Health Reform: The Road Ahead

“Yes, Republicans are sure to complain that they’re being excluded from deliberations. But given their repeated efforts to block not just reform but even mere votes on reform, it’s not clear why Democrats are obligated to include them in discussions anymore.”
.
Pretty hard to disagree with that conclusion.
.
Of course “leadership” treating members of their own caucus the same way they treat members of the opposition for the sake of having a bill done by the State of the Union seems pretty shortsighted.

Forgive my ignorance, but why would liberals in the House automatically be shut out of the informal ping-pong process?

Is it more likely that they will be shut out in this way of doing things than in formal conference where “Leadership” picks conferees?

The legislative process is so dysfunctional that there’s no conceivable way to avoid criticism, so why not do what you think is most likely to work? That’s if you really believe that something like the current Senate bill is desirable — or at least (and not necessarily the same thing) that enacting something like the current Senate bill is desirable. Obama gets his trophy, the leadership pat one another on the back for getting something — anything — done, and things go on pretty much as before (as to which, see any recent SZ post).
.
This may be change, but it’s not the change I’ve been waiting for.

KT-what is the makeup of the “handful of key committee chairmen”?

Since I’m already on record as thinking that the Senate bill is better than no bill, It’s unsurprising that I would be in favor of the the fast-track reconcilliation. Sad to say but it all comes down to what the two Senate hold-outs will accept.

Liberals need to be shut out because unlike the centrists, behind the closed doors, they are unwilling to compromise (i.e. take bribes.) However, liberals will be welcomed back in when it is time to send money and caste votes.

If the bill gets passed brfore the State of the Union address, who do I need to lobby to make sure that Bobby Jindal gives the rebuttal?

I really hate the dividing line you so often have in your posts between “liberals” (i.e. those that agree with you) and “centrists” (i.e. those that don’t). I hate labels generally but when they are used to denigrate one supposed section of people and uplife another supposed section of people I hate them most of all.

I also don’t think that it’s just a matter of being unwilling to compromise – of course liberals are willing to compromise but – rightly or wrongly – the healthcare bill is very precariously balanced at the moment in the senate and I think that there is a fear of allowing anyone to upset that balance leading to the result of no healthcare bill at all.

Lastly, a message for those who think this bill is all doom and gloom and think that they can accurately predict precisely what the consequences will be if this bill is enacted. I am a lawyer – a pretty good one if I say so myself. Part of my job is predicting the effect of new laws being enacted and it is (even with my particular specialist knowledge) an extremely difficult job. There are ALWAYS unintended consequences and they generally get cleaned up subsequently. There are ALWAYS loopholes and there are ALWAYS more restrictions that you would otherwise think. For that reason, I take the prognosticators and commentators who appear as if they know precisely what is going to happen with a huge pinch of salt.

And you know what, vote or don’t vote in the upcoming elections. That’s your choice and I understand it. But if you don’t vote then you don’t get to complain about President Palin or republicans ruling the house and senate.

We spend so much time on process and so little on content evaluation.

Smart move in shutting GOP delay tactics out of the equation as the bill nears passage. It;s all about keeping things as low-key as possible so Lieberman and Nelson stay on board.

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

I guess Liberals are now responsible for the distinction between the so-called “centrists” and the Left. I must be imaging things when people like Klein post a hate filled screed against the “extremists” on the Left, about every second post or so.
.
“But if you don’t vote then you don’t get to complain about President Palin or republicans ruling the house and senate.”
.
What’s the difference?

Just tweet to @YoMichaelSteeleRaps

[...] TIME's Tumulty looks ahead. tiiQuigoWriteAd(755778, 1290697, 600, 240, [...]

Yo Michael! I’m a liberal with a mancrush on Bobby Jindal. Thanks to ACORN I vote dozens of times. Let him give the rebuttal and I’ll personally deliver Ohio, Pennsylvania and West Virginia in 2010. Are you down wit’ dat brother?

Terrorist fist bump to follow.

Let’s see…Karen says:
.

