Reconciliation Without a Public Option Would Tell Us All We Need to Know About the Democratic Party

There's a lot of buzz now about pushing a Health Care Reform strategy that commences with the House passing the Senate HCR Bill as is, followed by another bill to improve and strengthen it crafted to pass the Senate via the reconciliation process. That makes a lot of sense. In fact it has always made a lot of sense to break HCR into two component pieces of legislation; one for reforms that reconciliation can't address but that could pass the Senate with the 60 votes needed for cloture, one passed by the reconciliation route with reforms that qualify for that path that can only muster a simple majority in the Senate for passage.

Because it makes so much sense and always has, it virtually begs the question, why is this only being seriously considered now? Why, had Coakley won in Massachusetts and Democrats thus retained their 60 member caucus in the Senate, were House negotiators about to be forced to accept a final piece of legislation that was 90 parts Senate version, and only 10 parts House?

It's not a moot question, because once again the House is being pressured, this time to word for word accept the version of HCR legislation that has already passed the Senate. Now the House is being told, "Don't worry we can cure what ails it through reconciliation", which is eerily akin to what liberals were told when the Senate version first cleared the Senate; "Don't worry, we can make it much better in the Conference committee" before those hopes were quashed by Conservadems in the Senate digging in their heels.

Talk about "the Reconciliation Sidecar strategy" has mostly been vague, with the content of that sidecar ill defined. except to say that it could be used to restore the agreements that were hammered out in negotiations between the House in Senate only to be thrown into chaos by the Republican victory in the Massachusetts special election. I keep waiting for Democratic leaders to assert what for liberals is obvious; the silver lining in that wake up call from Massachusetts is our chance now to go back and get it right, to restore at least the Public Option and Medicare buy in that Joe Lieberman's "objections" forced Democrats to drop from the final compromise Senate version before it's final stripped down passage. Unless I've missed something none of them have said it, neither on nor off the record.

What I've heard instead is various pundits, some of them bloggers and others in the mainstream media, saying Democrats can pass the Senate bill now and improve it later, with a possible Public Option dangled out there as a carrot for getting on board with that strategy.

The reason, the one and only reason, why Democrats justified abandoning a Public Option in the first place was that unobtainable 60 vote threshold for it in the Senate, which becomes a null and void concern once the number of votes needed for passage in the Senate drops to 50 plus Biden by using reconciliation. So why don't we hear Democrats pushing "Senate Bill plus Sidecar" outright saying "Of course we'll minimally restore the Senate compromise that a working group of liberals and moderates worked out with Harry Reid before Joe Lieberman double crossed us"?

My growing unease is that we may be caught in a perennial spiral of managed lowered expectations. Now instead of having hope for at least winning a compromise on the compromised compromise of a Public Option as part of final health care reform, some seem to be asking us to hope, after the Senate bill is accepted exactly as is, that later efforts pursued through reconciliation will fix its most glaring deficiencies by restoring the deal we were about to get before Coakley lost. That's the deal that Liberals were told to hold our noises and support because nothing any longer could be done to improve upon it. That was back in the days when our Democratic leadership was firmly rejecting reconciliation as an option. Sometimes the more things change the more they stay the same. I hope that isn't true now about health care reform.

A push for a reconciliation sidecar later, without a firm pledge that a real public option will be part of that, in order to win passage of the current HCR Senate bill as currently worded now, would tell me pretty much all that I need to know about today's Democratic Party.

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/x1xuvd_bobby-mcferrin-dont-worry-be-happy_music


/running out of other ideas... sorry...

Don't know if that's true.

we are just a little better then the gop

You can pretty much take them at their word regarding their agenda. They tell you what they are going to fight for or against, and then they go right ahead and fight for or against it.

and some things, like abortion, they hold on to and use to beat up on us, the whole time never doing a thing to reduce abortions..
the issue is a tool for them to win..

