Majority Rule on Health Care Reform - Whoa... NYT Is Onboard For Reconciliation

[WillyT]

Majority Rule on Health Care Reform

<snip>

...

Mr. Obama should know from sad experience the pitfalls of seeking bipartisan cooperation from a Republican Party that has sloughed off most of its moderates and is dominated by its right wing. His stimulus package was supported by no Republicans in the House and only three Republicans in the Senate, so-called moderates whose support was won by shrinking the package below the size at which it would have done the most good.

Now the same sort of damaging retreat may be happening in the Senate Finance Committee. Three committees in the House and one in the Senate have used their Democratic majorities to approve liberal health reform bills. The only bipartisan negotiations are between a rump group of three Democrats and three Republicans on the Finance Committee who hail from largely rural states with small populations, namely Iowa, Maine, Montana, New Mexico, North Dakota and Wyoming. Somehow this small, unrepresentative group has emerged as the focal point for bipartisan health care reform.

The six have been working hard to reach agreement, but the concessions demanded by Republicans will most likely make the reform effort weaker and smaller. They could, for example, reduce the scale of the program and the subsidies for low-income people; drop the idea of a government-run insurance plan to compete with private insurers; and eliminate a requirement that employers offer coverage to their workers or pay a penalty.

Even if the group reaches an agreement, which is by no means certain, its compromise is unlikely to win support from a Republican Party that seems bent on delay. Leading Senate Republicans have seen little in the emerging compromise that they are willing to support.

Two of the Republicans working on the compromise — Charles Grassley of Iowa and Michael Enzi of Wyoming — have said they would not vote for a bill that could not win broad support, which Mr. Enzi defined as 75 to 80 senators, implying that roughly half of the Senate’s Republicans must sign on. That is unlikely — no matter how good or bipartisan or middle-of-the-road any bill may be.

The Democrats are thus well advised to start preparing to use an arcane parliamentary tactic known as “budget reconciliation” that would let them sidestep a Republican filibuster and approve reform proposals by a simple majority.

...

<snip>

More: http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/30/opinion/30sun1.html?_r=1&pagewanted=print

:wow:

[Lasher]

1. We have the majority.

It's time to rule.

[thecrow]

3. Damn right

The majority elected him and lots of those people, like my car mechanic who has never voted for a Democrat, but voted for Obama because he said "He is the right person for the job"... we'll lose all of those people if Obama keeps trying to go bipartisan with this. Earth to the Democrats.... it's time to go effin' postal with this and use the might of the storm and the roar of the lion on this. It was a nice thought but being nice hasn't gotten us anywhere and being nice could lose this for us.... and so many people NEED this bill to be passed.

[maglatinavi]

2. majority rule

It is about time that Obama realizes that there is no benefit in the frigging concept of bipartisanship. After all the reach out, WH cocktails, etc. no one with half a mind expects the repugs to give in even an inch. We have the majority, that is what "we the people" wanted; lets go ahead and discard the nosayers ... and behave like a mojority party ... lets clear the lies of the repug propaganda...scaring seniors that the "government: is going to get in their medicare... that is such a big lie... lets tell the people what the truth is, and do not be afraid... Lets get the Kennedy act rolling...!!!

[boobooday]

4. A pleasant surprise to me as well! n/t

[ejpoeta]

5. it's quite obvious to me and pretty much anyone else in america that has any

sense that the republicans have no interest in bipartisanship or working with the dems. It is the same as with the stimulus... they got their compromises, and still no one voted for it. That exposes them for what they are. No matter what the dems cave on the republicans aren't going to vote for it. Period. End of discussion. The republicans goal is to make the dems look like idiots and to sabotage anything the dems do so that they can win the house and senate back in 2010. I think part of the problem is that many dems don't want to do anything either. They are sabotaging themselves. They have contributors to think about and if they hamstring the profits of the insurance companies, where are they going to get all that campaign money. Fuck trying to make the republicans happy... it is never going to happen.

I have a ten year old. We go to the grocery store. She says she wants a chocolate milk. I think that's reasonable. She is probably thirsty and it's better than something else, I guess. So I agree. Then we go down the next aisle and she wants a lunchable. Well, we haven't had lunch yet, and it's better than going to mcdonalds or something. So I agree. But that's it. No more. Then we go down another aisle and she wants something else and something else. And I say no, but she starts getting belligerent because she can't get what she wants, even though she has already gotten two things. By the time we get to the resister I am ready to smack her and walk away from my cart of groceries altogether. No matter what I gave her, it wasn't enough. and no matter what the dems cave on, it will never be enough for the republicans.

No matter what all these idiots who haven't bothered looking up the facts for themselves say, they WANT a public option at the very least. Single payer would be best for everyone, but at least a public option would give them the choice instead of the insurance companies. Right now WE have no choice, no matter how much they want to believe we do. The employer picks what insurance we choose from, assuming we have a job that is. And the insurance companies choose what they will cover and who they will cover. If there is a public option (preferably expansion of medicare) then at least we would have some choices ourselves and they would have to actually work to keep people instead of having a captive clientele.

[Buzz Clik]

6. Lots of blind excitement about this approach. Don't forget to read page 2.

The approach is risky. Reconciliation bills are primarily intended to deal with budget items that affect the deficit, not with substantive legislation like health care reform. Senators could challenge as "extraneous" any provisions that do not change spending or revenues over the next five years, or would have a budget impact that is "merely incidental" to some broader policy purpose, or would increase the deficit in Year 6 and beyond.

So how much of the proposed health care reforms could plausibly fit into a reconciliation bill? The answer seems to be: quite a lot, though nobody knows for sure.

Knowledgeable analysts from both parties believe that these important elements of reform will probably pass muster because of their budgetary impact: expansion of Medicaid for the poor; subsidies to help low-income people buy insurance; new taxes to pay for the trillion-dollar program; Medicare cuts to help finance the program; mandates on individuals to buy insurance and on employers to offer coverage; and tax credits to help small businesses provide insurance.

Even the public plan so reviled by Republicans could probably qualify, especially if it is given greater power than currently planned to dictate the prices it will pay to hospitals, doctors, drug companies and other providers, thus saving the government lots of money in subsidies.

Greater uncertainty surrounds two other critical elements: new rules requiring insurance companies to accept all applicants and charge them the same premiums without regard to medical condition, and the creation of new exchanges in which people forced to buy their own insurance could find cheaper policies than are currently available.

Is everyone willing to live with the vagaries, uncertainties, and known shortfalls of this approach?

[WillyT]

7. True... And It Might All Come Down To The Senate Parlimentarian...

Nobody knows how the Senate parliamentarian, an obscure official who advises the presiding officer, would rule on any of these complicated issues. But if he were to take a narrow view and eliminate important features, it could leave the reform package riddled with holes — perhaps providing subsidies to buy insurance on exchanges that do not exist, for example. Thus there are plans afoot to use a second bill to pass whatever reforms will not fit under the rubric of reconciliation, but those would be subject to filibuster and would have to depend on their general popularity (insurance reforms are enormously popular) to win 60 votes for passage.

But I'd rather risk the move than end up with a watered down CYA Health Care Lite Bill.

:shrug:

[Buzz Clik]

8. Some analyses are suggesting that the bill will be split in two...

... one part covered by this bold move and the other following the standard protocol.

This is a huge mess. Congress is a gathering of asses.

[WillyT]

9. Yeah... And I'm Wondering What Happens If They Can Only Pass One Part ???

:shrug:

And you are correct, a mess of asses all around, LOL!

:hi: