Is Reconciliation of the Health Care Bill really a Possibility? A Little Help Please?

[Liberation Angel]

I have watched this debate for monhs and have been relly sickened by Holy Kapo Joe's murder of Hope for health care for all in the US.

In another thread it was suggested that the good Dr. Howard Dean's message: Kill the Bill and Reconcile, is really a viable possibility.

Yet I have seen not much in the way of analysis of whether this is a real possibility. Maybe no one wants to discuss it (Mainstream media, White House, right wing talking heads) BECAUSE it is a strategy that MIGHT WORK to get us either sigle payer or a meaningful pubic option or better.

Can any of you policy wonks or others enlighten the rest of us on whether rconciliation has any chance at all of working?

One poster in another thread suggested that if Dean's advice is followed and the bill is shot down in the Senate that it WON'T go to recinciliation.

I am confused.

Help.

[Vincardog]

1. They could use reconciliation to push through MEdicare for all. The problem if that some of the

Chairpersons of committees don't want to. The problem is herding cats AGAIN.
It can be done. It would require only 51 votes to do it.
The Democratic "Leadership" needs to grow the balls to do it.

[napi21]

3. Why don't the commitee chairs want to do that?

I assume it has something to do with power, but I can't see how this takes away their power???

[Vincardog]

4. Probably for the same reason that LIEberman doesn't want to. MONEY in their pockets

[damntexdem]

12. Committee chairs can be changed.

It all has to do with how much the Dem leadership wants to save the Party.

[Tippy]

2. I really believe we will have a bill....

Remember the best of the two Bills came out of the House...they must now take another look at the bill and they can make changes. Reconciliation opens the door to Republicans the way I understand it they will be able to add amendments...not sure they can make changes but the will be able to pork it up for their districts and states...

[TiberiusGracchus]

5. Reconciliation has never been used to create new programs or expand existing ones but its a

dangerous precedent to set. Much like eliminating the filibuster would be disastrous when the Republicans eventually gain a majority, setting a precedent for using reconciliation in this way would open the doors to the Republicans using it for their own agenda:

Imagine filibuster proof rethug wars, corporate welfare, cuts to social security and medicare.

We really really REALLY don't want to go down that path. That's why it's called a Nuclear Option, because once used, BOTH SIDES OPEN FIRE.

[Liberation Angel]

9. If it is feasible in a majority why is it so dangerous?

Do we honestly think the rethugs won't use it when they want to. Just because it hasn't been done why is it so precedential in the sense that if the rules allow it is becomes "Nuclear".

Sems to me if that is what it takes it is worth it. Dems and libs and progressives wil claim victories and will hold the Congress for years and years.

I say why not? Dean suggests it.
So why is it so bad?

[Vincardog]

13. Funny the Repigs us it it under booosh to cut taxes. The world did not end

[damntexdem]

14. If we don't get true HCR, the rest won't matter.

Because the Dem Party will lose its majorities and likely the presidency, in 2016 if not in 2012. And anything the Dem Party could do now but won't lest it set a precedent could still be done by a GOP majority -- as they threatened over SCOTUS nominations.

[Ozymanithrax]

6. My objection is due to history...past and near future

Past

Kennedy tried to reform health care under Reagan. He failed and kicked the ball to Clinton. Clinton tried to pass health care and failed, he kicked the ball to Obama. Obama is now trying to pass health care. Historically, big failures are rewarded by years when people lick their wounds.

Near Future

That doesn't mean reconciliation won't be tried, but it does mean that the current bill won't be reconciled. They could start again after the Christmas break send out the reconciliatio bill to committee, run it through committee, and then have it ready in Christmas 2010. A reconciliation bill will be written by the same people who wrote this bill. Of course, next year is a midterm election. Democratic and Republican congressmen are going to want to take home some signature acomplishment to their constituents. Killing the Bill now is a huge win for Republicans. In safe Republican distrcits and states, killing the bill and stopping Obama will be a big draw in November of 2010. In stastes that lean one way or another, it will get the Conservative base out in big numbers. Democrats run on a big fat failure, and, historically, Democrats don't reward failure.

No health care bill will be passed in an election year. So they do it in the next congress in 2011, expect that history shows us that the Republicans will win some seats in Congress next year, and probably the Senate. It makes it harder to push a bill through, even with reconciliation. We still have Senators who would not vote for a reconciliaiton bill with Medicare expansion, single payer, or a public option. Cut the margine very much and we won't even get a majority of 51 votes. Reconciliaiton also requires that the bill be limited in time duration and not increase the deficite beyound the limit of the bill. It creates a whole system that it good for, at most, ten years and must be re approved. Bush's Tax cuts were done by reconciliaiton, and renewing them is no slam dunk, and damn near every elected person is reluctant to end those tax cuts due to a perceived backlash from voters.

I do not approve a temporary bill that lasts for 4, 8, or 10 years and must be re-approved. A failure to re-approve ends the program, and no one can predict who will be in the majority. And approving a reconciliaiton bill is still not a slam dunk.

A big ass whipping doesn't inspire Senators and Congressman to jump right back into the fray. In my opinion, if this bill fails, we won't see its like again soon. I hope I am wrong and look forward to eating as much crow as I can stomach.

[jocapo]

7. Could the bill be split up?

My understanding is that to use reconciliation the issue must directly impact the budget. So, although the insurance reforms, as a part of the overall "package" (god, I hate that term - it's like "product") will have an effect on the budget and the deficit in the long run, they don't do so directly and can't be passed through reconciliation.

So my suggestion is this: stop calling this Health Care Reform and call it Insurance Reform and pass strong Insurance Reform now. Remove the health care pieces: money for community clinics, subsidies for Medicaid, subsidies for the poor to buy insurance and any other health care components that cost money. Then pass the bill with the strongest insurance reforms possible: no pre-existing condition, remove the anti-trust exemption, require 90% of premiums be spent on medicine, etc.
Then regroup and come back to pass the health care pieces through reconciliation. And that part is easy: let people buy into Medicare. All of the $900,000 that is now going to the insurance companies for people to buy their shitty insurance would be available to expand Medicare and make it financially sound and this could be done through reconciliation.

What do ya' think? Easy! ;-)

[jocapo]

10. ..and another thing..

Health care is in crisis and the American people are hurting!! Of course we should use reconciliation to solve the current fiscal emergency that the country is in because of our broken health care system! Of course the democrats were elected to regulate the big corporations like the insurance companies, the banks, wall street, etc. This concept could be a political win for the dems if they sprinkle it with a little populism and some fight!

[old guy]

8. Only repubs are allowed to use it to get what they want.

For Dems it is far too dangerous. Dems wring their hands and worry over what may happen years in the future for a decision made today. Noble? Perhaps,but they pass up making real decisions. Repubs simply don't care how their decisions affect the future as they will rewrite history and blame the weak kneed Dems anyway. It's a win/win for them.

[damntexdem]

11. It had better be a possibility, because it is the ONLY possibility.

LIEberman and Ben Noisome have made that very clear. What I want to know is whether it can be invoked for a bill coming out of conference committee -- which presumably would have to have the regulatory features stripped out of it. Or is that true?

[Liberation Angel]

15. any other insights or is this moot now?

nt