Ezra Klein: "The unintended consequences of reconciliation"

[Clio the Leo]

Or "why it's not that easy." (And WHY didn't he write this six months ago so this WHOLE thing would have made more sense to me?)

The unintended consequences of reconciliation

Joe Lieberman's compromise, it seems, is no compromise. And he's infuriated so many Senate and House Democrats, not to mention so many in the Democratic base, that his bitter reversal might have made the prospects of any compromise a lot more remote. Based on chats I've had today, tensions are higher, both in the House and the Senate. And as the grudge begins to seem more personal, the liberals are both more resistant to being rolled, and more worried about it. It's one thing to swallow your own pride, after all. It's quite another to infuriate your base.

Democrats will look toward Olympia Snowe at this point, but if nothing works out, they may have to open the question of reconciliation once more. The irony is that the strange workings of the reconciliation process would strip the bill of the parts that Lieberman, Snowe and others favor and replace them with the exact policies they oppose.

For a detailed primer on the reconciliation process, head here.
http://www.prospect.org/cs/articles?article=the_fifty_vote_senate

short version is that reconciliation, which short-circuits the filibuster, can only be used for legislation that directly affects the federal budget. Anything that "indirectly" affects the budget -- think insurance regulations, like the ban on preexisting conditions -- would be ineligible.

What would be eligible? Well, Medicare buy-in, for one thing. Medicaid expansions. The public option. Anything, in short, that relies on a public program, rather than a new regulation in the private market. That means we'd probably lose the regulations on insurers, many of the delivery-side reforms, the health insurance exchanges, the individual mandate and much else.

Reconciliation, in other words, tips the bill towards an expansion of the public sector rather than a restructuring of the private sector. That makes it much less congenial to conservative Democrats and moderate Republicans (not to mention more conservative Republicans). But it also doesn't need as many of their votes, as it can pass the Senate with 50, rather than 60, in support.

To be very clear, this is not a trade I'm eager to see reformers make. You lose too much in reconciliation, and gain too little. The exchanges are too important, and so too are the insurance regulations and delivery-system reforms. But if Democrats end up in reconciliation, this bill is going to get a lot worse from the perspective of its skeptics.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/12/the_unintended_consequences_of.html

[27inCali]

1. we could pass a bill with reconciliation

that taxed the insurance industry into oblivion.

at which point there would be no choice but single payer.

[truedelphi]

8. Oh I like that.

but the whole goal of everyone really important is to make sure that their friends in the insurance industry are not displeased.

But still good to know that some DU'ers are not discouraged and are still thinking strategy.

[DJ13]

2. Where was the handwringing rationalizations when the GOP used it

during Bush's terms?

[liberalpragmatist]

3. They used it for tax cuts

Which are easy to pass under reconciliation and which are free lunches for politicians.

Republicans find it easy to pass domestic legislation because they don't have any agenda other than tax cuts.

[SpartanDem]

4. They used it to pass tax cuts

which of course, directly impacts the budget. Some have suggested the public option or buy in be passed separately in order to bypass these issues with reconciliation.

[grantcart]

5. I think he makes the case for reconciliation not against it

Democrats will look toward Olympia Snowe at this point, but if nothing works out, they may have to open the question of reconciliation once more. The irony is that the strange workings of the reconciliation process would strip the bill of the parts that Lieberman, Snowe and others favor and replace them with the exact policies they oppose.

[PM Martin]

6. That's how I see it too.

I do not understand how so many Americans trust insurance companies with their lives.
:wtf:

[dkf]

7. Trusting someone who profits off your death to keep you alive is insane.

[Gregorian]

9. Oh, I was wrong! Thanks for your post.

I heard what he said, and then missed the next part.

Now I'm anxious to see where this all goes. What an experience this is.

I really do think we need a Senate Rules forum.

[Tutankhamun]

13. That forum would be indispensible. DUers would put it to good use.

[napi21]

12. That's true, but eliminating pre-existings, kicking you out

because you cost too much, and life time caps are very very important to all people, not just those who now don't have coverage. It's really a bad option!

[Blasphemer]

10. If they can expand Medicare through reconciliation then the other regulations are less important

I don't mean a limited 55+ expansion. If they truly expand Medicare, the Insurance industry will be SOL. They'll either conform or die.

[laughingliberal]

11. I'm not sure you have to lose the insurance exchanges with reconciliation

Perhaps as they are written now, you would. But I believe there are some very creative people in the House and Senate who could figure it out. More importantly, I think you could do HR 676 under reconciliation. Because, as we all know already, HR 676 would achieve deficit reduction. Start writing, folks. Probably won't get us HR 676 but if they start to see a groundswell for it, they'll fix this clusterfuck and scare Dicktator Joe enough to get reasonable real fast.

[slinkerwink]

14. By going the reconciliation route, you break the conservadems' backs

that's what we gain.

[drm604]

15. Couldn't they pass a bill with the insurance regulations and other reforms

and then pass a separate bill with something like a Medicare buy-in in reconciliation?

[andym]

17. Exactly correct.

And we should lobby for it.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x58864

[drm604]

16. I wonder if you could tax bad behaviors by insurance companies.

Could that be done in reconciliation?