Ever heard of "Fetal rights?" How about the Unborn Victims of Violence Act from 2004? Ever heard of "feticide?" How about "Snowflake babies?"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fetal_rights

On the surface, the Unborn Victims of Violence Act looks like a way to charge a murderer of killing a pregnant woman for 2 murders to ensure a conviction.

It would be nice if that was the only purpose for it.

The reality is that it was put in place to set the stage to overturn Roe v. Wade.

Or how about the Stupak-Pitts Amendment?
Or how about the Nelson-Hatch Amendment?
Oh, wait, nevermind...Stupak and Nelson are Democrats. Can't blame that on Republicans. Our own screwed us there.

Still, they are chipping away at Roe v Wade as hard as they can. Mark my words on that.

Also see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Born_alive_rule
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Snowflake_children

"In a 1984 presidential election debate, Ronald Reagan cited the California "feticide" law as support for regarding abortion as murder, asking, "Isn't it strange that that same woman could have taken the life of her unborn child and it was abortion, not murder, but if somebody else does it, that's murder?"
http://www.stateline.org/live/ViewPage.action?siteNodeId=136&languageId=1&contentId=15234

Hillary Clinton Rips Bush Abortion Proposal
"The New York senator argued that the proposal would "allow health-care providers to classify many forms of contraception as abortions and therefore refuse to provide contraception to women who need it," -- even when state laws guarantee it. "
http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/Vote2008/story?id=5405561&page=1


"Retreat from Roe v. Wade

Initially, the framework of Roe v. Wade was the basis by which the constitutionality of state abortion laws was determined. In recent years, however, the Supreme Court has begun to allow more restrictions on abortion.

For instance, the Supreme Court's ruling in Planned Parenthood v. Casey in 1992 established that states can restrict pre-viability abortions. Restrictions can be placed on first trimester abortions in ways that are not medically necessary, as long as the restrictions do not place an "undue burden" on women seeking abortion services.

Many states now have restrictions in place such as parental involvement, mandatory waiting periods, and biased counseling. Only the requirement that a woman involve her spouse in her decision was disallowed.
"1976: Congress adopts the first Hyde Amendment barring the use of federal Medicaid funds to provide abortions to low-income women.

1977: A revised Hyde Amendment is passed allowing states to deny Medicaid funding except in cases of rape, incest, or "severe and long-lasting" damage to the woman's physical health.

1991: Rust v. Sullivan upholds the constitutionality of the 1988 "gag rule" which prohibits doctors and counselors at clinics which receive federal funding from providing their patients with information about and referrals for abortion.

1992: Planned Parenthood of Southeastern Pennsylvania v. Casey reaffirms the "core" holdings of Roe that women have a right to abortion before fetal viability, but allows states to restrict abortion access so long as these restrictions do not impose an "undue burden" on women seeking abortions.

1994: Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances (FACE) Act is passed by Congress with a large majority in response to the murder of Dr. David Gunn. The FACE Act forbids the use of "force, threat of force or physical obstruction" to prevent someone from providing or receiving reproductive health services. The law also provides for both criminal and civil penalties for those who break the law.

2000: Stenberg v. Carhart (Carhart I) rules that the Nebraska statute banning so-called "partial-birth abortion" is unconstitutional for two independent reasons: the statute lacks the necessary exception for preserving the health of the woman, and the definition of the targeted procedures is so broad as to prohibit abortions in the second trimester, thereby being an "undue burden" on women. This effectively invalidates 29 of 31 similar statewide bans.

2000: Food and Drug Administration approves mifepristone (RU-486) as an option in abortion care for very early pregnancy.

2003: A federal ban on abortion procedures is passed by Congress and signed into law by President Bush. The National Abortion Federation immediately challenges the law in court and is successful in blocking enforcement of the law for its members.

2004: NAF wins lawsuit against federal abortion ban. Justice Department appeals rulings by three trial courts against ban."
http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/history_abortion.html#retreat


I'd say they've been setting the stage to overturn Roe v Wade and chipping away at it at the same time. The way they are going about it will continually chip away at reproductive rights even if they do not get Roe v Wade overturned.

