If the House passes the Senate Bill, can reconciliation be used to pass a public option later?

[CreekDog]

and or Medicare expansion (which makes a lot more sense actually)

also, could that reconciliation bill fix problems in the Senate Bill (changing the Excise Tax, etc.)?

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

1. Can? Perhaps. But no chance whatsoever of happening.

Reconciliation will not be used for anything dramatic or controversial.

IMO.

[DrToast]

2. Reconcilation can fix the funding--both methodology and amounts.

I could be used to include a public option, but given that the White House never fought for it, I doubt it would make it into the final bill.

The best case scenario is probably to have a final bill that looks like the House bill except for the public option.

[Ozymanithrax]

3. Reconciliaiton is used for budget items or deficit neutral items...

Bush's tax cuts were passed by reconciliaiton, but a tax cut is a budget item and by planning it only out to 2010, Republicans showed in their flawed budget plan that it would be deficit neutral. Nothing permanent and nothing controversial will be passed by reconciliation. By the way the work those bills, a "public option" would have to be set to expire in say 6 years and come up for a vote again.

[napi21]

4. Yes. It can be catagorized as a budget issue and passed with 51 votes.

Do they have 51 votes for it in the Senate? I have no idea. Again, I have to ask...do you know enough about the PO to support it this much? I've read several different opinions that it wouldn't BE lower in cost than policies with the private ins. co's. I guess you can say it would give some competition, buif it doesn't lower costs for EVERYBODY, is it really worth the fight?

[Jersey Devil]

5. agree they COULD do it but probably won't

As stated by others, something as controversial as additing a PO would be very unlikely in a reconciliation process. I think it would be much more important to address the Cadillac tax and mandates, issues that from what I have read were the main source of objections to HCR with the MA voters. And since those issues are truly tax and expense issues they are clearly appropriate for recon.

[Clio the Leo]

6. The hard part is going to be getting the House to pass the Senate bill. NT

[NorthCarolina]

7. Based on the MA Senate vote, I think passing the Senate HCR bill would be unwise

Since polling, and common sense, shows that the Brown vote was a vote against the Senate bill. What they should do is start with an expansion of Medicare to 50 years and above, and they can do that through reconciliation (51 votes). That would get a few folks paying into Medicare that have not yet reached an age where they are financial drain on it. Then in subsequent years begin to incrementally lower the age requirement, thereby getting more folks into the system that contribute to the bottom line, but are not a significant drain on resources.

[CreekDog]

9. No: Republicans and many Democrats would oppose creating Medicare right now

sounds like bad politics, right?

not right!

it turns out that however unpopular *passing* Medicare would be, that in fact, the program is actually very popular in practice.

and furthermore, though the system in Massachusetts is somewhat unpopular in theory, in practice residents do want to keep it in place.

so don't confuse opposition to something's passage as opposition to what it actually does once enacted.

(I used the passing of Medicare here which happened 45 years ago to demonstrate that simple opposition doesn't mean that a program will ultimately be unpopular with those opposed once it's enacted).

[NorthCarolina]

10. They wouldn't be creating Medicare, that's already done.

They would simply be expanding it incrementally.

[CreekDog]

11. Read my freaking message

because it's clear you didn't.

[NorthCarolina]

14. The Democratic Party that passed Medicare is very different from todays Democratic Party

It is highly doubtful that a program like Medicare, even at it's inception, would pass todays DLC led Democratic Party, nor Social Security, or Womens rights for that matter.

The party of old, while not wholly without corruption, was still much more of an advocate of the people and progressive values than todays conservative Democratic Party who value Corporate donations above all else. That being the case, your argument cannot be made on the basis of Medicare as an example, because the party structure between then, and now, has changed from a Liberal/Progressive perspective to a much more corporate friendly Conservative perspective.

As a consequence, the primary benefactors of any particular legislation drafted by Democrats of old, and New Dems would be vastly different. One more beneficial to public interests, and the latter more beneficial to Corporate interests.

We know that the Senate HCR bill is primarily (not wholly, but primarily in a most significant way) a giveaway to Insurance and Pharma, and a public mandate for private insurance and paid for by the middle class, so that's proof in itself of how far the Dems have slid to the right, to craft legislation in that manner.

I feel that if the Senate bill was passed as it stands now, it would hurt far more than it would save, cost way more to those that can least afford it, and would place a heavy heavy burden on an already stressed middle class, which are far too serious of consequences to hedge a bet on it being "fixed" in upcoming years. The bill sucks; we all know it; it's time to dump it and try again to do a better job of it under reconciliation, like lowering the Medicare eligibility age to 50 or 55.

[Rosa Luxemburg]

13. the house bill

what happened to that

[Pirate Smile]

8. Yes

[LaydeeBug]

12. I think so, which is why we only need 51, and you know it nt