Health Bill Can Pass Senate With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says

[sabrina 1]

Source: Bloomberg

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

>snip

Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=aNOM7njku0a8

---

Van Hollen also says he expects Coakley to win. I don't know why they didn't do this in the first place. They wasted the entire summer on Olympia Snowe and Joe Lieberman. If they end up using reconciliation and NOT including a Public Option, which WILL cut costs, I think it will be obvious that there never was serious consideration of doing so from the beginning.

I thought we were told that it was too late for reconciliation ~ guess we were mis-informed.

[BunkerHill24]

1. If am wrong the HCR will be that of said no more in 2012. n/t

[Mithreal]

2. Only looks like time wasted to those outside the beltway

We are being manipulated by our party into accepting what PhRMA and the insurers want.

Damage control is all that is happening now.

[PoliticalOne65]

12. Great!

Passing a health bill that does nothing that they originally said it was going to do. No single payer, No public option, Taxed on our health insurance, and more expensive then when we started. Oh well, we can say our side won.

[endless october]

3. if they only need 51 votes

then why are we passing a health insurance bailout bill instead of real reform?

[sabrina 1]

4. Good question and one that many people will be asking.

I'm beginning to think I imagined it, but didn't this come up in many of the HCR threads and wasn't it dismissed as 'not possible' at this stage?

Since Van Hollen now says it is possible, I don't see why we cannot get a strong PO. And why didn't they do it when Lieberman and Nelson were supposedly 'holding everything up'?

[IsItJustMe]

17. It sure seems like smoke and mirrors to me. A big game staged so that corporations get what they

want while the American people get hosed once again. I guess the Dems can always blame Lieberman and Nelson for not being able to get real reform out of this, but I wonder if this reconciliation goes down, if voters are still going to be that naive.

Probably so, I have never seen so much rationalization occur here regarding a real bad HCR bill. It's sad actually. I know that people really want to believe, but damn.

[TheEuclideanOne]

9. Yes, I have never understood why Republicans are being included in this process

They have made it clear that they will not vote for anything, so why even include them a little bit? I really dislike supporting a party that has no balls whatsoever. For the longest time I, and many other folks have thought they should do reconciliation and custome tailor the bill to what is good for the American people.

[LaPera]

5. So they say....But will they actually do it?

With republicans & insurance corporations and blue dogs will scream loudly, will the Dems still have the balls to do what's right for the people, the tax paying workers, the 50 million plus without insurance?

It has to be done!

[Mithreal]

6. Just as important, how will we respond if they don't?

We gave too much carrot and not enough stick.

[sabrina 1]

7. At this point, I would be surprised if they

did it, but included mostly what's in the Senate Bill. That's the one the WH said it was 95% happy with.

what's really strange is that we had asked that they use reconciliation to get past Lieberman and Nelson and I remember being told we were uninformed as it was too late in the process to use it now.

If they do use it they would not need Nelson or Lieberman. They could include Medicare for All, or at least lower the age to 55. They claimed the only reason they couldn't do that was because 'we need 60 votes'.

[Mithreal]

8. So the fight really is not over until the bill is signed.

I really hope they do not rush this out in the next couple days.

At the very least we are on to them more and more.

[sabrina 1]

10. Well, I think the fight is over

to be honest. I think it was over before it began mostly. The leadership and the WH knew what the Insurance Industry and Big Pharma wanted and that's what they intended to deliver. That's why one after the other, any proposal that might help the people, such as Dorgan's amendment to help get drugs cheaper, was taken 'off the table' almost immediately.

But if they go to reconciliation now, and don't include some of the progressive suggestions I think that will damage their credibility totally among progressives. And I'm sure we'll see the usual suspects defending it.

[Mithreal]

11. And since Senator Dorgan is retiring, he knows better than us

what is about to happen.

[sabrina 1]

21. I wonder if he feels he can no longer be of use to those he

represents after the way his amendment was cut from the bill by the WH. He was very disappointed and I think, angry. He may feel he can better serve his country outside of government. He has been right before, eg, on the Glass Steagal Act, and voted down by his own party. It wouldn't be the first time a politician felt he could do more outside of government.

[clear eye]

23. They could at the least include the waiver of ERISA that would allow the states to do single payer

themselves in the future.

