Reconciliation rules require that health care plan not increase deficit ... link

[Alhena]

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/going-it-alone-on-health-care-dems-face-tug-of-war-over-public-option.php

This is the best discussion I've seen of the reconciliation rules, with the key paragraph being this:

Each year, Congress passes a budget, but sometimes it has to enact a separate bill to raise or reroute funds in order to meet the budget's demands. That's the reconciliation bill--and it's so important that Senate rules exempt it from a filibuster. But they also prevent it from being a vessel for any old provision that the majority party wants enacted. The specifics of these limits (enshrined in the so-called Byrd rule) are complex, but the overarching rule of thumb is that provisions passed through this process must have a significant budgetary component (i.e. involve the moving around of federal money) and that the legislation should not, in the long run, increase the federal deficit. (A recent historical example: the 2001 Bush tax cuts were passed via the reconciliation process. They survived the Byrd rule because they had a huge budgetary impact, but since they vastly increased the federal deficit, they sunsetted, and had to be renewed after five years.)

- end quote -

This makes reconciliation look like a very poor vehicle to pass universal health care. Because let's be honest, providing medical care to 50 million people who don't currently have it WILL increase the deficit. But reconciliation still seems to be the plan, which makes it seem likely to me that Congress will pass a plan with a weak public option that expires in 2014.

[endarkenment]

1. "providing medical care to 50 million people who don't currently have it WILL increase the deficit."

No it will require increasing the payroll tax to fund it. There is simply no reason at all to increase the deficit to fund single payer universal healthcare. Honestly.

[Alhena]

2. There's no political will to increase the payroll tax AFAIK

like the article says, the path of least procedural resistance is the path of most political resistance.

I've seen Dem Senators like Nelson of Florida talking like 60 votes will be required, and I expect that's because they know the limitations of the reconciliation approach.

[endarkenment]

3. Really? How do you know that. But...

you made a different claim, that the only way to fund universal healthcare was through a massive increase in the deficit. The article you linked pointed out quite the opposite - that the more robust and universally available the public option is, the lower the deficit impact.

"And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black--and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package."

When asked, poll data indicates that the majority of americans support extending medicare to everyone. That means increasing the payroll tax to pay for it. But for many of us that would probably be a zero sum game: we would trade an increase in the payroll tax for an elimination of paycheck deductions for private insurance plans, an elimination or reduction other out of pocket per service expenses.

[joeycola]

4. I believe it will not even go into effect until 2013 Right?

[Alhena]

5. Correct- so we get a one year bill that then goes up for revote in 2014

It better make a really good impression in that first year. And we all know that even the best programs have growing pains in the early years. Seriously, what's the point of reconciliation under these circumstances? It will just let the Republicans demagogue the issue for their political gain, all for a program that is constantly on political life support.

[joeycola]

7. The Repugs will demoagague regardless. I really

believe the WH wants a bill==and any bill will do at this point for pics of the signing (IMHO). Sad to say, that is the only reason I can think of at the moment.

[Alhena]

8. I agree the WH wants a bill- I just hope it's not a bill that produces a 1 year program

whose main benefactor are Republican political candidates, not patients.

[joeycola]

9. Looks like the main benefactors will be insurance companies. Most

are happy from what I have read.

[grantcart]

6. correct

but reconciliation will only be needed if a filibuster is sustained.

There maybe a couple of Republicans who will vote against HC reform but not vote to sustain a filibuster.