It absolutely does NOT matter what is in Baucus' plan... not ONE bit

[scheming daemons]

It could be a recipe for strawberry cheese cake. It simply doesn't matter.


The bill that passes the House and the bill that passes the Senate are going to be different.

When that happens, a joint House-Senate committee merges the two bills into one final bill that both Houses have to vote on without amendments.


As long as either the House bill or the Senate bill has the Public Option in it, then there is a strong possibility of it being in the final, merged bill.


All Baucus is trying to do is come up with something that can get past the 60-votes needed to avoid a filibuster. Like I said, this could be the first page of the Washington DC phone book. Does not matter.


All that matters is what comes out of the joint-chamber committee. At that point, the House will pass it, and the President's goal is to use the reconciliation process to bypass the filibuster in the Senate using the Byrd rule:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(U.S._Congress)

If the Senate parliamentarian agrees that this qualifies for the Byrd Rule, then only 50 votes are needed in the Senate.

This means that up to 9 blue dogs can vote against the bill and it would still become law.



Everyone here that is yanking their hair out and gnashing their teeth over Baucus' bill is engaging is an extreme energy-wasting activity.

You're upset about something that will have no resemblance to what finally ends up on Obama's desk.



Ok?


1. Tomorrow Obama will strongly advocate for a Public Option.
2. Within a week, the House will vote on a bill that includes a public option.
3. Something resembling Baucus' plan will get past the 60-vote filibuster number and pass in the Senate within a few weeks after that.
4. A joint House-Senate committee will meet... probably for up to a month... to hash out a merged bill. This committee will ultimately produce a bill that has some form of the Public Option.
5. The House will (again) pass this bill, with about 30 Democratic defections - but not enough to kill it.
6. The Senate Democrats, realizing that a defeat of this bill will mean a bloodbath in 2010, will find a way to scrounge up 50 out of 59 Democrats to vote for the bill. Biden will break the tie, if necessary.
7. Before Christmas 2009, Obama will sign it.

Bonus:
8. Rightwing media will scream bloody murder over it... just like they did with Clinton's omnibus budget in '93... and just like they did over the Stimulus package... and just like they did when FDR passed the first incarnation of Social Security... and just like they did for any major legislative change that helped millions of Americans.

But it will pass.



The fun starts Wednesday night.

[Donnachaidh]

1. I hate the smell of pom poms n/t

[scheming daemons]

2. Oh well... Not my fault you have no understanding of the legislative process...

[Hello_Kitty]

3. Gosh, that's so clever!

I'm sure that the Republicans and DLC/Health Insurance Lobby/Corporate/Blue Dog Dems will never figure out what's going on until it's too late! :eyes:

Yep. Max Baucus and his former WellPoint lobbyist sidekick went to all the trouble to craft a proposal that is practically a valentine to the insurance industry just so they could help Obama and the progressive Dems get a robust public option!


Seriously, I hope you are right. I'm afraid you're not.

[scheming daemons]

7. Sigh.... not surprising that you got it wrong

You said:

"Max Baucus and his former WellPoint lobbyist sidekick went to all the trouble to craft a proposal that is practically a valentine to the insurance industry just so they could help Obama and the progressive Dems get a robust public option!"


No... they are doing it to provide cover to blue dog dems in the senate and Snowe and Collins so they can get something with 60 votes to get past a filibuster.

THEN... those same blue dogs and Snowe and Collins can vote AGAINST the final bill, to preserve their "creds" with their bases.

The blue dogs and Snowe and Collins can then TRUTHFULLY go back to their constituents and say "I voted FOR Health Care reform, but against the Public Option."


The bill passes... and they save face.

[Hello_Kitty]

11. Right.

Susan Collins (2008):

Health Professionals $349,369

Insurance $258,700

Lobbyists $239,548

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $121,000


Health Services/HMOs $119,950


Olympia Snowe (2006):

Insurance $203,245

Health Professionals $175,074

Lobbyists $122,138

Hospitals/Nursing Homes $87,995

Health Services/HMOs $46,680

Max Baucus (2008):

Insurance $592,185

Health Professionals $534,141

Pharmaceuticals/Health Products $527,813

Health Services/HMOs $377,850

Lobbyists $377,575

Hospitals/Nursing Homes $337,826


http://www.opensecrets.org/index.php

[Captain Hilts]

14. Well, that says it all, doesn't it? Maine is a poor state. I wonder how many folks are uninsured.

[NYC_SKP]

4. And then DU will battle over the meaning of the word "Robust"... It has already begun.

We'll get the public option, but the Obama detractors will argue that it's not a "Robust" public option, and the president said "robust" and so he is a liar.

But thanks for the OP, I recommend it!

[cliffordu]

5. You could very well be right.

A lot of our lives depend on that.

