Re Re: Lieberman’s Health Care Coquetry

I do hope dear Harry takes your advice Karen. I truly do hope he does.

Actually, Rusty, my advice was my “make ‘em filibuster” campaign. But no one ever listens to me….

“…anything that passes under reconciliation has to either raise revenue or reduce the deficit.”
.
Why do I assume that the CBO has never had the opportunity to score a real, robust public option?

Thanks, KT. You rock. Are you and Jay on holiday? Few posts lately but certainly both of you deserve a well-earned Christmas break from DC news (and us). I remember your earlier thoughts on recon, but some senators keep digging in their heels and risking everything (Liebermann esp., let alone Nelson or Lincoln). Maybe a smaller bill (focus on making pre-existings illegal) or in pieces thru recon would be worth the risk of getting nothing and having family members (or ourselves) at the mercy of insurance cos.
.
However, are there other approaches, if risky? What about flushing either house or senate bill straight thru the other chamber’s plumbing and bypass the joint comm. (my toilet analogy is deliberate)? Other loyal readers have brought this up and Kate linked an article friday to my question. What are YOUR thoughts here?
.
How serious is a threat of Nelson or Lieberman veto / risking it all? I think the threat is real, but you’d know more than me if so or just more posturing (aka today’s episode of “All My Senators”)? Your thoughts are always helpful, KT, thanks. (and hopefully your holiday shopping is done; mine almost is except for a few food / wine gifts to pick up at Kroger)

Well if they go this route, I hope they have the good sense to just go with a single payer option and be done with it.

They have:
.
http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/09/cbo_a_strong_public_plan_saves.html
.
By the way, I’ve been posting sparsely lately because i’ve been trying to get a fairly big story out the door, but in the course of reporting on it, i’ve discovered the real reason the robust option died in the house. will post on it, once my other story runs.

i’ve been otherwise engaged, and have left the health care fight in the able hands of kate pickert. will be out from under this other story tomorrow, i hope.

Yes Karen I do remember you wanting a “real” filabuster of the bill, rather than the shrewed tactics the Republicans have used to squash this completely useless bill.
.
But, this sounds like a ringing endorsement from you for reconciliation…
.

“But it would be a way to assure that something passes.”

.
Does it not?
.
Rather than pass half-measures. Why is there such a hell bent do it now pressure on all of this. Doesn’t it make more sense to pass something that has some teeth in it, versus a dentureless bill that does nothing to “reform” health care?
.
I am sure you would agree that a toothless bill that does nothing to reform health care, is useless. That Democrats stand to loose more in 2010 and 2012 if they pass something that the people will know is totally valueless to them. The media will be all over anything that does not create real reform. Candidates in the up-coming elections will use it against those in the House and Senate that shows nothing has changed with their health care, but Democrats simply wanted a “Mission Accomplished” meme to put in TV ads for re-election.
.
To me if they use reconciliation they risk totally turning off not only their base of support, but also the vast majority of voters, simply to declare a health care “reform” victory.

KT, I think you are right but I am from Canada! Let them talk during the Holiday season. It would be nice to hear what they have to say against the bill.

I am completely amazed that you can not have a single-payer system like we have in Canada. Also people should stop saying that our health care system is socialist. Our Prime minister, who is a conservative (might say right-winger), might get offended!

um, rusty, did you read my post? that it’s a way to assure something passes is a statement of fact, not an endorsement.

Read JK, MS, Ezra K, KT: it is a mess. Reid’s been too forgiving of Lieberman. I really don’t see Senators with the stomach to confront Lieberman and throw him out of the caucus and take his chairmanship away. The Senate has come off looking like a group that pushes selfish interests, covers for contributors, tolerates sexual misconduct , worships at the altar of special interests, and allows for certain self-important individuals to punch above their weight. It seems Senator Webb has “some concerns”: I have wondered if he was ever a Democrat. We shall see.

Thank you, Karen, I’ll look forward to it. But I have to wonder if I’m going to find out that I’ve read it before: “centrist” “moderate” “fiscally conservative” Blue Dog Democrats kill the centrist, moderate fiscally-conservative approach to reform.
.
What are the odds?

“Statement of fact” or not. Simply by presenting it as an option, and also the reason for Joe Liberman’s coquetry also makes it an endorsement from you. At least that is how I see it.
.
A statement of fact, that endorses the “pass anything” so we can call it a victory in passing health care reform legislation.
.
Had you said instead:
.

“This is not an ideal solution by the Democrat Leadership in the Senate. A reconciliation option by the Democrats would likely mean jettisoning much of the bill, as anything that passes under reconciliation has to either raise revenue or reduce the deficit. It also means the bill would have to be budget neutral over a five-year window, not the 10-year one in the current legislation. But it would be a way to assure that something passes.

.
This would have taken you out of the statement as opinion, and placed the responsibility on those who may propose it.

Sen. Harkin may bring back idea to end filibuster –
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/12/14/tom-harkin-to-introduce-l_n_391188.html
.
If Frist had won his nuclear option earlier, we wouldn’t have this HCR debate mess now and might have a stronger bill to boot. BTW, did the House long, long ago have a filibuster? They seem to be over it by now. If the R’s want a say, either join in the debate already (no stonewalling) or get a working majority elected. Or maybe bypassing the joint committee is the answer to a Lieberman veto?
.
Thoughts, KT? (or are Kate, Amy, and other colleagues looking at this?) thanks

The White House is set on getting Joe aboard for health care. Medicare by-in gets dropped before recon is discussed.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

If we are faced with getting a non “ideal” bill via either reconciliation or because Lieberman decides we have to gut everything out of the bill except the mandate to buy insurance, count me in as being on the reconciliation side.

Karen, I still think Lieberman will come around in the end. He isn’t a stupid man, and if he guts health care reform, he will be cutting off not only his nose, but his eyes, mouth and ears to spite his face. He is generating a tremendous amount of heat already for his incessant posturing, and he will reap the dire ire of the entire Democratic caucus in Congress if he proceeds along this path (not to mention the White House). Lieberman has cultivated many strong alliances and friendships in his time in Congress, and he will literallly be setting himself up as a pariah if he kills health care. He will be isolated, hated and alone. The Republicans won’t have him, because his behavior will have exposed him to be too unreliable, and plus, he is of no use to the Republican party and irrelevant in Congress if he joins them. If Lieberman is truly serious about destroying the whole process so carefully and meticulously set up by Reid, he will have destroyed himself to kill health care. This is the end of his political career, and I hope that deep down inside he knows this.

[...] Could Stalled Health Reform End in Reconciliation? [...]

“CBO: A Strong Public Plan Saves Lots of Money”

KT – Thanks for that link. I’d seen that story and then forgotten it.

This certainly explains why the “fiscal convervatives” oppose the public option. You just have to remember that “fiscal conservative” is DC-speak for “pro tax cut, anti domestic spending, pro war spending.”

How about instead of going the reconciliation route for the main bill first passing a bill then adding the controversial aspects with several other bills brought up singly? Once the framework is in place bring in a bill that would allow the buy-in to Medicare for those 55 and older with the justification that it would reduce the deficit by putting people who now are getting Medicaid to pay at least something for Medicare. At the same time bring in a bill that would end the antitrust exemption for heath insurers, only for the five year limit mind you, with the reasoning that a more competitive marketplace for insurance would reduce the cost of health care for all including the portion for which our government is paying. I would think that if anything these single issue bills would help to bring a clarity of position showing who is working for the middle class and who is working for the insurance industry.