Excellent post. Perhaps the only thing you left out is all the Republican judicial appointments under Reagan, Bush, and Bush again that tilted heavily against abortion rights. We can see where that is heading. Had McCain been elected last year the Supreme Court would almost certainly have abolished or severley cut back on abortion rights before he was through with it. That ticking time bomb will only be defused if Democrats can hold onto the White House for another 11 years or so, provided a Democratic President doesn't slip up with an appointment.

Republiacns have helped push public opinion toward anti-choice. That was really the final piece in the puzzle for them, making sure a majority of voters would reward them for abolishing abortion before they out right did it.

the sad truth is that we have to deal with the Republicans trying to stifle rights AND some of our own party trying to do the same. That's what gets me.

& fighting for 4 issues is easy - especially when all you have to remember is 'fear'.

Repukelican's stick.

yep. The senate Insurance Company Bailout Bill paves the way to end Medicare. SS will be next. The dems are doing what * could not accomplish but wanted to. Out GOPing the GOP.

Reconciliation does not require a vote on the Senate Bill in the House. It's the other way around. If the House votes on the Senate Bill, now, even with a promise of a "fix" later, that merely stretches out the process and gives the Blue Dogs and Repubs more opportunity and leverage to pass a bad bill.

Reconciliation refers to an Instruction drafted by the President of the Senate (Joe Biden) that specifies the Senate committee(s)-- his choice, and there only needs to be one -- that must report back to the full Senate a version of a Bill that is consistent in certain stated ways with a Bill that's already passed the House. The contents of the Instruction is pretty much up to Biden, as the role of the Parliamentarian is advisory and is not binding, unless 60 Senators support an objection raised by the Parliamentarian.

Through reconciliation, Biden is pretty much free to craft the Bill he and the White House wants. That puts everyone on record as to what they really do or don't support.

On the other hand, the post-passage conference process is not nearly as transparent, and can be conducted behind closed doors.

I say, just do Reconciliation, and do it quickly, restoring the Medicare For All, Rx Drug Re-importation, and the anti-trust provisions. That would be a good HCR Bill that the Democrats could take to the voters in November and actually win on. Anything less, and we're going to get punished, again.

Will he? Only time will tell. It ultimately depends on Obama's priorities. He just needs to coordinate efforts with the Senate and the House rather than sit back and just like the Senate and House run the show because that route is not faring well.

It's posted in this thread:
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x149004

"restoring the Medicare For All, Rx Drug Re-importation, and the anti-trust provisions"

If they're going to use reconciliation, they might as well go for the gold. There's no reason they can't implement these 3 things, yet I'm sure the DLC leadership will find one.

is to lay the foundation to end Medicare. They have no intention of expanding it. Their financial masters wrote and paid for this bill. Dems are expected to deliver for the insurance lobby. If they feared us more than the insurance industry, we'd have a chance at Medicare for anyone who wants/needs it. I don't think they got the message with Mass., but I hope I am wrong.

72% of Americans want a "public plan like Medicare" available for all Americans, but only 34% of Americans want a plan with a corporate-insurance-only mandate that lacks a public option.


Kill the corporate give-away!

That much was obvious when she said Chimpeachment was "off the table" the minute she was sworn in as Speaker in 2007.

I don't think reconciliation will get it. Reconciliation cannot simply be applied to just anything because of the Byrd Rule. It would be nice if more at DU would check out the reconciliation process and what it entails instead of believing it is some kind of magic want to wave over the entire process and save it.

A robust public option, according to the Congressional Budget Office, would cut the cost of Health Care Reform by many billions of dollars. It has already been scored, and I've seen a number of experts concede that the public option and/or Medicare expansion, could be achieved through the reconciliation process.

This is up to the Senate Parliamentarian.

Which experts concede this and what is their argument?

IMO DU does not understand this well enough and many posters go on about it in obvious ignorance.

Aug. 12 (Bloomberg) -- The central figure in Congress’s struggle to craft health-care legislation may be someone who’s neither a Democratic nor Republican lawmaker, or an elected official of any kind. He’s Alan Frumin, Senate parliamentarian.