That's the one I'm going to be emailing my representatives in Congress about. It's the only thing that will bring hope of getting out from under the thumb of the legalized monopoly insurers.

[dflprincess]

120. Pelosi removed it from the House bill -

supposedly at Obama's request. Which pretty much confirms just whose side he is on.

[Vinca]

13. If they go for reconciliation, they should ram through what the people

actually want: Medicare for all.

[elocs]

14. This was posted here early Friday evening. What makes Van Hollen all knowledgable?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7475876

Throughout this process I have read of reconciliation and the need for only 51 votes brought up many times before. I don't know if I have ever read of anyone who is an authority about the legislative process in the Senate confirm if it is true. If it were true I would think it would be shouted all over the place and expose the need for 60 votes as unnecessary.

[sabrina 1]

20. Well, it was shouted all over the place. Many times in

articles about HCR, people brought it up. But it was shouted down just as quickly. Now those who did shout it down are remarkably silent since this is the first time anyone who is involved, in the Senate anyhow, has verified that it could have been used.

I think what this says is clear. They could have used it as Bush did, three times actually, but had they done so they could not have used the excuse of 'we don't have enough votes'. They needed Lieberman and Nelson to give the appearance that their hands were tied, poor babies. Now, probably without realizing it, Van Hollen has admitted that they could have fought for a more progressive bill, that they did have the tools to fight with. And whether they use it or not, they now need to explain why they ignored questions regarding using everything available to them to pass a bill that was for Health Care and not an Insurance Reform Bill.

I posted a wiki link below explaining how and when it can be used. Seems to me they have a lot of explaining to do. What bothers me the most is the deception, the idea that what the people want is not even a consideration. We are not represented. Maybe it's better to be certain of that and this whole process has made that very clear.

[shotten99]

15. I don't think reconciliation is the miracle people expect it to be.

If they do use it, they will have to start over again, and the bill will be very limited in comparison.

[sabrina 1]

19. I don't think they would have to start over again.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28United_States_Congress%29

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party.

According to that definition, it is used for an existing bill that the majority wants to pass but is being opposed by the minority party. It is supposed to prevent the minority party from filibustering.

Bush used it three times to push through his tax cuts. And it looks like the Republicans when they were in power, with their usual inability to look beyond their immediate needs, may have strengthened the power it gives to the majority party:

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, said that reconciliation is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.<3>

Under the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

Since the Health Care bill's main purpose according to Congress is to cut costs, it looks like it is not 'extraneous' so reconciliation could be used to get it passed. Under the current system I think Health Care costs make up 17% of the GNP. Most other countries' health care costs are way lower than that.

The Byrd rule demands that any legislation that increases the deficit over ten years, cannot be passed by reconciliation. That might explain the emphasis Democrats have placed on their claim that their bill will reduce the deficit over ten years. Although it looks like Republicans changed that requirement. Still, they might have to worry that Byrd would still not go along unless he was satisfied that it would not increase the deficit in ten years.

If so, then Van Hollen is right when he says that they had prepared to use it if necessary.

[eagertolearn]

16. I can't even read anymore crap about health reform. Nothing means anything

anyway without a public option or a single payer option. What is wrong with our country?

[Mari333]

18. Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic, still? just let the ship sink

[clear eye]

22. Reconciliation shouldn't be able to include a mandate

(how will that "cut costs"?) but it should be able to include a public option if that option includes a lower payment rate to providers than insurers currently pay, b/c that will cut costs. I'd wager that all logic aside, it will play out as the reverse.

[kpete]

24. Dems threaten to use 51-vote tactic for health bill if they lose in Mass.

Source: The Hill


Dems threaten to use 51-vote tactic for health bill if they lose in Mass.
By Michael O'Brien - 01/16/10 09:00 AM ET

Democrats are prepared to use a budgetary procedure to pass healthcare reform legislation if they lose a key Senate race on Tuesday, a House leader said this weekend.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.), the assistant to the Speaker and chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee (DCCC), said during budget reconciliation is "an option" to pass a healthcare bill.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said during an appearance on Bloomberg television over the weekend.

Budget reconciliation is a procedural rule allowing a bill to pass the Senate with a simple majority, instead of the 60 votes usually needed to end debate on any given piece of legislation.

