General Discussion

Stinky The Clown

(67,800 posts) Thu Mar 29, 2012, 06:33 AM Mar 2012

Put on your WayBack helmet. It is early 2009. A different ACA was proposed.

Let's say the Congress was exactly as it was back then. We have the Presidency and both houses of Congress. We *own* the House and are one short of a no filibuster Senate.

The country was still on honeymoon with the new President. His opposition had yet to mount any real memes to effectively stymie his agenda.

Using the benefit of hindsight, could a "Medicare For All" scheme have been passed by a strong leader? Would that now be the law of the land? Would the Supremes be hearing the case today?

This is similar to another post I made. The difference is this one is asking about the tactics used to get the ACA we got vs The rather simple idea of reducing or eliminating the age requirement for Medicare.

13 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

Put on your WayBack helmet. It is early 2009. A different ACA was proposed. (Original Post) Stinky The Clown Mar 2012 OP

One problem - Obama wasn't elected President until late 2008. liberal N proud Mar 2012 #1

Fixed, 09 is what I intended. Stinky The Clown Mar 2012 #2

Add: "The budget reconciliation process requires only 50 Senators and is historically the way... eomer Mar 2012 #3

The insurance companies "owned" enough congressmen* that they could confidently kill single payer Kolesar Mar 2012 #4

NO, we are lucky have achieved what we did. Period. Firebrand Gary Mar 2012 #5

Those Senators' votes were not needed if they used the reconciliation process. eomer Mar 2012 #6

This message was self-deleted by its author emulatorloo Mar 2012 #10

There were limits on what could be done under reconciliation karynnj Mar 2012 #12

Yes, limits, but we'll never know how far we could have gone because they didn't push those limits. eomer Mar 2012 #13

Here's an article on the reconciliation route they could have taken: eomer Mar 2012 #7

Hard to guess,even on the edge of an economic Depression repukes fought everything libtodeath Mar 2012 #8

Numerous options zipplewrath Mar 2012 #9

Medicare for 55 yo was proposed, and was killed by Liebermann emulatorloo Mar 2012 #11

liberal N proud

(60,334 posts)

1. One problem - Obama wasn't elected President until late 2008.

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 06:38 AM

Mar 2012

Then things all started to get worse in Congress

Stinky The Clown

(67,800 posts)

2. Fixed, 09 is what I intended.

Reply to liberal N proud (Reply #1)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 06:44 AM

Mar 2012

eomer

(3,845 posts)

3. Add: "The budget reconciliation process requires only 50 Senators and is historically the way...

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 06:55 AM

Mar 2012

these types of things have been accomplished."

Kolesar

(31,182 posts)

4. The insurance companies "owned" enough congressmen* that they could confidently kill single payer

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 06:56 AM

Mar 2012

So, the "Medicare for all" concept was dead.

*Congress women, too

Firebrand Gary

(5,044 posts)

5. NO, we are lucky have achieved what we did. Period.

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 07:09 AM

Mar 2012

Lieberman, Landreau, Lincoln....nuff said

eomer

(3,845 posts)

6. Those Senators' votes were not needed if they used the reconciliation process.

Reply to Firebrand Gary (Reply #5)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 07:42 AM

Mar 2012

50 Senators were needed for a reconciliation bill.

Response to eomer (Reply #6)

emulatorloo This message was self-deleted by its author.

karynnj

(59,503 posts)

12. There were limits on what could be done under reconciliation

Reply to eomer (Reply #6)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 12:12 PM

Mar 2012

You could not pass the entire bill under reconciliation per Senate rules.

In addition, you STILL could not get Medicare for all if Bernie Sanders is correct - and he was the one fighting for it. He said that there were between 8 to 10 Senators who would vote for it. Even if they could use reconciliation, they would need at least 40 more.

eomer

(3,845 posts)

13. Yes, limits, but we'll never know how far we could have gone because they didn't push those limits.

Reply to karynnj (Reply #12)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 12:40 PM

Mar 2012

Senate Majority Leader Reid stated publicly that he thought they could do the reform bill through reconciliation:

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave Republicans his most direct warning to date that he is prepared to use a procedural maneuver to pass healthcare reform with a simple majority.