“There’s more and more talk that the House and Senate will bypass a formal conference committee entirely, and instead, work out the differences between their two versions of the health bill in the leaders’ offices, a process that would involve only a handful of key committee chairmen.”

.
Ah…this is different than how they did it before they passed Health Care INSURANCE Reform, how?
.
Perhaps I am missing your point? Because through out this entire ordeal, House and Senate “Leadership”, dear Nancy and Harry have bypassed all negotiations except those with the White House (Obama).
.
The one silver lining in all of this is the fact the American public (Voters) are able to see how “business as usual” is run in the current House and Senate. Our “People’s elected Officials”. So much for democracy, openness, and transparency.
.
When do we invite Russia’s Putin to the US so that he can advise Nancy and Harry how to really SCREW the People out of their constitutional rights of Representation?

“I guess Liberals are now responsible for the distinction between the so-called “centrists” and the Left.”
.
I think they are and they shouldn’t be ashamed of it either. If liberals don’t make the distinction then they run the risk of having it defined for them.
.

“what’s the difference?”

See, this is where you lose me. I do seem to recall people saying the same thing about Gore and Bush – and look how well that worked out? Ordinarily, as a brit, I would say well that’s the American’s problem – but the fact of the matter is that the identity of the US president affects every single person in the world, so we don’t have that luxury.

Policy wise, Derek, I suspect we don’t have too many disagreements but I am willing to take what is available having regard to political realities. Does that make me a centrist? or a fake liberal? or what?

homerhk what significant differences in policy, foreign or domestic, would you say radically distinguish OBama from the previous regime? There was a post here yesterday arguing there is no difference on foreign policy. I’m talking about reality here, not the words that were spoken, although I recognize that words can sometimes lead to action. The health bill is being dictated by the Judas of the Democratic Party, who happens to live in a state dominated by private insurers, and a guy from out West, who is to the right of most Republicans. They wouldn’t even let the Left put in a pathetic, watered down version of a plan that might possibly lead to cost competition. I said months ago the Democrats wouldn’t use reconciliation, and dare the Republicans to dismantle it later, because they really don’t want a public option and 60 votes is their excuse for not having it. So tell me, where is the change and trasparency we were told was coming?

rusty: “Because through out this entire ordeal, House and Senate “Leadership”, dear Nancy and Harry have bypassed all negotiations except those with the White House (Obama).”
.
That’s hardly fair to the leadership, rusty. They’ve done a lot of negotiating with the members of their own party, especially Harry Reid (in an effort to hold on to all sixty Democratic votes). Aside from brief flirtations with Collins and Snowe, neither of which led anywhere in the end, not one Republican in the Senate has shown the slightest inclination to accept the broad framework of the Democratic bill and seek to improve it. Instead they vacillate between offering substitute “plans” that make things worse and doing everything in their power to bring the process to a complete halt. It’s hard to negotiate with people who refuse to acknowledge even that there’s something to negotiate.
.
This is not an endorsement of either the legislative process or the result. But to a considerable extent things are as they are because that’s the way the Republicans want it. They’d rather fight than switch. And the result, in this case, is worse not only for them but for the American people, who probably would have received a better bill if the Repubs had participated in the process.

By the way homerhk congratulations to the British for at least investigating the facts behind the Iraq war and possibly putting some of those criminals in jail. It looks as if your system still has some moral accountability left in it.

Sorry I’m sure I directed this to the thread above.

Yup, that was my first question as well. It could be a good indicator of the final state of the reconciled bill.

Because the point of it is to get the bill done as quickly as possible, and the path of least resistance there is to pretty much take the Senate bill. See Grijalva quotes (and, to answer your question as to why I single out liberals, he is the head of the Progressive Caucus) here.:
.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/74217-house-dems-poised-to-eschew-formal-conference

“The one silver lining in all of this is the fact the American public (Voters) are able to see how “business as usual” is run in the current House and Senate. Our “People’s elected Officials”
.

