Harkin: Public option backers eyeing second reconciliation bill

[yurbud]

This would be good news if it happened, but I'm burnt out on these shred of hope strip teases.

March 24th, 2010 3:50 PM

Public option supporters could offer a second reconciliation bill to establish the program, a top Democrat said Wednesday.

Supporters of creating a government-run public option health insurance program are considering moving the proposal after healthcare reform is finished via another budget reconciliation bill that would require just a simple majority to pass, said Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Tom Harkin (D-Iowa).

The Senate this week is debating a reconciliation bill that would modify the healthcare reform law President Barack Obama signed Tuesday. The bill on the Senate floor was written based on the current budget resolution, which will soon be replaced. Harkin indicated that the new budget could also allow for a reconciliation bill, which he believes could be used to enact the public option.

Harkin supports the public option and said the House and Senate advocates would "begin working on that immediately" but, like other Senate Democrats, rejected amending the current reconciliation bill because such a move would force the House to pass it again. Because of centrist Democratic opposition, the public option may not have enough support to pass the House. "The greater good is getting the bill passed," not waging a fight this week over the public option.

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/88849-harkin-public-option-backers-eyeing-second-reconciliation-bill

[bluestateguy]

1. I thought reconciliation was only allowed once a year

???

[Ozymanithrax]

2. If they think they can pass a public option, create a bill just for that...

Like the bill for Medicare buy in, and see if they have the votes in the House and Senate. In spite of a webstie saying they do, I don't think they are there. I don't think they have the votes in the Senate to pass a public option. They did not before.

[yurbud]

3. what if they realize their activist base is not buying the hatful of shit they're calling...

a chocolate cake?

[Ozymanithrax]

8. If they don't have the votes in the House and the Senate, it won't pass...

It doesn't matter what the activist base wants. If they can not pass the bill.

I want single payer but realized very early that there was never the votes for it.

A public option looks good, but all it really does is give a low priced option against which Insurance Companies must compete, thus bringing down prices in a Capitalist marketplace. It is limited as to who can buy in in all the versions I saw. Since there are health care plans for supplemental Medicare that are quite profitable, the PO will not ever put a bullet to the head of the Capitalist based system we use here.


Besides, since the passage of the Health Care bill the broad approval for the bill has increased. They will loose some of the activist base but gain a broader support among the non-activists. It is a trade off. Activists will have to decide if they prefer a Republican administration to a Democratic administration when it comes time to vote. There can be only one, and there are no alternatives to the two parties at this time in history.

[yurbud]

9. single payer doesn't have the votes, but a public option is a litmus test: do Democrats put

people, democracy, and good policy ahead of corporate interests, or are they just Republicans with different carpet and drapes on cultural issues?

[Ozymanithrax]

10. I don't think voting as a litmus test is appropriate. There are changes in this Bill.

that need to be made to the Health Care law.

You want a litmus test, get Congress to write a public option bill and try to get it through the House and Senate. Holding up changes that will make a progressive bill more progressive doesn't seem like a good idea to me, and it isn't progressive.

[yurbud]

12. since the reconciliation bill only needs a simple majority, only democrats can hold it up...

and even in Blue Dog and DLCers states and districts, the public option is more popular than the Senate private insurance only bill.

The ONLY way to avoid corrupt Democrats and Republicans from blocking a public option is to pass it as part of this reconciliation amendment. To say start over with a new bill is essentially saying to never do it.

[Ozymanithrax]

16. It hast to go back through the house and be approved. If they change it..

it goes back to the Senate, wher eit would need to go through the reconciliaiton process again.

The changes in this bill are important. It should not be hijacked for a litmust test.

[yurbud]

18. this is not just a litmus test, but better, more cost effective, more popular policy

you are only arguing process, not policy or admitting the motives for those who oppose this.

I would like to hear you address those issues.

[Ozymanithrax]

22. My motives are to support the maximum amount of progress we can make within the

system we have.

If I see a congressman who sits aside the problems he has with a bill to pass it for the greater good, I agree with those motives. For that reason, I applaud Kucinich's vote for this bill. He finally decided to put the greater good over his motivational ideology. The best motives in the world mean nothing if you don't do anything to help people. It is actions not motives that make the difference here.

I see no difference at all between the democrats who voted against the bill and the Republicans. None. Their motives are different, but it is the actions that count.

Speaking to the motives of people here is also an exercise in guesswork. I can not look into peoples minds and determine if their motives are pure or corrupted. (And, really, nobody has pure motives. We all carry baggage that clouds our informs our view of the world.)

