leadership and decides exactly how this is going to happen since Pelosi and Reid can't decide.
This is getting ridiculous.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
philogratis
February 26, 2010 12:48 PM
Grijalva makes a ton of sense!
This House-Senate gridlock should be resolvable in a closed joint Caucus meeting with the President. The entire Democratic caucus needs to show up, the leadership puts the deal on the table, and they take an informal vote. If they can round up 217 Reps and 50 Senators who give the thumbs up (big if), have every last damn one of them sign an agreement to pass the Senate bill and then pass the amendment by reconciliation.
The problem with doing it the other way is it will take too long. The Republicans still have some tricks up their sleeve to delay reconciliation (DeMint said he is going to try an infinite amendments tactic to create a pseudofilibuster). If the Senate bill is already signed into law, it will be a lot harder to politically justify the obstructionism, since the reconciliation fix is going to change the least popular elements of the original bill, particularly the Cornhusker kickback, the Lousiana Purchase, and probably GatorAid. Since the Republicans continously attack these items it will be hard for them to filibuster getting rid of them.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
February 26, 2010 12:55 PM in reply to philogratis
That won't faze the repugnants at all. They'll filibuster the changes and then run against the Dems for passing the items even though they opposed getting rid of them. They have no shame and most American voters will have no clue.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 26, 2010 2:55 PM in reply to rwc
Well the idea is the changes will be passed through budget reconciliation, and you can't filibuster budget reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mans_best_friend
February 26, 2010 3:04 PM in reply to philogratis
"This House-Senate gridlock should be resolvable in a closed joint Caucus meeting with the President."
This is beyond obvious, so why the hell is it that they can't seem to grasp such simple logic? For crissake, the time for quibbling is long past. Stop screwing around. Come to a consensus and everybody get behind it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tpmreader
February 26, 2010 1:32 PM
Has this Health Care Discussion to some extent been all a hoodwink, disingenuous and/or dishonest as;
1) The major and over-riding issue in my view remains and that was most notably not disscussed in this so-called Health Care Discussion. In Testimony to the US Senate Judicary Committee years ago by a Kaiser Doctor and seemingly under full imunity and seemingly concurred is that Hospitals, Doctors et all in the Health Care Industry have a obligation to Wall Street and Shareholders//Stakeholders before Patient Care and a Patients Life.
2) The Public Option is to a viable extent already in many facets of our US health care systems and seemingly must continue to be allowed and not excluded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Progressive Party
February 26, 2010 1:55 PM
Nancy..I hope I speak for a whole of folks...We got your back! Force Harry and the the gang in the house of lords to deliver for the country!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Kevin Sutton
February 26, 2010 2:51 PM
It's like the Senate Democrats are just drama queens who want everyone to think they used every last bit of energy in their bodies just to bring the bill to a vote. The House is just asking for a freaking unofficial commitment while the Senate is pantomiming heart failure.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
mcc
February 26, 2010 2:55 PM
Demanding the Senate pass a bill first is a procedural nitpick and I think that although Pelosi should ask the Senate to attempt it, I don't think it's reasonable to demand.
But saying the House cannot act until "we see what the Senate will be able to do."? That is the most reasonable request in the world.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pragmatic Progressive
February 26, 2010 4:07 PM
As progressives, can we please get realistic about the politics of the moment? The health bill likely won't pass the House bc there aren't enough Blue Dog votes, not bc there aren't enough progressive votes. Including the public option will decrease the total votes for the bill in the House. Progressive House members are already voting for the bill, so adding a public option won't get more votes from Progressives. Blue Dogs hate the public option and will be more inclined not to vote for the bill (whereas a bill without a public option might attract some Blue Dog votes bc some of them who voted no on the original House bill, that included the public option, might be willing to support a similar bill without the public option).
So, if the public option will decrease votes for the health bill in the House and, therefore, ensure the bill won't become law, the question I have for self-described "progressives" is this: do you really want 30 million Americans to go without health insurance for another decade, minimum, merely because the bill doesn't have a public option? If your answer to that question is yes, I have no choice but to question your sincerity to the progressive cause.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bluebell
February 26, 2010 6:14 PM in reply to Pragmatic Progressive
I don't want 30 million Americans to go without healthCARE. Having insurance doesn't guarantee healthcare only insurance premiums.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 28, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to Pragmatic Progressive
Just looking at what we have in MA, which is considerably more regulated (by some accounts, anyway) than what's being proposed nationally: Bronze plans cost in the vicinity of $350/mo, but their deductible is $5,000...plus co-pays. That's for individual coverage, enough to keep someone from having, say, regular blood tests that their doc would like to run. So...difficult to calculate, but the result is worse overall health outcomes. And higher expenses, since deferred care means people using the emergency room for untreated or under-treated conditions...MA now has the highest per-person health care costs in the world. This bill is less generous version of Romneycare (to the public...it's pretty generous to AHIP and Pharma).
If, on the other hand, the Dems put a match to this and passed something that covered everyone, or something that was really really popular, say expanded Medicare, Republicans wouldn't be able to repeal it. It'd be too popular. Let it sunset - noone would dare take it away.
Everyone's just saying 30-million will be covered without examining that claim very closely. I'm skeptical, if only because (1) what I know about Romneycare in MA (http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/editorial_opinion/oped/articles/2009/03/02/mass_healthcare_reform_is_failing_us/) and (2) so much is riding on this politically, by the Democratic leadership's sclerotic political calculation (http://www.harpers.org/archive/2009/12/0082740).
