Van Hollen: Senate Bill’s Brand May Be Irrevocably Tarnished, So We May Go Reconciliation Instead

[sabrina 1]

Source: The Plum Line

In a candid assessment of the politics of health care, DCCC chief Chris Van Hollen said in an interview that the Senate bill’s brand may be irrevocably tarnished, particularly among independents — and confirmed that partly for this reason, Dem leaders may pass a new set of reforms via reconciliation, which could be repackaged free of the Senate bill’s taint.

Van Hollen also added that it would be a mistake for Dems to pretend the unpopularity of the Senate reform proposals wasn’t a factor in the Massachusetts loss.

>snip

“We would focus on essential elements in the health care package that have wide public support,” he said. Among them: Creating more competition and more consumer choice; taking away special deals for the insurance industry, like the antitrust exemption; and “making sure that insurance companies couldn’t deny you coverage at the time you need it the most.”

These provisions “have gotten lost in the public discussion,” Van Hollen said, adding that repackaging the proposals would let Dems “make it clear that this is a different bill.”

Read more: http://theplumline.whorunsgov.com/health-care/van-hollen-senate-bills-brand-may-be-irrecovably-tarnished-so-we-may-go-reconciliation-instead/

---

Now they are beginning to get it. Or, maybe they did but until the loss in Mass, progressives didn't have the power to speak out, or were 'admonished' when they tried.

If that Senate seat gets us some real Health Care reform, it was worth it. So far, it seems to have accomplished a few positive things, like Obama's pushing Geithner aside and promoting Volcker on banking regulation.

And we can always take it back if Dems start doing what the people want. I think it certainly diminished Rahm's status proving how wrong he's been all along to ignore progressives. Too bad we had to lose a Senate seat to accomplish what just listening to the base would have accomplished in the first place.

[dkf]

1. Yay! The house is spanking senators who are so out of touch they will bring us all down.

[midnight]

2. Creating more competition and more consumer choice;

taking away special deals for the insurance industry, like the antitrust exemption; and “making sure that insurance companies couldn’t deny you coverage at the time you need it the most.”

These provisions “have gotten lost in the public discussion,” Van Hollen said, adding that repackaging the proposals would let Dems “make it clear that this is a different bill.”

If this is the language of reconciliation-get it done.

[tritsofme]

3. If you think a bill crafted through reconciliation will be superior

to either bill passed by the House or Senate, you are sorely mistaken. It will be a big mess.

[elleng]

4. Would be OK if it got 'us' the power we need.

Don't know if that's what's happened; MAYBE.

VanHollen was my Rep until I moved (to only MD seat with a Repug member!) but I was first pleased and then not sure if he might be too close to the Dem powers. At least he's still using his brains! But he may be too close to rahm.

[regnaD kciN]

5. Stupid, stupid, stupid!

“We would focus on essential elements in the health care package that have wide public support,” he said. Among them: Creating more competition and more consumer choice; taking away special deals for the insurance industry, like the antitrust exemption; and “making sure that insurance companies couldn’t deny you coverage at the time you need it the most.”

The latter of which cannot be passed through reconciliation, as it is not a budget matter. (Neither is stripping the anti-trust exemption, by the way.)

:banghead:

In other words, if you propose "making sure that insurance companies couldn’t deny you coverage at the time you need it the most" through any means other than the House passing the current Senate bill and then amending it through reconciliation, you better be able to explain how you can hope to go back to the Senate with a brand-new bill and expect to be able to win a cloture vote on it when 41 Republican votes are pledged to filibuster anything the Democrats propose.

Sorry, but this is merely a face-saving way of saying "we're going to give up on doing anything on health care, now or for the foreseeable future -- better luck in a decade or three." :grr:

[Cosmocat]

8. Yeah ...

Does not pass the smell test ...

IMO,

the only option is to pass the senate version and reconcile the tax parts somewhere between where the house and the senate were ...

I TOTALLY get where the progressives want MAJOR reform, I WANT major reform ... But, if all they can get is some kinds of reform, so be it ... Better than what exists now, with TOTALLY unchecked insurance companies and it WILL be a hit on democratic political "capital" to have mashed it out that long and NOT gotten something done ...

[burning rain]

6. k & r

.

[iceman66]

7. I hope they remember that a PUBLIC OPTION is one of the elements that has "wide public support"

Or at least an expansion of medicare.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

9. pass the public option now

at least that it favored by the people