[Pirate Smile]

6. Very informative post - I'll let Nancy add this little bit which may give some clues to where we are

headed:

Pelosi Warns: Insurers Will Face a Stronger Public Option if We Go with Triggers

Here's a little noticed moment from House Speaker Nancy Pelosi's press conference earlier today.

"This, as I say, is the legislative process. And right now, we will have a public option in our bill," Pelosi said.
But I said it before and I'll say it again: The health insurance industry, which is out there fighting the public option tooth and nail because it does increase competition, which they don't want. They'd be better getting a public option now than one that is triggered because if you have a triggered public option, it's because the insurance industry has demonstrated that they're not cooperating, they're not doing the right thing, and I think they'll have a tougher public option to deal with.Emphasis mine.

It would be premature to say that this is the deal being hashed out behind the scenes right now. But this seems like a clear warning from Pelosi to insurers--and also a signal to public option skeptics within her own party--that if the House backs a plan to "trigger" the public option, it will only do so if the triggers are affixed to a stronger, more robust public plan. That's a bit of a tell, I'd say.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/pelosi-warns-insurers-will-face-a-stronger-public-option-if-we-go-with-triggers.php

Cover for the Left and Right? Why Triggers Are the Talk of Washington

It's an obscure policy tool that isn't even written yet, and would be buried deep in the weeds of a thousand page health care bill. But somehow, a "trigger-mechanism" is the talk of Washington right now. How did that happen?

Substantively, the purpose of a trigger would be to delay--perhaps briefly, perhaps forever--the implementation of a public option; making it contingent on the failure of insurance companies to broadly expand access to affordable coverage. The question of how long that delay would be (one year? eternal?) is impossible to answer, and would depend in large part on the way the legislation is written. But it's that essential lack of certainty that could provide both liberals and moderates enough political cover to get on board.

As Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said today, the strong preference among Democratic party leaders is to pass a health care bill without resorting to procedural tactics that would shut out Republicans completely. That means coming up with a plan that will win the support of (at least) Sen. Olympia Snowe (R-ME), whose preference all along has been to affix the public option to a trigger mechanism.

Her idea has gotten the nod from Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE)--perhaps the most conservative Democrat in the Senate, and a good barometer for the sorts of policy objectives that can win the support of all moderate Democrats. His assent suggests that a trigger would allow the party's right flank to tell their conservative constituents that they didn't roll over and green light a big new government program. Their support will be necessary when Republicans filibuster. And the provision would, indeed, put the fate of the public option in serious doubt.

So the question now is, Will it provide similar cover for House liberals? For the entirety of the health care debate, congressional progressives have been emphatic about the need for health care reform legislation to create a "robust" public option--a government insurance plan that's tied to Medicare and, ideally, available the moment the bill takes effect. No triggers.

But the public option on offer in House legislation has already veered from the "robust" entity these progressives had in mind. Nobody on the left is happy about that. And a private co-op plan would almost surely cause revolt. But a trigger--particularly, as Speaker Pelosi suggested today, a trigger affixed to a Medicare-like public option--might allow them to vote for the legislation with a clear conscience.

Today, House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer and House Whip James Clyburn both said a trigger might be the way to go. And deputy whip Debbie Wasserman-Schultz said that while "now's not the time" for triggers, she's also not willing to play "my way or the highway politics" with health care reform.

It's far from a sure thing. But as Josh suggests here, it's the one way forward that doesn't seem destined to get the axe from either progressives or centrists, or that doesn't carry with it all of the procedural problems the reconciliation option poses.

It also doesn't scare off the insurance companies in quite the same way that a regular public option would. All of which probably explains why White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has been floating the idea for a long time now.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/cover-for-the-left-and-right-why-triggers-are-the-talk-of-washington.php?ref=fpa

edit to add Nate Silver's trigger talk http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/09/trigger-with-teeth.html

[t0dd]

12. That's nonsense.

Oh, I'm sure the insurance companies would much rather have a public option now instead of one many years from now !! Nancy is just saying that to try and gain support for a public option with a trigger. I'm not going to fall for it.

Here are some things you overlooked:

the terms of a trigger can be renegotiated. Insurance companies will pour millions over the next few years to make sure it is defeated. If we don't get a public option now, we will never get it. If we get a trigger, a more conservative Congress will just alter its terms.

We aren't going to have majorities like this for a long, long time. If we get a public option now, with its foot in the door, it will be unstoppable, even if its less than ideal. We can always improve its infrastructure if it already exists.

Don't buy this bait. A trigger is just an excuse to dump the public option. Enough is enough. It's time for the President to keep a campaign promise (I know it's hard, when he has already abandoned so many)...

[sharesunited]

8. Suddenly this guy is thrust into importance. And I don't know him.

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

[scheming daemons]

9. I don't like to profile, but a Georgetown-educated lawyer is likely to be

sympathetic to our cause.

[sharesunited]

10. Yet somehow Trent Lott fired his predecessor leading to his appointment.

[Pirate Smile]

13. kick