MSNBC just reported that Pelosi WILL try to pass the Senate bill IF

[jenmito]

in return, the Senate Dems. give the House a separate piece of legislation in return called a "patch" on the budget-related issues in the original healthchare bill which would alter things like the "Cadillac tax" and the scope of mandates. And these could be done through reconciliation. :thumbsup:

[Jennicut]

1. I think that can be done.

Didn't Kurt and Hunter post that exact same idea here today? :)

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

2. Monday

I kept repeating that post until its time was right... which I guess it is now.

:hi:

[Jennicut]

3. Monday! You even did it on Monday.

You are a very intelligent poster.

[CTyankee]

30. I know it sounds dumb, but why didn't they do this once Lieberputz did his thing?

Why didn't they say "Whoa, we're not gonna be held hostage by this guy" and go directly to this process?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

31. Because they couldn't have gotten the stuff that needed 60

Few things can be done under budget rules.

To get the stuff that needed 60 votes we made concessions on other things that could have been handled under budget rules.

For instance, not taxing the rich in the senate bill was a negotiated item. If we told the blue dogs to accept this here bill and we will tax the rich under reconciliation rules without you they wouldn't have signed on in the first place.

This current idea would actually constitute breaking our promises to the Libermanites but, hey... fuck 'em.

[CTyankee]

36. So you're saying that we COULD have said "Fuck them" then but it's all different

now...because Dems are wussies and frightened?
It seems to me that we "negotiated" this thing to death and the Brown win just spiraled this thing into the crisis we have now. So maybe this is the only good thing: it has shaken us up to realize we can't do it any more with the pukes and the blue dogs.

But we never COULD do it with them in the first place. Are people like me the first to know this?

[chimpymustgo]

39. COULD have done this AND got a decent bill with a public option. These people are disgusting.

[jenmito]

5. So do I...

he may have. And I may have even seen that thread and commented on it, agreeing with him. :)

[DrToast]

13. That's been floating around for a while.

[Deep13]

4. Do it. Then work on the shit-hole economy. nt

[Jersey Devil]

6. "sidecar reconciliation"

http://fdlaction.firedoglake.com/2010/01/19/martha-coakley-and-sidecar-reconciliation-the-public-option-lives-again/

Sounds like the House doesn't trust the Senate and wants it guaranteed in advance, at least with a handshake and a nod, then House passes Senate bill as is and Senate needs only 51 votes on the reconciliation provisions (that are by Senate Rule limited to budgetary provisions).

Sounds good to me. Maybe we'll even get a public option back that way and we won't have to deal with scumbags like Lieberman.

[leveymg]

16. Not "as is" if they do reconciliation.

The Senate Bill will have to be reconciled to the House Bill, with some changes, not the other way around.

[Jersey Devil]

24. I think you are wrong

What you are talking about is resolving disputes between House and Senate Dems through the Conference Committee, which would then have to be voted on by the Senate.

But if the House passes the Senate bill as is it goes straight to Obama. Then there would be entirely separate legislation passed by the House that include the "budgetary" changes that would then go to the Senate entirely separately and be voted on by a majority of the Senate in a "reconciliation" process that cannot, by Senate Rule, be filibustered.

[leveymg]

27. There's a lot of misunderstanding about Reconciliation. Here's how it works:

The President of the Senate (VP) drafts an Instruction to reconcile the Senate Bill with the House. The instruction specifies the subject matter, the committees, and puts a deadline on the committee or committees which will report back to the Full Senate with an amended Bill. The Reconciled Bill can pass with 50 plus the tie-breaker cast by the VP.

The role of the Parliamentarian is advisory. The VP can ignore the Parliamentarian on issues such as the Byrd Amendment bar on non-budget related amendments. It takes 60 votes backing an objection to overturn the decision of the VP on relevance.

There's no reason we can't get a Bill the American people actually like by 50 plus one, quickly, if the White House knocks some heads in the Senate and the House plays ball, which I think they will.