Read more: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/76495-dems-threaten-reconciliation-for-health-bill-if-they-lose-in-mass

[yourout]

25. A little late don't ya think.

This is one of the hammers they should have used to keep Holy Joe in line.

[IndianaGreen]

38. They should have used reconciliation to push for Single Payer, instead

they all behaved like the corporate whores that they are.

[mbperrin]

42. Thank you. Exactly stated.

Once single payer was ousted, the corporatist faction won.

[Fearless]

49. +1

[brooklynite]

58. Please list 51 Senators who would have supported Single Payer

Public Option s one thing. I don't believe the votes were ever there for SIngle Payer.

[IndianaGreen]

68. HR676, Single Payer, a 15-page long bill was about expanding Medicare

People know what Medicare is.

[No Elephants]

88. Yes. That was a 2003 bill with about 100 co-sponsors. And what happened to it?

It did not get as far as even the Congressional Budget Office.

[treestar]

61. Provide some support for your argument that could have been done

It would not violate the Byrd rule - have to do with anything other than reducing the deficit - show arguments that would fly regarding that.

[brooklynite]

81. I don't dispute that SIngle Payer could have been brought up under Reconciliation...

I dispute that there was even majority support for Single Payer, as opposed to private sector plus Private Option

[No Elephants]

93. This is the Byrd Rule.

Which part of it are you saying would stop use of reconciliation for single payer?


http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/2/644.html

§ 644. Extraneous matter in reconciliation legislation
How Current is This? (a) In general
When the Senate is considering a reconciliation bill or a reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title (whether that bill or resolution originated in the Senate or the House) or section 907d of this title, upon a point of order being made by any Senator against material extraneous to the instructions to a committee which is contained in any title or provision of the bill or resolution or offered as an amendment to the bill or resolution, and the point of order is sustained by the Chair, any part of said title or provision that contains material extraneous to the instructions to said Committee as defined in subsection (b) of this section shall be deemed stricken from the bill and may not be offered as an amendment from the floor.
(b) Extraneous provisions
(1)
(A) Except as provided in paragraph (2), a provision of a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution considered pursuant to section 641 of this title shall be considered extraneous if such provision does not produce a change in outlays or revenues, including changes in outlays and revenues brought about by changes in the terms and conditions under which outlays are made or revenues are required to be collected (but a provision in which outlay decreases or revenue increases exactly offset outlay increases or revenue decreases shall not be considered extraneous by virtue of this subparagraph);
(B) any provision producing an increase in outlays or decrease in revenues shall be considered extraneous if the net effect of provisions reported by the committee reporting the title containing the provision is that the committee fails to achieve its reconciliation instructions;
(C) a provision that is not in the jurisdiction of the committee with jurisdiction over said title or provision shall be considered extraneous;
(D) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it produces changes in outlays or revenues which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
(E) a provision shall be considered to be extraneous if it increases, or would increase, net outlays, or if it decreases, or would decrease, revenues during a fiscal year after the fiscal years covered by such reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution, and such increases or decreases are greater than outlay reductions or revenue increases resulting from other provisions in such title in such year; and
(F) a provision shall be considered extraneous if it violates section 641 (g) of this title.
(2) A Senate-originated provision shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(A) if the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee on the Budget and the Chairman and Ranking Minority Member of the Committee which reported the provision certify that:
(A) the provision mitigates direct effects clearly attributable to a provision changing outlays or revenues and both provisions together produce a net reduction in the deficit;
(B) the provision will result in a substantial reduction in outlays or a substantial increase in revenues during fiscal years after the fiscal years covered by the reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution;
(C) a reduction of outlays or an increase in revenues is likely to occur as a result of the provision, in the event of new regulations authorized by the provision or likely to be proposed, court rulings on pending litigation, or relationships between economic indices and stipulated statutory triggers pertaining to the provision, other than the regulations, court rulings or relationships currently projected by the Congressional Budget Office for scorekeeping purposes; or
(D) such provision will be likely to produce a significant reduction in outlays or increase in revenues but, due to insufficient data, such reduction or increase cannot be reliably estimated.
(3) A provision reported by a committee shall not be considered extraneous under paragraph (1)(C) if
(A) the provision is an integral part of a provision or title, which if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee, and the provision sets forth the procedure to carry out or implement the substantive provisions that were reported and which fall within the jurisdiction of such committee; or
(B) the provision states an exception to, or a special application of, the general provision or title of which it is a part and such general provision or title if introduced as a bill or resolution would be referred to such committee.
(c) Extraneous materials
Upon the reporting or discharge of a reconciliation bill or resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title in the Senate, and again upon the submission of a conference report on such a reconciliation bill or resolution, the Committee on the Budget of the Senate shall submit for the record a list of material considered to be extraneous under subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), and (b)(1)(E) of this section to the instructions of a committee as provided in this section. The inclusion or exclusion of a provision shall not constitute a determination of extraneousness by the Presiding Officer of the Senate.
(d) Conference reports
When the Senate is considering a conference report on, or an amendment between the Houses in relation to, a reconciliation bill or reconciliation resolution pursuant to section 641 of this title, upon—
(1) a point of order being made by any Senator against extraneous material meeting the definition of subsections (b)(1)(A), (b)(1)(B), (b)(1)(D), (b)(1)(E), or (b)(1)(F) of this section, and
(2) such point of order being sustained,
such material contained in such conference report or amendment shall be deemed stricken, and the Senate shall proceed, without intervening action or motion, to consider the question of whether the Senate shall recede from its amendment and concur with a further amendment, or concur in the House amendment with a further amendment, as the case may be, which further amendment shall consist of only that portion of the conference report or House amendment, as the case may be, not so stricken. Any such motion in the Senate shall be debatable for two hours. In any case in which such point of order is sustained against a conference report (or Senate amendment derived from such conference report by operation of this subsection), no further amendment shall be in order.
(e) General point of order
Notwithstanding any other law or rule of the Senate, it shall be in order for a Senator to raise a single point of order that several provisions of a bill, resolution, amendment, motion, or conference report violate this section. The Presiding Officer may sustain the point of order as to some or all of the provisions against which the Senator raised the point of order. If the Presiding Officer so sustains the point of order as to some of the provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Senator raised the point of order, then only those provisions (including provisions of an amendment, motion, or conference report) against which the Presiding Officer sustains the point of order shall be deemed stricken pursuant to this section. Before the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may move to waive such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions against which the point of order was raised. Such a motion to waive is amendable in accordance with the rules and precedents of the Senate. After the Presiding Officer rules on such a point of order, any Senator may appeal the ruling of the Presiding Officer on such a point of order as it applies to some or all of the provisions on which the Presiding Officer ruled.

[treestar]

105. And then imagine what 641(g) says and what the case law is

You've just proven how complex it is. One would have to check the annotated statutes and try to find cases and read them to try to analyze this. Senators on both sides no doubt have legal teams on this. So much for the bald statement that single payer can "easily" be done this way. It can fail under any of those six categories and no one on DU has any real grasp of it to date.

[Land Shark]

80. +1

[wordpix]

83. +2

[No Elephants]

87. What makes you think they could have gotten 51 Dem. Senators to vote for single

payer, especially when the President opposes it?

IMO, there are political reasons why no one attempted reconciliation or the nuclear option. For one thing, you and I would be able to see which Democrats would vote nay.

[DisgustedInMN]

99. BINGO!

Only thing left to do,is pass the goodies on to the pimps.

Thanks, DLCers.

Could you use a little lube, next time please?

[Blue_Tires]

124. +1

[liberalmuse]

70. Not at all.

While I wish they'd done this when they gained the majority, it's not too late if it means we get stuff done from here on forward.

[truthisfreedom]

26. Do it already.

Stop with the threats and simply do it.

Screw 'em.

[still_one]

27. If they are serious, then bring back the Medicare option to it /nt

[nightrain]

41. yes, open up Medicare Part E and improve on Medicare. (Oh, too simple... and not beholden enough to

the corporations...) I forgot. The New Dem principles.

[DAMANgoldberg]

122. Now it's time...

Medicare Part E, the E being for Everyone. Don't need 60 votes (only 59 now). Can be passed with 50, and very straightforward. Everyone can buy in at cost + 5% or so, and the private insurance market can continue on their merry way.

Pass this and Democrats Win! Simple to do, makes too much sense. This also eliminates side deals and other stuff.

[New Dawn]

79. They are only serious about implementing the fascist Individual Mandate.

It is the task that the "health" insurance industry assigned them.