Yes Rusty we will see how the term GOP and Lawmaker is an oxymoron

House: Waxman, Miller, Rangel and Slaughter, plus Pelosi and Hoyer
.
Senate: I’m betting Harkin, Baucus, Reid and Durbin

“When do we invite Russia’s Putin to the US so that he can advise Nancy and Harry how to really SCREW the People out of their constitutional rights of Representation?”
.
Rusty-We don’t need Putin for that. That job is being taken care of by corporations with more say so in Washington than either of us will ever have.

KT:

And how will Obama/Demos respond to C-Span’s letter to request coverage of the closed doors meetings? It is nice to see a media outlet call out Obama on another campaign lie.

PD: re: 2 holdouts.
.
Is it not the case that the reconciliation process avoids the Senate cloture vote, and that the power of these 2 holdouts is therefore reduced?
.
If so, wouldn’t this open the door to bring the public option, triggers, exchanges, and/or co-ops back into the final product?
.
Seems to me that the sausage ain’t finished yet…

Stop whining, rusty. The GOP has made no secret that their express plan is to oppose the entire Obama/Democratic legislative agenda in an effort to paint the Democrats as ineffective and give the GOP a chance to rebound in the ’10 and ’12 elections.
.
We all know this. You know it. I know it. Reid knows it. Pelosi knows it. Boehner knows it. McConnell knows it. Everyone covering this story knows it. Everybody knows this. Let’s not insult anyone’s intelligence by pretending otherwise.
.
The GOP will have the chance to vote against any bill that comes out of the negotiations.
.
BTW, you never responded to my question about ACORN.

Sigh, Derek is that a serious question? I mean, hyperbole aside, really serious?

1. there would be NO healthcare reform if Bush was there
2. unprecedented transparency in government from releasing white house logs to anti-lobbyist regulations
3. banning torture
4. open hand to all countries, friendly or enemies
5. lifting HIV ban
6. schip
7. lily leadbetter act
8. stimulus which provided, amongst other things, provided significant amounts of money to education, green energy, infrastructure each of which would have been considered signature achievments for the Clinton White House.

I mean, need I go on? Frankly, it is very difficult to take you seriously when you pose such a question.

“This is not an endorsement of either the legislative process or the result. But to a considerable extent things are as they are because that’s the way the Republicans want it.”

.
First, thanks for responding back, bobell.
.
But, the disagreement and the outcry from Republicans has been on the entire bill in and of itself. The fact that the “numbers” which were generated out of the CBO are erroneous at best. In fact, they are lies. The CBO estimates of how much this so-called “reform” will cost the American Taxpayer is nothing short of obsene.
.
Republicans have opposed this bill in it’s whole because it is not health care reform, it is simply health care insurance reform. No where in this bill is the cost of health care addressed. Only to provide for more expensive insurance plans to those of us who already have insurance, and to give another entitlement program to those who don’t. The rest of the public who do not have insurance already, and don’t want it in the first place will pay a fine, be subject to jail time or their employer will be hit with major taxes.
.
How can you say that “to an considerable extent, things are as they are because that’s the way the Republicans want it”, is bold, but also a lie. A lie just the same as the Democrats promise in the last election we would see “transparency and openess” for a change in our Government.
.
If anything, things have become much more secret and corrupt. Corrupt just like “business as usual” in Russia.

[...] Swampland A blog about politics. Swampland Feed   Daily E-mail Updates   « PreviousHealth Reform: The Road Ahead [...]

Derek,

I think that by now everyone knows the facts behind the Iraq war- Bush lied and convinced Blair to go along for some reason – we will never know the precise reason why in my view but there you are. Like I said, I do understand not voting in protest – I didn’t vote for Blair after the Iraq war even though I was a keen supporter of him in 1997 (a night when Labour won in a landslide and – after the reign of Thatcher and major and the conservatives generally – which was not unlike the election of Obama, but in a very British way a bit more understated). However, I knew that my lack of vote would not affect the labour candidate winning my borough (parliamentar system, you see). The upcoming election of Brown v Cameron is more serious and I will vote labour despite serious misgivings because I don’t want the tories back.