The choice of Senate Committees is optional, and can be just one. It's a choice that is made by the person who writes the Instruction to the Reconciliation Order. That choice is made by the Chief Officer of the Senate, who is Biden.

Biden can pretty much craft the Bill he and Obama want in Reconciliation. It's up to them to compel the Senate and House to play team ball.

[Jersey Devil]

29. Sounds even better and thanks for clarifying it

I thought reconciliation was a totally separate process. Let's do it!

[bain_sidhe]

45. This is not what they're talking about

The confusion comes from both processes using the word "reconcile."

Reconciling two bills, one passed by the House, and one passed by the Senate, is done by a Conference Committee which reports out a "reconciled" bill, and that's what you describe. Although you describe it incorrectly. The Conference Report (reconciled bill) CAN be filibustered.

What they're talking about is a *budget* reconciliation. This can only be done if a line in the actual budget bill authorized it. Luckily, the Budget bill passed by the Dems DOES have such an authorization. It can only pertain to budget items, such as taxes and spending, not regulations and setting up new programs and such. *THAT'S* the kind of "reconciliation bill" that only requires 50+1 votes to pass, because it cannot be filibustered.

What they're talking about here is passing the Senate bill as-is, then doing a separate bill to deal with the tax/payment issues under the "budget reconciliation" authority granted in this years Budget bill.

[jenmito]

18. Thanks for the link.

I don't blame the House for not trusting the Senate.

[CreekDog]

7. Amen

You know what would be nice for a change?

Visualize with me (this is 2 months ago):

Rahm: here's our plan if we lose one of our Senate votes, which you all know is forseeable.
Nancy: okay, I'm listening
Rahm: you pass the Senate Bill directly
Nancy: no way, I'm not doing that, we don't work for the Senate.
Rahm: then we'll give you what you want through reconciliation
Nancy: that could work if my members believe that promise
Rahm: if we lose a vote, say one of ours gets hit by a bus and reporters come calling here's what you say
Nancy: that we'll pass the Senate Bill and improve it through reconciliation
Rahm: and the White House will be saying the same thing because we don't want it to seem like we don't know what we're doing.

Except this clearly didn't happen.

The right thing may ultimately get done, but the advance work might as well have been done by your dog.

[lamp_shade]

8. I'll take it.

[Beetwasher]

9. Good, This Is The Way To Go, Thank You Speaker Pelosi

n/t

[monmouth]

23. You can bet your bippy it'll get done in time for that SOTU.....n/t

[Clio the Leo]

10. But I wont be happy until she gets more Reps on board.

.... but YOU CAN DO IT NANCY!!!!!

[HereSince1628]

11. Nancy, Nancy, Nancy, don't expect the Senate to do anything in return

Get them to do what is right and proper from the senate FIRST.

[leveymg]

15. Biden will likely take over as manager of the Bill in Reconciliation

The White House is gonna kick some privileged Senate ass - they have to, or the whole Party's going down in flames.

[Jennicut]

19. He can actually do that in the Senate?

I had no idea VP's could do that but isn't he technically President of the Senate?

[leveymg]

22. The Pres of the Senate (VP) writes the Instructions that order Reconciliation

He controls which committee(s) reconcile the Senate Bill to the House and imposes the deadline for returning an amended Bill. With the cooperation of the House leadership, this can all be done in less than 60 days.

[Jennicut]

26. Thanks for the explanation.

[Q3JR4]

20. Bingo!

One thing the HC debacle should have taught us is don't trust the senate.

Q3JR4.

[leveymg]

12. If they want to call splitting the bill a "patch", fine. Just add back all the good stuff that got

stripped out to appease the Blue Dogs and Gang of Six, and we're back in business:

* Medicare buy-in
* Drug reimportation
* lift the anti-trust exemption
* Surtax on upper incomes, not Caddiecare tax
* immediate coverage, not 2014

Let's roll!