[laughingliberal]

115. +1 nt

[No Elephants]

89. Dream on.

[laughingliberal]

114. Yeah, if they're going reconciliation (which we have wanted from the jump) there is no excuse

They don't need Lieberman or Nelson and it will certainly pass the House.

[niceypoo]

28. I'll believe it when I see it

I dont believe they have the balls to do it. They should have done this months ago and been done with it.

[No Elephants]

91. It's not about courage. It's about what they do and do not want in the bill.

And I wish people would stop assuming male genitalia are the exclusive source of courage, ffs.

[harun]

126. Totally agree.

[elocs]

29. From what I understand, reconciliation limits the scope of the bill

and that they cannot simply use it to bring back everything originally wanted in the bill.

[Pab Sungenis]

31. No, they can do better.

They can open up Medicare-For-All in reconciliation, since it's an existing program and would just be funding a new part of it (like Medicare Part D was done).

[Blasphemer]

82. Right... if they can expand Medicare through reconciliation

Then the regulations become far less important.

[sweetloukillbot]

33. I vaguely remember reading that reconciliation would cover different parts of the bill...

Because of the budget requirement the parts that are more legislative would have to be ditched. So with reconciliation, we might be able to get a stronger public option, but not some of the other protections the bill is offering, like the pre-existing conditions part or the insurance exchange.

But I'm no expert and just remembering what I saw on TPM 6 months ago.

[treestar]

51. I've googled this and read about it but still don't understand it

If it can be used only for the budget then it seems limited to bills that increase money for a program or allocate it. The public option would be a new program, so I'm not understanding how this could do it. Could they even expand Medicare to 55 year olds? Is that not in the law, but just some executive branch regulation defining "old age?" (that's the term i've seen in the law).

[elocs]

53. Check this thread I posted about reconciliation, what it is, and how to understand it:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7480650

This is not a simple slam/dunk proposition.

[treestar]

59. Bookmarked that post, thank you elocs

That stuff is complicated.

[wordpix]

84. hey, if * could pass all those signing statements, why not Obama sign one for expanding Medicare?

or anything else he wants?

Let the unitary executive live on, I say. :evilgrin:

[No Elephants]

92. You cannot have a signing statement unless a bill gets through Congress.

So, Catch 22.

Maybe you're thinking of an Executive Order?

[laughingliberal]

116. I think the exchange probably could be done

It creates a program and raises the revenue. I don't know but it doesn't make sense to me that they couldn't create the exchange.

[razorman]

36. While I don't completely understand it all, I have read that the bill

would have to be dramatically altered, and have to be renewed in a few years. Does anyone else know more about how this would work?

[BP2]

60. Good synopsis of Reconciliation and the "Byrd Rule" from Wiki :

Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6. if it recommends changes in Social Security.

Any Senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding Senator. A vote of 60 Senators is required to overturn the ruling.

[No Elephants]

90. So what? They could take up the other issues separately. Or, they could use the nuclear option. nt

[johnfunk]

30. Hey, Senate Minority Leader Bitch McConnell: how do you like OUR nukular option?

I can't wait to hear the Cabbage Patch Doll look-alike Senate Minority Leader whine about this.

[No Elephants]

96. Reconciliation is not the nuclear option. The nuclear option is eliminating the 60 vote rule .

entirely. (Budget reconciliation does not abolish, or "blow up" the 60 vote rule; budget reconciliation is only an exception to the 60 vote rule.)

Oddly, eliminating the 60 vote rule would require only 51 votes, 50 Senators, plus Biden.

[johnfunk]

113. I see it more as a tacticl nukular weapon, not a strategic thermonukular tactic

:evilgrin:

PS to McConnell: :nuke:

[lapfog_1]

32. Sadly, Bernie Sanders thinks this won't work...

There are enough Dems in the Senate that will not vote for a budget reconciliation bill to keep it from passing even at 51 votes. Not to mention that the parliamentarian has to rule that whatever bill passes this way meets the criteria for a reconciliation vote. The current bill (either House or Senate) would not. Probably the best bet would be for a bill that expands Medicare to those 55 and older and allows them to buy in or a increase in taxes (possibly on a new $250K+ bracket) to pay for it. I believe that any such reconciliation bill cannot create new government programs and must be budget neutral.