It’s a role the obscure official could assume if the Senate fails to reach a bipartisan deal on a health-care bill. Democratic leaders and President Barack Obama say they would prefer such an accord. If they can’t get it, they have signaled they will turn to the so-called reconciliation procedure to short-circuit Republican opposition.

That move would enable Senate Democrats to pass a bill with 51 votes, rather than the 60 typically needed for contentious legislation. Under Senate rules, it also would give Frumin, 62, broad authority to decide which portions of the Democrats’ bill are relevant to the budget and empower him to delete provisions he considers unrelated.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601070&sid=a5R5Kp1llkYk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZJjyfFD94fo

This could all be easily cleared up. A number of members of Congress have either indicated that they support using reconciliation in the Senate in order to pass a Public Option, or have acknowledged that it is an option that could be pursuded, it's not just the brain child of silly uninformed bloggers. If the Democratic leadership in the U.S. Senate, who have access to the best authorities on and most complete history of that institution and the rules that govern it, believe that reconciliation can not be used to pass a Public Option and/or Medicare expansion, they can simply make that opinion known.

They could have done so at any time over the last 6 months while HCR and the ways open to achieve it have been kicked around. The President also could break that news to the public and to members of Congress calling for use of that procedure in this matter, I see no reason for him holding back on that disappointing news either, either from the public or from elected members of Congress who have been urging that course of action.

I suggest that the reason why neither our leadership in the White House nor in Congress have stated that a public option and/or Medicare expansion can not be pursued through reconciliation, is because they know that it can be. It would be simple enough for THEM to put all this talk to rest by simply stating that your objection is true. I have seen no such statement.

He was a creature of the Senate...and felt that the legislative had been run roughshod during the booosh years. A noble but "rookie" mistake was to let the legislative do the legislating...as he didn't take into account how that body, specifically the Senate, had been so corrupted and politicized over the past 20 years. They put party and self interest above common good and he truly misread people he thought he could trust and work with. Above all, he wanted a bipartisan bill...this would somehow prove his ability to rise above this partisan divide...show he was being the President of "all" the people, but this wasn't going to happen against a rushpublican party that has deliberately gone into obstruction mode...putting extreme pressures on anyone who dares to compromise...and for the most part, the scum in that corrupt party relish their roles in bringing down this bill and this administration. I honestly don't think it would have mattered if it was healthcare or cap and trade or immigration reform...any major legislation this President would bring was targeted...the feeling of "showing him whose boss".

I see parts of the legislation moving to reconsiliation...the more popular pieces...such as preventing companies from dropping patients for existing conditions...try to salvage something for all the sturn and drang. It won't be the mighty accomplishment President Obama had hoped for, but it will be declared a victory.

You could start a thread with it, makes sense to me. Of course if you used the same title expect a heated debate from those who feel that pointing to possible Obama mistakes is not giving support to our President. The main thrust of this OP is to warn Democrats that there is likely another severe storm approaching if they use the "Pass the Senate Bill Plus Sidecar" approach but then leave a public option out of the reconciliation correction. I suspect the progressive led blow back would be stronger should that happen than it was to the public option getting stripped from the legislation that already passed. I say "progressive led" because I don't think it would only be self identified progressives who would notice and/or care. The public option makes sense for cost containment reasons as well as political reasons, and it is popular. Failing to pursue it when only 50 votes would be needed to pass it would be a glaring retreat from everything the Democratic leadership in the White House and Congress has ever said about their strong desire to provide one if at all possible.

I was going to lead into the reconciliation, but I don't see them going with anything more than what's already there...anything that's the least bit controversial is now in suspended animation...especially a public option.