Obama himself said it: he's all for single payer. It's a proven solution. I'm not into 'purity'. There are other possibilities. A robust Public Option (with an emphasis on robust), or Germany's all payer system. Even Switzerland gets everyone insured privately at lower cost than this plan would.
If this reform passes, there will be success stories and comforting statistics, no doubt (more people insured than ever before); but they will only serve to confuse the public and obfuscate the essential reality of regulatory capture, spiraling costs (as in MA) and millions untreated and underinsured.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Pragmatic Progressive
February 26, 2010 4:11 PM
Under normal circumstances, back in the summer of 2009 for example, I would say progressives should push as hard as possible for single payer and, barring that, a public option. But this isn't the summer of 2009, these aren't normal times. The public is sick of the year-long health care debate, both houses of Congress have passed a near-universal health care bill, and that bill is about to die for lack of a handful of votes in the House. As progressives, at this tenuous moment in history when the health insurance of 30 million Americans is at stake, I implore each of you to come together and show some Democratic/Progressive unity so we can get this done. I would hate to look back on this moment and scknowledge that progressives had a significant hand in denying health insurance to 30 million Americans.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
February 26, 2010 5:45 PM in reply to Pragmatic Progressive
If the present iteration of HIR fails (what number are we on now?), it will not be because of "Progressives". That's nonsense and you know it.
The problem is, nobody is really "FOR" the Senate Bill; or something close to it. Not moderates. Definitely not republicans. Not even Progressives. Because there is little "Progressive" about having an individual mandate slapped on your ass. And no Medicare-like option to fall back on if you get screwed by the private insurance companies.
I mean, the "Progressives" in the House MIGHT still vote for the Senate Bill in the end. But even that might not be enough.
Support among the dem base will always be weak on it.
Hard to get excited about a conservative bill that was essentially written by corrupt conserva-dems and their health insurance industry lobbyists.
If it is the Senate Bill (or something close to it)or nothing? Either way is fine with me.
You are not fighting active obstruction on the Progressive side on HIR like you are with the republicans my friend. At least not with rational progressives. Your fighting apathy.
Someone once said, "You know you have a good bill, when no one is happy."
Man. Then the Senate Bill (even including the "fixes") must be fucking magnificent.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
February 26, 2010 8:02 PM in reply to Pragmatic Progressive
And just an aside, if we wanted to cover 30 million more Americans with HI, we don't need to pass the Senate Bill to do it. We just need to expand Medicaid by raising the FPL cutoff limit relative to that program, and done.
10s of millions more Americans covered.
We don't need an idividual mandate and no PO to cover more people.
Or, we just need Medicare for All. Single Payer.
Beyond that, I don't know what to say.
It just is what its going to be. Pass what your going to pass. Or don't.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 28, 2010 11:29 AM in reply to willia451
Co-sign.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Michael A
February 26, 2010 5:29 PM
Pelosi is awesome! The best dem leader in DC. She cares for and is looking out for ALL THE PEOPLE. What an awesome leader. You go Madame Speaker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
averb
February 26, 2010 11:30 PM
Whew. Headline misleading. For the first time, Pelosi suggests that the House can go first.
I don't know how else it could work. If the Senate had to go first, it would be months before anything might happen, if at all. All of that time, the Democrats sink deeper.
Now there is just the "minor" matter of whether she can get the votes.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
averb
February 28, 2010 5:27 PM in reply to averb
After thinking about this over the weekend, I think I see what is happening here. Pelosi needs the statement from the Senate, which I'm sure it could supply. There are certainly 50 Senate Democrats who would be willing to fix the bill via reconciliation.
However, this statement would probably not be issued until they believe that Pelosi has the votes, or at least is likely to get them. So the best indication of how likely Pelosi is to succeed will be some statement about reconciliation from the Senate.
Absent this, no House vote will be scheduled, and Republican obstructionism will have succeeded.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Cornelius
February 27, 2010 11:25 AM
Hey Pragmatic Progressive - classic straw dog argument:
".. 30 million Americans to go without health insurance.." This "30 million" you put out there, tell me, where are they going to get the money to pay the premiums, what is the deductible going to be, what's the cap, and if any have "pre-existing" conditions, they most definitely will not be able to pay for the premiums. So let's stop the BS. This is ghetto-care catastrophic insurance with a $5K deductible, $20K cap and 50% coverage on meds. "Oh, you say, you want the better policy, with the $500 annual deductible. Well, that's going to cost a bit more". And the insurance whores are going to cherry pick the healthy ones, make it impossible for the rest to pay, and expand the definition of "pre-existing" to cover the rest so if they CAN pay it will cost them 2-3 times as much. And if they miss or are late with a payment they will be dropped faster than a fat girlfriend! DON'T RUN THIS CRAP BY ME!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tanjaoui
February 28, 2010 11:41 AM in reply to Cornelius
There's little doubt insurers they'll be able to game the system. Their shareholders will demand it and they've been doing it for years. Disputing claims is how they make money and they're really good at it. I don't care if some CEO gets rich off my dime if I get value for money. Health insurance does not provide that. They're just crunching numbers. Their administrative costs lead to even higher administrative costs for providers (hospitals, clinics, labs, private practices...). Single payer is probably the cheapest and most comprehensive way to go (slowly expanding Medicare or Medicaid), but there are other systems that keep private insurers in the game, which Obama seems to think is really important to the public. (Why, I don't know. All I care about - all most people care about - is being able to keep my doc. What do I care whether I pay a bill to Pilgrim or BCBS? I guess AHIP told the President people really loved their insurers and became attached to them over time...).
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JohnBTipton
March 1, 2010 11:11 AM
The public option, effective ASAP, is the best hope for regaining voter support for HCR and the Democrats before 2012.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?