Thom Hartmann had Bernie on yesterday (he appears for an hour every Friday on the Hartmann program) and asked why they don't just do a single payer "Medicare for all" bill via reconciliation if we lose the Mass Senate seat. Bernie immediately shot down the idea as a "non starter" and "not a political possibility".

[IndianaGreen]

45. They didn't want to use reconciliation for Single Payer, Medicare for all

Instead, they all lied to us as to how impractical reconciliation was so as to get the gullible amongst us to support the corporate freebie HCR the Senate passed, and the House will swallow whole.

[treestar]

74. You're clearly clueless about reconciliation

[No Elephants]

95. No. Read Reply # 8 carefully and thoughtfully. See also Reply 69.

Bernie said it was politics, not the Byrd Rule, that would prevent passing single payer via budget reconciliation; and Bernie is correct.

They cannot pass all of the current Senate bill by reconciliation, but they could pass single payer by reconciliation.

[No Elephants]

94. Bingo. Politics, not the Byrd rule, is the obstacle to passing single payer via reconciliation.

You can't get even 50 Dems plus Biden to vote for single payer and no one wants you to know that.

[notesdev]

34. If this is a serious option

then why all the sell-outs along the way trying to get 60?

Is party/personal power more important than doing the right thing for the suffering people of this country?

[DJ13]

35. "We cant use reconcilliation to pass a public option"

But we can use it to save the insurance welfare bill.

Whats wrong with this picture?

[IndianaGreen]

39. The frakkers lied to us!

They didn't want to pass Single Payer or a Public Option because they are all in the back pockets of the health industry.

[PassingFair]

40. +1

The pay-offs have been made, and the
game is afoot.

Disgusting.

We had this option all along.

[treestar]

75. Whether the public option fits

this procedure is a complex question, but many who know what they are talking about think it doesn't.

[No Elephants]

98. Not sure about the public option, but single payer does fit.

[treestar]

106. That's just a statement with no back up

It would be a certainty the Repukes would argue otherwise and it would involve the legal minutia of section 641.

[treestar]

47. Are you sure you understand this?

I don't think I understand it totally, so I'm going to wait to learn more before foaming at the mouth.

It can't save the entire "insurance welfare bill" since it is limited to something to do with the budget.

[laughingliberal]

117. I'm not sure but I'm thinking they could create the exchange with reconciliation

If it involved the seed money to create a PO and the exchange and levied the taxes and fees to fund it? Seems reasonable but who ever said these rules were reasonable? Medicaid expansion could be done. Maybe that expansion could be revamped to create the exchange/subsidies within that. In other words expand Medicaid beyond a program just for the poor. Just some thoughts. The Senate's raise on payroll taxes on higher income individuals would not make it as it affects SS but the House tax on those making over $500,000 a year could be done.

[No Elephants]

97. I am not sure if they could use reconciliation to pass a public option. They could use it to pass

single payer, though.

I doubt if they cold use it to pass all of the Senate health care reform bill. But, they maybe be able to use it to pass those parts of the bill that (supposedly) affect the budget deficit and wrangle over the other parts later.

[Bigmack]

37. OK, Color Me Unbelievably Ignorant

But I've never been able to understand why "they" don't just go ahead and go with a simple majority. So the Repukes will filibuster. Let them talk on, but PUBLICIZE it. After a week or two of their talking on....and on....and on, I'm thinking public opinion would be STRONGLY against such mindless obstructionism. Maybe not, but on the other hand, why not try such a move? I'd really like to see the circus of those ignorant, mindless bastards talking for, what the hell, maybe MONTHS to keep a bill from coming to a simply up or down vote.... This ignorant chile can't imagine that such a move would IMPROVE the Repuke's political image, tho, then again, there is the GREAT well of the ignorant masses out there in this strange land. Ms Bigmack

[mbperrin]

43. I've never been able to understand the fear of the filibuster, either.

When I was a kid, there was a bully who kept an awful lot of kids terrified by threatening to beat them up. My cousin (4 years older and the same age as the bully) told him to go ahead and try. The bully got in one lick, ended up with a bloody nose, and that was the end of him.

I feel like you do - take their "best" punch and then laugh about it!