rusty, you are living in fantasy land.
.
This bill is exactly how the GOP wants it: A big fat handout to the insurance and pharmaceutical industries. The fact that it is lousy policy is a bonus: They can now run against it.
.
You keep complaining that there is no cost containment in this bill. You are correct, but you forget WHY that is. The GOP is joining with the Blue Dogs and the WH to oppose every meaningful cost containment provision. The GOP joined with Rep. Stupak and Sen. Nelson to insert anti-abortion provisions in the respective bills. If they wanted to, they could have made similar deals for cost containment.
.
If the GOP had wanted to, they could have joined with Sen. Dorgan to support drug importation provisions (something the GOP leaders opposed when Dorgan introduced it when the GOP was in the majority). The GOP could have joined liberals in allowing the federal government to save money by using its immense purchasing power.
.
The simple fact is that the GOP doesn’t want cost containment because it doesn’t help them fund raise and doesn’t help them at the polls. The fact that it is good policy is irrelevant.

Thanks, Karen.
.
I’ve been wrong – frequently – but my gut tells me that, if these are indeed the congresscritters doing the reconciling, the final version of the bill will end up closer to the House version than the Senate’s.
.
My hope is that when the good bill hits the Senate floor, Reid and Durbin will finally use every bit of political coercion and procedural trickery at their disposal to get it an up-or-down vote.
.
I’m not gonna hold my breath until that happens, ‘tho.

[...] more: Health Reform: The Road Ahead (Time Magazine) House and Senate Likely to Bypass Formal Conference on Health Care Overhaul (CQPolitics.com via [...]

homerhk:

I really hate the dividing line you so often have in your posts between “liberals” (i.e. those that agree with you) and “centrists” (i.e. those that don’t).

You do understand that liberals attempt different politics and policy than American Third Way centrists, right?
.
You do understand that many liberals don’t agree with the political philosophy of centrists, and therefore don’t think that their policies are good for the country, much like we don’t think that the right’s “Health Savings Accounts” plans are worth a damn either?
.
I guess I’m trying to ask you if you know that the differences between liberals and Third Way centrists aren’t just that we disagree –otherwise the right would be nonsensically labeled “centrist” too– but that we disagree on values and solutions?

Rustydog:
.
The Republican plan didn’t address the affordability of health care either, although, quite frankly, I didn’t expect it to, given conservative reliance on unmitigated market forces to produce decent results for people.
.
We got shut out and you shut yourselves out by not having your centrists in the GOP negotiate better with the Dem centrist leadership.

Homerhk, it’s not really worth trying to reason – this guy is the equivalent of a forum troll that manages to make a crack on “centrists” in nearly every post, no matter how contorted the logic. The Obama “regime” not being significantly different from the Bush administration? Tells you how far to one end of the spectrum the perspective is that he can’t spot the distinctions anymore.

Liberals? I miss liberals like Ted Kennedy that could reach across the aisle to get things done and for whom bipartisanship wasn’t a dirty word.

It’s the progressive ideological purity brigade that scare me; they’re like the mirror-universe version of the teabaggers on the right. Hate seeing the kind of extremist crap from both wings that have ground California to a halt getting replicated nationally.

The notion of trying to make “centrist” as negative a term as “liberal” has become a fairly entertaining propaganda project to watch. There’s also the conflation of conservative Democrats as being “centrists” or “moderates” when they’re to the right of many Republicans at times.

stuartzechman has it right, centrists / Third Way / moderates and progressives have different political philosophies. On healthcare, it’s sad to see that the conservative Democrats fed the homestate pork and that moderate Republicans refused to engage across the aisle to make it a better bill. THAT was definitely a centrist failure.

Funny, I always see Nelson referred to as a moderate. Of course that is the problem with the whole movement, it doesn’t actually stand for anything, which is why it is hard to tell who is a member. It basically survives by accusing the opposite views of being extremist, while it claims the “pragmatic middle way” for itself, a stand they make with a straight face, even though liberals are the only group required to compromise. It also screams like a stuck pig if the same demonization tactics are turned on it. They are the real speed bump to progress. If you cut anything in half, each of the two sides will be to the left or right of the middle, but in reality, there is nothing in the middle.