Another Chance for the Public Option

[laughingliberal]

Byrd Rule To Send Health Care Back To House, Rules Parliamentarian
First Posted: 03-25-10 02:53 AM |

Senate Republicans succeeded early Thursday morning in finding two flaws in the House-passed health care reconciliation package. Neither is of any substance, but the Senate parliamentarian informed Democratic leaders that both are in violation of the Byrd Rule.

One is related to Pell Grants and the other makes small technical corrections. Why they're in violation of the Byrd Rule doesn't matter; the upshot is that Republicans will succeed in at least slightly altering the legislation, which means that the House is once again required to vote on it. With no substantial changes, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) should have little problem assembling the same coalition of 220 Democrats who passed the measure Sunday night. That's already four more than the minimum 216 required for passage.

But the ruling might give Democrats another option -- the public one.

Democratic leadership no longer has to worry that additional amendments would send it back to the House, since it must return to the lower chamber regardless. The Senate is now free to put to the test that much-debated question of whether 50 votes exist for a public option. Democrats could also elect to expand Medicare or Medicaid, now that they only need 50 votes in the Senate and the approval of the House.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/25/byrd-rule-sends-health-care-back-to-house_n_512609.html

Will Sanders now be allowed to introduce his amendment to create the public option? Reid asked him not to in order to avoid having to send the bill back to the House. Now that it's going back anyway, that point is moot.

[Bumblebee]

1. It will complicate votes in the House if it passes. Better to stay simple now

and work on it later.

[meeshrox]

3. The PO has always had enough support to pass...

on it's own. If the PO were introduced as a stand-alone bill, it would pass...I don't think it would complicate anything...

[Bumblebee]

4. That was then -- and now is now. Some nervous lawmakers may

use it as an excuse to vote no in this round. I would not take chances.

[laughingliberal]

7. Further on in the article Clyburn was asked if it could pass the House again

He answered with a definite yes and said the problem with a public option has always been in the House. Pelosi gave her reason for not including it in her reconciliation bill as the Senate not having the votes. However, quite a few in the Senate have said they have enough votes to get it done under reconciliation. It will be interesting to see. Reid had promised Sanders he would try to get a bill creating a public option to the floor in the next couple of months. I think they have the votes. I think Reid and Sanders both think they have the votes.

[meeshrox]

19. OK, I can see that...

I think it's worth the risk. But, OK, I can see your point...having to go back and forth again and again if it doesn't pass the house.

[ProgressiveEconomist]

12. Is there any obstacle to a 2nd reconciliation effort featuring the PO, after this reconciliation

is enacted into law?

IMO that option clearly would be superior to risking the entire year-long effort to reform healthcare. But I just don't know whether it is a viable option.

[laughingliberal]

13. The House has passed a public option once and Clyburn has said their votes are still there. nt.

[SPedigrees]

16. +100000. Let's get this passed first, and quickly. nt

[meeshrox]

2. A coworker and I were discussing that this morning...

Go, baby, go!

This could make the whole thing more meaningful AND negate the BS about the mandate! If the exchanges/government is the seller of the insurance product, the money would not go to the corporations and the mandate wouldn't be such a bad thing...(IMO)

[tinrobot]

5. Yesterday's GOP vitriol only served to unite the Democrats.

I think we'd have even more votes this time around.

[MineralMan]

6. That will not happen. There is an urgent need to patch the bill

quickly and send it back to the Senate while the momentum is still strong.

The Public Option is going to have to be added later or, even better, a Medicare buy-in option.

We need to push this bill through right now. Not after weeks of debate over a major change.

[laughingliberal]

8. Sanders already had his amendment ready to go

The House would pass it with no problem. I don't think anything in the reconciliation bill changes any part of the bill which is an immediate need. And I don't think there's a problem with the Senate passing it. The reconciliation bill changes some items like the amount of subsidies and the amount of the fines, none of which affects anyone until 2014.

[zipplewrath]

9. I'll bet that it won't happen

Obama doesn't want it.
I suspect many senators are glad they don't have to vote on it.
The healthcare industry would work against it.
The only people supporting this would be.... well... the people.

So I don't think it will happen.

[laughingliberal]

11. I don't see the health care industry as being able to stop it

White House? That may be a different story. If they don't do it now it will be interesting to hear the reasons this time. The only card the health care industry has really had was the threat of multi million dollar ads to defeat reform. They can not defeat reform, now. And with most of the public in favor of it I don't think anyone is going to be swayed by an ad campaign from the industry and their shills. In fact, it would likely work against the industry. People already now know about the mandate. The industry would be seen trying to defeat something that provides competition for them and lowers premiums for people. Public opinion in favor of the bill itself is up since it passed. There is no good reason not to do it. It is too late for the industry to take it down, now. The House and Senate have never been bound by any promises the White House may have made. It would be the smartest thing they could do right now.

[zipplewrath]

17. Money

The health insurance industry always has the money card to play. They can threaten to cut off campaign funds, and to fund primary and opposite party challengers. And now they can also run ads against a candidate directly with their own funds. Rahm knows this and has been working to prevent it.

[laughingliberal]

20. I think that would be seen for what it is at this point

Large majorities of people want the public option. I think it would be easy to detect it when if the industry starts targeting law makers for voting for it.

[Toasterlad]

10. Ha! Like the Democrats Have the Balls To Even Think of Doing That.

They consider this "reform" a "win". There's no way they're going to change one fucking word more than they have to.

[branders seine]

14. Pelosi says she has enough votes for public option in the House,

but failure to add a public option amendment (or at least propose the amendment) will be the smoking gun that proves that the Senate and Obama are in the service of the medical insurance bankster industry.

[Foo Fighter]

26. As if we need a smoking gun. n/t

[Enthusiast]

15. Including the Public Option

would make the bill far more popular with the American people.

[laughingliberal]

21. Yes, it would. nt

[Mari333]

18. knr

[branders seine]

22. the emperor now has no clothes.

if the Senate Democrats do not amend the bill with a public option now, we will know they never really supported it. They just gave lip service to what they thought would be an empty, "apple-pie" promise. They care nothing about people; they actually work for the medical insurance bankster industry.

[saracat]

23. I thought exactly that myself. Hmmm.

[eridani]

25. I think you have that ass backwards

The new clothes are there. It's just that there isn't any emperor inside them.

[saracat]

24. K+R But I don't think they will do anything. I hope to be surprised.

[Nikki Stone1]

27. K & R

.