[treestar]

48. I debated this on DU a while back and did learn a few things

It appears one reason they won't let go of the filibutser is because, serving in Congress after Congress, they know what it's like to be in the minority and realize the advantages for those terms. Even the Repukes threatened but never did back off, realizing the same thing for themselves (which they see operating now). We'd have some awful SCOTUS justices if not for this obstruction. They realize that too.

[Bigmack]

56. I wasn't suggesting

getting RID of the filibuster - rather "letting" them go ahead and filibuster. NOTHING, even the planet itself, can last FOREVER. At SOME point, they'd have to stop talking. I don't see THIS congress doing anything SO essential we couldn't do without it's "productive" efforts for....oh...weeks....MONTHS... Why not give it a go and see what happens? Ms Bigmack

[treestar]

62. That is an interesting question too

Make them actually do the filibuster and talk. The Democrats would all have to stay there the whole time, on the floor, including Byrd.

Then the Republicans would have the floor to say everything they want to say and the M$M would be all over that.

Then there would be tons of criticism of nothing else getting done, etc.

So there is more effect than meets the eye. Knowing the Repukes they would not give in. in fact it would be perfect. They could hold everything up while their usual talking points would be covered 24/7. they wouldn't read the phone book. They'd read Rush Limpballs' transcripts.

[No Elephants]

100. How do you "make them" talk? The rules don't require talking anymore.

And why would every single Democrat have to be there at all times during a filibuster?

[Iowa]

66. I believe the rules were changed some time ago...

They aren't required to talk anymore. Someone can simply declare the intent to filibuster, and it's all over unless they have the 60 votes needed to invoke cloture.

That being said, this isn't about votes. It's about two corporate parties whoring for corporate campaign contributions and a political system that is completely corrupted. If the filibuster disappeared tomorrow, there would be some other excuse for their dismal performance. They are passing exactly what they want to pass. All this drama about Lieberman's antics, filibustering, Ben Nelson's whoring, reconciliation, and all the rest... it's either an excuse to pass an even WORSE corporate-written HCR bill via reconciliation (because it WILL be worse), or it's all theater designed to make the public believe they're really trying.

The Dems could have the WH plus 100% of both houses of Congress, and the outcome would be the same.

[Name removed]

44. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fearless]

50. Umm... or they can still go for 51 regardless... maybe that would be better to hope for

:banghead:

[bc3000]

52. Why would you have any faith that they will do the right thing unless forced into it?

[skids]

55. Why would you think they'd do the reconciliation perfectly, then? n/t

[Fearless]

67. Umm... Because I live here and I am one of "them"

[No Elephants]

101. You are one of whom? A Senator?

[Fearless]

110. Ha! Voter. n/t

[Hawaii Hiker]

46. Should have used Reconcilation months ago

That way, we'd HAVE a health care bill with a REAL public option along with one that doesn't restrict abortion rights...

We have 50+ senators who would vote for such a bill, but Democrats let Blanche Lincoln, Joe Libermann, Ben Nelson, & Mary Landrieau override the other 56...

Bush used Reconciliation to pass his tax cuts, Democrats need to go this route....

If we pass a health care bill with a real public option & less restrictive on abortion rights, people will thank Democrats in the fall mid-terms....We'll do quite well..

[elocs]

54. To understand reconciliation better, and that it's not a simple process, I have an OP:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7480650

Reconciliation is not a simple cure-all for the health care bill and neither is it easy, as easy as some here might believe.

[No Elephants]

102. I am not sure you could use reconciliation for either a public option or the current Senate bill..

You could use reconciliation for single payer, though.

[No Elephants]

103. How can you say flatly that we have 50+ votes for a public option?

We have no way of knowing that.

Besides, I don't know that you could use reconciliation for public option. You could use it for single payer, but, according to Sanders, we don't have 50+ votes for single payer.

[Faryn Balyncd]

57. Then there is NO EXCUSE not to pass a REAL bill with the Public Option.

[bvar22]

63. +1

If the Dems use this to pass Mandates without a Public Option{/b], why call them "Democrats"?

[BP2]

64. + 2 It's called the "nuclear option" for a reason.

[No Elephants]

107. Reconciliation is not called the nuclear option. Please see Reply 72,

[elocs]

69. Yes there is because reconciliation would do nothing for a public option,

or other important parts of a health care reform bill.