Reid told Republicans that he would prefer to pass healthcare reform under regular order but warned that he would not hesitate to use budget reconciliation if the legislation stalled in committee. The Senate Finance Committee began marking up a sprawling healthcare reform bill on Tuesday morning.

“If we can’t work this out to do something within the committee structure, then we’ll be forced to do reconciliation,” said Reid, who said the tactic would be used as a “last resort.”

Reid then spelled out how healthcare would pass under budget reconciliation proceedings, giving his colleagues a clear picture of what they face if they fail to reach bipartisan agreement.

“On reconciliation, under the order, there’s only 20 hours of debate,” Reid explained. “There would be a free amendment process, which would take some time.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/59763-reid-gives-gop-direct-warning-on-healthcare

I think it is pretty definite that they could have lowered the Medicare age to 55 under reconciliation. There have been changes to Medicare eligibility in the past under reconciliation so there are precedents for a change like that.

In any event they could have at least gone to the parliamentarian and seen what kind of solution they could get through reconciliation. That's what Republicans have done when they were in the majority. In fact, in the past Republicans fired the Senate parliamentarian in order to bring in someone who would give them the answer they wanted. Why don't Democrats push hard on these options like Republicans do?

And I agree that they didn't have 50 votes for Single Payer (Medicare-For-All) but they probably did have 50 votes for the Public Option (Medicare-Available-To-Everyone), especially if they played hardball with any holdouts.

eomer

(3,845 posts)

7. Here's an article on the reconciliation route they could have taken:

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 08:08 AM

Mar 2012

http://openleft.com/diary/14693/senate-parliamentarian-hired-by-republicans

As the article says, they chose not to use all the procedural options that were available and instead focused on fabricating stories to claim their hands were tied.

libtodeath

(2,888 posts)

8. Hard to guess,even on the edge of an economic Depression repukes fought everything

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 08:12 AM

Mar 2012

in hindsight single payer should have been part of the stimulus and rightfully so as it would be but too late now to worry about.
We have to keep fighting for our future,it is still our only hope as a country as without a publicly financed and administered healthcare system without a profit motive we are doomed to continued economic woes.

zipplewrath

(16,646 posts)

9. Numerous options

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 08:47 AM

Mar 2012

Let's start with Obama actually CALLING Lieberman and talking to him AT ALL.

Let's talk about connecting the public option to the mandate.

Let's talk about STARTING with medicare for all, instead of locking the single payer folks out of the room.

Let's talk about Reid not leaving Baucus in charge of the senate half of the bill with former Wellpoint VP Liz Fowler actually doing the writing.

Let's talk about including the House and Senate leadership in the original negotiations with the insurance industry and Big Pharma.

How about the "public" negotiations we were promised right up front, instead of the tail end?

And how about appointing Howard Dean to head up the effort in the first place?

Any of THAT appeal to you? You think changing any of those details might have resulted in something different, and better?

emulatorloo

(44,128 posts)

11. Medicare for 55 yo was proposed, and was killed by Liebermann

Reply to Stinky The Clown (Original post)

Thu Mar 29, 2012, 12:01 PM

Mar 2012

And it was his idea originally.

I believe Obamacare can evolve into Medicare for all. This is the reason that Republicans and the insurance industry are so desperate to strike it down/ repeal it.

However, there was no way single payer was going to get through that congress.

As to would the Supremes be hearing a challenge to Medicare for all? Of course they would, from the same Republican Secretaries of States who are challenging Obamacare.

Republicans and their owners in the healthcare industry are trying their damnedest to Kill Medicare for seniors.

I don't get the logical steps you are making that causes you to believe that Republicans would embrace Medicare for all.

Reply to this discussion