[Xenotime]

14. Yes. Sometimes she has a good idea.

[Champion Jack]

17. Best news all day

[BadgerKid]

21. If so, then everyone gets some victory. n/t

[annabanana]

25. hmmmm. . .

I keep seeing little rays of sunshine, only to get caught out without an umbrella...

sigh

Wishin' & hopin' & thinkin' & prayin',
plannin' & dreamin' each night of some

(what rhymes with "charms" and means some goddam benefit of having the House, the Senate & the White House all at the same time!)

[Mr. Sparkle]

28. It is nice to see the dems put their heads together. n/t

[valerief]

32. So does that mean the reconciliation changes would have a time limit? nt

[tekisui]

33. No public option. Mandates stay.

[muriel_volestrangler]

34. Suggestion to do that in a Jonathan Cohn article here:

(dated '9 hours ago' on Google News, but I see some DUers have been saying this well before that too):

Remember, Republicans will blame you for this bill anyway. Unless you're among the few Democrats who opposed it on the first go-round, you've already voted for health care reform. And you can bet the Republicans will let voters know that come November. You'll be the representative who voted for that awful liberal boondoggle that, thankfully, the Senate blocked at the final stages of deliberation. Or maybe you want to explain to constituents why you were for health care reform before you were against it.
...
But you can pass health care reform very quickly if you want. All you have to do is vote for the Senate bill, as written. Yes, I’m aware of its flaws. But it’s also far better than nothing. (Heck, if you're a centrist, you may think the Senate bill is even better than the original House one.)

Once the main bill is passed, you can always revisit it—perhaps right away, by passing a “patch” through the reconciliation process. If you're cl—er--and you—re--you'll extract some sort of promise from the president and Senate leadership to make sure the patch gets enacted.

(Once that's done, well, maybe you can start building support for another important cause: Ending the filibuster and restoring majority rule to the Senate.)

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=122758149

[AlinPA]

35. Trusting the Senate is dangerous.

[Jersey Devil]

38. Very true indeed, but you know the old saying about "honor among thieves"

I guess to them their word means something. Of course we know better.

[AlinPA]

40. I could throw something every time I hear one of them say "my friend from PA or wherever "

when the guy hates the "friend from PA or wherever" and would take part in hateful acts toward him. The phoniest of all was Orrin Hatch who claimed to love Kennedy.

[quiller4]

37. AFL-CIO and CHange to Win both issued statements today supporting that approach

with Stern, Trumka and Hoffa all involved.

[jenmito]

43. That's GREAT news!

Thanks for that. :hi:

[grahamhgreen]

41. NO MANDATE WITHOUT A PUBLIC OPTION. Simply use the 'patch' to EXPAND MEDICARE.

[Jersey Devil]

42. sigh, seems like a pipe dream now, doesn't it?

Yet, from what I have been reading, the same people in MA who were railing against HCR said they would approve it by very large margins if a PO were included in it.

Realistically, however, with no PO, it might satisfy them a great deal to get rid of the mandate (and Cadillac tax for labor). I don't understand the mandate either with no real cost controls that a real public option (like expanded Medicare) would cause.

[CTyankee]

44. I know. I don't get it either, but I think what the idea is that we could push the PO through

(or maybe the Medicare expansion) even if it is for a small number of Americans and then have the opportunity to go back later and expand it.

I have always believed that the Repubs real fear is that the people will love the public option, the way they love Medicare, and they can't stand it! They know that the public option will just grow and grow until it is European health care. Horrors!

Watch for Repubs going after Medicare expenditures in their "deficit reduction" plan. They will say it is in the interest of deficit reduction (bad), but what they REALLY want to do is cut Medicare spending so Medicare recipients (and others) won't WANT Medicare any longer...the Tories tried this in the U.K. but the Labor Party called them out publicly and they went away fast...I wish we had legislators like THAT...