I carry one view of motive that I will express here. It is my opinion that nearly every person sees himself as good and sees his motives as good. I think that White Supremacists, Republicans, Teabaggers, Democrats, liberals, progressives, and the activist base see themselves as good people working for the highest motives. I disagree fundamentally with the first three groups I mentioned and on various issues with the rest. Motives are subjective. It is actions that count.

[yurbud]

23. do you question the motives of Democrats who blocked a better bill even when the bill

only needed Democratic votes to pass?

Motives aren't subjective when you can connect money in campaign contributions and family members jobs to how representatives vote.

Also, why couldn't Obama have applied the same pressure to the handful of Blue Dogs and DLCers that he did to the progressives, particularly when the progressive position was more popular with the public?

[Ozymanithrax]

25. If they voted agaisnt the bill that passed, I don't question their motives...

Their actions showed they were not interested in progress. There is 0 difference between them and Republians when it comes to actions. I judge them by their actions.

[yurbud]

13. will you concede that it doesn't have the votes because of corruption not popularity or ideology?

Voters everywhere preferred the public option to the senate bill, especially Democrats and independents, who Democrats are supposedly representing. There is no Democratic ideology that says to avoid government options when they can do a better job than the private sector--their whole thing is supposedly being the ''third way'' between capitalism and socialism, but here, they chose the identical solution the GOP Heritage Foundation proposed.

[Ozymanithrax]

19. If it doesn't have the votes, the reason is irrelevant...

There are things in this bill that will help people, and we need to get them added to Health Care Law. That is what is important. Helping people and making some small amount of progress.

Ideology: There are quite a few pro-life democrats. I don't agree with their ideology. However, the good health care will do for millions of Americans is the issue. I won't vote for a pro-life democrat anymore than I would vote for a Republican. Fiscally Conservative social liberals are also an ideology that we must contend with. Pay as you go and keep taxes low is an ideology that I don't entirely agree with. That ideology played an enormous role in Health Care Law.

Corruption: Our whole method of electing people is an exercise in corrupting. The SCOTUS made it constitutional for Corporations to corrupt lawmakers on a scale we haven't seen in this Republic in a long time. Corruption plays a role here, though for the most part it is legal corruption. And crying over it won't change a thing.

This is the system we have now, and within that system we need to do the maximum amount of good we can for people. That is what being a progressive is all about.

[yurbud]

14. that threat of losing to Republicans grows thinner and thinner the closer Dems move to GOP

positions.

[bigtree]

4. lots of folks denying this, but I think you're right. The Senate Dem votes aren't there

. . . a handful of conservatives in our party will need to reverse their earlier positions dead-set against the PO.

[SPedigrees]

6. Amen to that. Get this bill passed w/o any further ado, THEN introduce a separate bill

to create a public option, after the publicity of HCR has died down.

[yurbud]

15. a separate bill will have to pass the 60 vote hurdle again, won't it?

that's a continuation of the bait and switch.

[Ozymanithrax]

26. The Senate can write a bill as a Reconciliation bill requiring only a majority...

There are limits.

Some of those limits as I understand them are:
Social Security can not be changed in a reconciliation bill.
The bill must be deficit neutral.
It must be limited in scope (Republicans used reconciliation for the tax cut by limiting the cuts to 10 years.)
There may be other limits I am not aware of.

The Senate could create a reconciliation bill if it follows the rules for such.

[yurbud]

27. that is encouraging--Medicare buy in could be deficit neutral since those who sign up

would pay the cost.

[Ozymanithrax]

28. There will still be start up costs, administration costs, oversight costs...

These costs just need to be covered in the bill. But I don't see why it couldn't be done that way.

[yurbud]

29. so we actually agree.

[Warren DeMontague]

17. They don't have the votes in the Senate to overcome a filibuster, that's for sure.

:shrug:

[polichick]

20. Grayson's Medicare buy in bill should come up for a vote soon...

...according to him (on msnbc a few days ago).

[yurbud]

24. good luck getting that past the moral filth in the Senate.

[DefenseLawyer]

5. I will gladly pay you Tuesday for a hamburger today.

Just be patient 'til Tuesday! We promise!

[Echo In Light]

7. k/r for your apropos graphic

[Cetacea]

11. +1

Very!

[BurtWorm]

21. It would really serve the GOP and teabaggies right if they pushed it through on this go-round,