Even though this is regarding the bill last fall, the same points still apply.


http://keithhennessey.com/2009/08/05/reconciliation-par... /

Here are provisions that I think violate the Byrd rule:

* Exchanges / Gateways, and all the requirements imposed through them – They’re separated from the subsidies. Someone might argue that the exchanges are a “necessary term and condition” of making the subsidies work. That’s a huge stretch.

* So-called health insurance consumer protections – Insurance mandates such as those requiring guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability, no lifetime or annual limits, extension of coverage to 25-year old dependents, and modified community rating – As I wrote yesterday, I think these clearly violate the Byrd rule. A couple of friends pointed out that these provisions would make health insurance more expensive. That depresses wages, which reduces income tax revenues, which is a budgetary effect. I think this fits in the merely incidental bucket – these provisions would fundamentally restructure the insurance industry with a minor budget effect.

* The public option – As currently drafted, it’s designed to be independent of federal spending. If so, it’s extraneous. I imagine they could redraft it to link it more closely to the spending so it doesn’t violate the Byrd rule.


So not only would the public option have violated the Byrd rule of reconciliation, currently in the new bill point #2 says: "So-called health insurance consumer protections – Insurance mandates such as those requiring guaranteed issue and guaranteed renewability, no lifetime or annual limits, extension of coverage to 25-year old dependents, and modified community rating – As I wrote yesterday, I think these clearly violate the Byrd rule".

So yes, there is an excuse, not only for the bill last fall but for the current one as well. Reconciliation would not help a good deal of the bill and it certainly would have done nothing for a public option.

[BP2]

71. If that's the case, do Democrats risk more by forcing it through with 51 votes vs

starting over and doing it right?

There may be hell to pay from voters who want HCR with the public option, especially with unemployment so high.

[treestar]

73. If I'm getting it right it has to affect the federal budget

Could they argue that they will gain government revenue via the public option? If it's a public insurance company, it would take premiums and pay claims and possibly make some profit like those evil private insurance companies.

I'm not sure, just floating that idea.

[No Elephants]

104. Please see Reply 78.

[Wardoc]

65. Sadly, this is saber rattling and bluster. If it were advantageous for them to do this,, they...

...already would have. The fact of the matter is that most senators do not want their names attached to this beast, and the last thing they want is to continue this subject as the electoral issue going into November.

[No Elephants]

108. The namesof all 60 members of the Democratic Caucus are already attached to it.

The ayes and nays show on the vote on the Senate bill.

[frog92969]

72. Oh, they'll threaten to get tough to push through a (R) worthy bill.

Thanks guys.

[elocs]

77. Reconciliation and its limits will not result in what most consider to be a "worthy bill"

of any kind.

[No Elephants]

109. If they used reconciliation for single payer, it would be a worthy bill.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

76. why didn't they do this weeks ago?

[elocs]

78. Because if you understand reconciliation you know it's not a quick fix

and would not result in what most here would consider to be a great bill, but just a bill.

[No Elephants]

112. Again, they could use reconciliation for

single payer.

Or, they could use it to pass economic portions of any hcr bill, then fight over the non-economic portions in the usual way.

And I don't think most here consider the Senate bill a great bill, regardless of how many Senate votes it has. Even the most loyal are talking about the Senate bill being a "start.?

[yurbud]

85. they'd suddenly figure out how to play hardball?

[chelsea0011]

86. It may not be necessary. Election may not be certified for weeks

http://www.wickedlocal.com/bellingham/news/x1409377158/Seating-Senate-winner-could-be-delayed

[No Elephants]

111. Typically, it takes ten days. Can you imagine the uproar if it took longer this time, absent

a close vote, ala Franken-Coleman?

[shawmut]

118. Do the admins know there are Scott Brown adds appearing on this site?

There are big adds asking to support Scott Brown showing up at the top of this page. :puke:

[Knockout]

119. Looks like the owners of DU don't care about Red/Blue - They only care about GREEN

In this economy, can you blame them?

[dflprincess]

121. What health bill?

The only thing they're working on is protecting insurance companies.

[New Dawn]

123. Bingo. And the GOP will happily let it pass into law as well.

Although most of them will pretend to oppose it, publicly.

[Blue_Tires]

125. clarification: ANYTHING can pass the senate with 51 votes

they would do well to remember that...