On the whole, I am fully with you about the need to keep pushing for the public option...if not more than a campaign pledge by progressive candidates and then to regroup under a new Congress to see what options there are. The House really isn't a problem...as we saw from how their version of healthcare did include the Public Option. Watching Henry Waxman work it through his committee was a primer of how a leader does his job. The hang-up is the Senate...to many entrenched and ego-centric individuals (Baucus) who never was committed to reform and this led to it going off the rails. There are some opportunities to pick up Senate seats this year...there are more open seats by rushpublicans than Democrats and if the opportunities are targeted by the netroots and other liberal/progressive groups, there may be enough shift to make reconciliation through the Senate feasible as well.

Chuck Schummer nailed it last summer during the subcommittee debate when he said that if nothing is done the need to reform will only get greater and force government intervention into this area as it did with the banks. I wish it wouldn't get to that point, but I don't see things improving for many in the near future.

Cheers...

and just possibly even some weak form of a public option through the Senate with 60 votes before Lieberman reversed his position and opposed it. There is a big difference between needing 50 votes and needing 60 votes to pass something. Nine Democratic caucus members can defect from the Democratic position and still have it pass under reconciliation. At the very least a significant expansion of Medicare, either outright by simply lowering the age for eligibility or more likely by creating an option for those 50 or 55 to "buy into it" should be obtainable IMO. That is if Democrats are willing to pass a bill that a small minority of Senate Democrats strongly oppose. If leadership now insists on a full Democratic consensus, then probably not.

So you are telling me and millions like me FUCK YOU.

That tells me all I need to know about the psuedo-liberals posting on DU.

I am 60, self emplyed and unable to afford any health insurance under the Senate bill provisions, if you insist on making this all about you or me specifically rather than discussing what makes the most sense both as policy and as politics.

My point above isn't to kill the Senate Bill, just in case you didn't notice, or are you now claiming that all of the Democratic voices calling for a "Senate Bill Plus Sidecar" approach are "psuedo-liberals? That would make the true liberal wing of the Democratic Party tiny under your definition. My point is that strong and effective health reform is possible if reconciliation is employed anyway, reform consistent with the platform that Democrats ran on in 2008, reform consistent with everything our Democratic leadership has said all along that they would prefer to see pass. And you could keep your Senate Bill reforms in the process.

Absolutists are the poison of progress.

And the barely tolerable has always been the enemy of the good when the good is within reach but gets compromised away in return for special interest favors. It's all a matter of perspective, isn't it?

There are no absolutists in this debate. A single payer system was never offered as an option you might recall, and no one is holding out for one.

The Senate has never debated the perfect or the good. The only choices there were the awful and the absolutely horrible. We got the absolutely horrible and all the talking points in the world will not fix what's wrong with this bill.

force the pharma and healthcare industries to
NEGOATIATE prices down.

The current bill will run us straight into disaster.

you get the help needed and not me too.

It is still too destructive to make that a worthwhile reason to pass it. My problem is only, somewhat, what is not in the bill that might be added but all the poison pills in it that will not be removed. People have no idea what this bill is going to do to every aspect of their lives if it passes. Even if a great public option passed as a sidecar, the loopholes and repressive parts of this bill will never be unraveled and corrected.

Absolutely agreed, "would tell me pretty much all that I need to know about today's Democratic Party."

How much evidence do you need?

of passing the senate bill and fixing it.

What fix is in?

Looks like his job is secure. Probably can afford to use his insurance. Isn't going to affect his life one way or the other.

a Public Option --

Many are watching -- many are fed up ---

They should not mistake that!!

There are talking points about fixing it through reconciliation which would assume we would add some things to it. But there's dozens of poisonous provisions in this bill that need to be removed that will not be done through reconciliation. Like the Ensign amendment guaranteed to price gouge you if you have insurance at work and have any health concerns and, likely, to cost you your job if you get a new diagnosis now that your boss gets access to your private health information.

The House bill passed by a very slim majority, surely there will be at least a dozen or so members of Congress who voted for that bill that simply will not vote for the Senate bill, fix-it package or not.

There are a lot of really scared Democratic incumbents after last Tuesday. They're hoping that the voters in their districts will forget about HCR as quickly as possible.

Do you think everyone could agree to a page limit? How about 5 pages for the bill? That seems reasonable.

:kick: