Obama's a bit boxed in on HCR now

[Tom Rinaldo]

Scaled down incremental may be the only way open in the short run. If Democrats introduce and pass some constructive reforms now while avoiding significant corporate give aways, they may get some slack from me on that issue. Admiration or respect? No, but a little slack perhaps. Obama almost certainly won't be able to get the Senate Bill through the House as is now because liberals and Unions are (justifiably) unhappy with too many of its provisions, and some conservative Dems likely want to run to the hills away from any Health Care Reform right about now anyway. Some Senate Dems like Webb have already signaled that they won't go along with rushing a new version through the Senate before Brown gets seated, so that isn't really an option either. And I don't think the trust is there for the White House to convince the House to pass the current Senate legislation with an understanding that the administration will fight for and win significant later improvements through reconciliation. One reason for skepticism is the length of time such an approach would take, even if the political will was there to attempt it.

Any reconciliation effort that failed to include a real Public Option in it would infuriate people like me, and there would be a lot of us. Republicans would use every stalling tactic in the book to stop that from going through. Democrats feel a need to make job creation front and center now as their primary political focus before the 2010 campaigns really ramp up, not some more months spent (in their eyes "wasted") arguing about health care reform.

I am not describing my ideal political strategy for Democrats now. I would urge them to throw caution to the wind and come down hard in favor of fighting for a massive expansion of Medicare right now using reconciliation in the Senate. I think they would do better in the Fall elections if they went that route than any other one I can imagine. And if pigs could fly...

[frazzled]

1. But Obama is saying you can't pare it down (despite media spin)

From interview, with Stephanopolous, Jan. 20

If you ask the American people about health care, one of the things that drives them crazy is insurance companies denying people coverage because of preexisting conditions. Well, it turns out that if you don't -- if you don't make sure that everybody has health insurance, then you can't eliminate insurance companies -- you can't stop insurance companies from discriminating against people because of preexisting conditions. Well, if you're going to give everybody health insurance, you've got to make sure it's affordable. So it turns out that a lot of these things are interconnected.

Now, I could have said, well, we'll just do what's safe. We'll just take on those things that are completely noncontroversial. The problem is the things that are noncontroversial end up being the things that don't solve the problem. And this is true on every issue.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/01/obama_offers_the_case_against.htmll#comments

And he's right. All the pieces are interconnected. It just doesn't work unless the majority of the moving parts are implemented together. The question is: will he crack heads in Congress to demand it be done.

[Clio the Leo]

3. Yep....

... and that's what Gibbs, Ax and Plouffe said on TV all day yesterday.

[Tom Rinaldo]

4. Can't remember who it was who said it last night...

Pass some very popular progressive reforms, like forbidding pre-existing condition exclusions etc. first, dare Republicans to vote against them (run against them on that in the fall if they do) and when the industry (and it's political supporters) feels the hurt from that they will become more amenable to reasonable negotiations on the bigger picture.

[frazzled]

6. You can't pass the pre-existing conditions part on its own

Look, as hard as it might be for people to understand or accept, insurance companies base their practices on actual risk. If they gave everyone currently at the high-risk end of the health care spectrum a policy, they'd go broke. You've got to have the younger, healthier people buy in, to offset the losses that will be sustained with the sicker population. That's why, like it or not, a mandate is needed.

And then, without a subsidy scheme to help people pay for this newly available insurance, it doesn't work either. If people can't afford it, they can't buy it. So you have to have the costly subsidies in it.

And if you do that, then you need to find the money to pay for the subsidies. And there's conflict about how to do that: taxing wealthiest Americans would do the trick, but it doesn't do anything to contain overall costs within the system; the excise tax was unpopular with some elements, but it does make a step towards stanching the continual growth of costs. Finally, just last week, the unions got on board with that latter plan. And somehow, a single playboy centerfold has sent everyone scurrying.

I'm losing my train of thought here. But you get the picture.

[Tom Rinaldo]

10. Without arguing your point on its merrits...

I was just trying to use that as an example of a popular reform. Whether or not we can agree on this or that being feasible, it is a widely shared belief that Congress can legislate some reforms short of the full pachage that now is tied up. It's one political option.

[Clio the Leo]

2. Are the Unions opposed?

Seems to be some conflicting info on this....

AFL-CLIO
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/21/2181469.aspx (fifth paragraph)

SEIU supports it.
http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/01/21/2181469.aspx

As for House Progressives....
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x142094

... things are still in the negotiating process .... I wouldn't count out the "Senate bill plus fix" strategy yet.

[Tom Rinaldo]

5. Regarding the "Senate Bill plus fix" option

Sure it could be a viable option if there is firm political will to pursue it and fight hard for it, depending on what the IT is. The devil is in the details of the Plus. The only Senate Bill Plus I have heard mainstream Washington type Democrats talk about has NOT inluded a robust Public Option, let alone even the weakened version contained in the bill the House passed.

Bloggers like folks here are always the ones to mention that the Plus part could include a Public Option and go through reconciliation. But when the insiders talk about it, the talk centers on using reconciliation to modify the Senate Bill back to the point where negotiations between the House and the Senate (and the Unions) reached last week before Demos lost their 60 vote caucus. If reconciliation is used only NOW to pursue such a meager "reform" in the Senate, after progressives were repeatedly told that we couldn't have things like a robust Public Option let alone any Public Option at all because, though the majority of Senators might sign off on it, we couldn't nail down 60 votes for it and reconciliation wasn't a real option - Holy Hell will break loose. All the anger expressed to date at Democrats for "selling out" will have been just an early gust from a hurricane approaching.

[Tom Rinaldo]

12. From breaking news it appears we can count out Senate Bill plus fix now n/t

[elocs]

7. Although the info is from last summer, check this thread about reconciliation and HCR:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7480650

It gives a lot of information regarding reconciliation and the Byrd Rule and how it relates to heathcare reform. I don't see it getting a public option.

Frankly I don't see how this is going to be done piecemeal, bit by bit. The Republicans already have their guide as how to stop each and every part unless it is compromised to exactly suit them. But then we know how much and how well Democrats love to compromise.

[JVS]

8. This is a great illustration that those who said pass it and then fix it were peddling some BULLSHIT

Look how suddenly the shittiest bill became cast in stone.

[thereismore]

9. Well, he let it happen to him, really. nt

[Tom Rinaldo]

11. Gotta say I agree with posts #9 and #10 n/t

[ieoeja]

13. Even broken down, can you think of one progressive health care initiative the GOP won't filibuster?

It won't happen. After Obama said the same thing you did, McCain, the alleged leader in crossing the aisle, exploded in a rant about Chicago sausages?!?

FYI: having spent the past quarter century living in Chicago, I have never heard of a Chicago sausage.


All progressive legislation is now dead for the remainder of the year. We need to accept that, give up legislating for the year, and get to work getting a net gain of 2 seats in the Senate next year. Even one would let us move forward on some stuff. But since we were already one vote shy of getting a public option last time, we are now two votes shy. If we pick up two we can make that a reality.

[Tom Rinaldo]

14. When the opposition obstructs. make them look bad for obstructing

It's classic politics. If we know that the Republicans have vowed to not let Democrats get anything done, then force them to prevent Democrats from doing the most potentially popular things we can think of, and hang that around their necks in November.

[AlinPA]

16. Republicans do not care. Their base (and apparently some independents now) like

the obstruction. The old "too much government" line of theirs worked in stopping health care reform. This morning I've heard things like "Democrats are putting health care on the back burner", "Pelosi says she doesn't have votes to pass it", Obama saying to strip it down.

[AlinPA]

17. I have to agree that no progressive legislation will pass. I'll add that after

the election we will need to choose a new (hopefully stronger) Senate majority leader because Reid will lose in NV.

[treestar]

19. Is it only two votes?

I thought some of the Blue Dogs were against the public option.

[ieoeja]

20. A lot of them were against it. But ultimately agreed.

Half a second after we got the 60th vote lined up, Lieberman (who is supposed to be Liberal on domestic issues) "changed his mind" and decided he couldn't support a public option after all. And that is where it died.

[Teaser]

15. he is boxed in because he had no Plan B

and that makes him this week's prize dumbass.

[Nuclear Unicorn]

18. *sighs*

I'm the man in the box
Buried in my shit
Won't you come and save me, save me

Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut?
Jesus Christ, deny your maker
He who tries, will be wasted
Feed my eyes now you've sewn them shut

I'm the dog who gets beat
Shove my nose in shit
Won't you come and save me, save me

Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut?
Jesus Christ, deny your maker
He who tries, will be wasted
Feed my eyes now you've sewn them shut

Feed my eyes, can you sew them shut?
Jesus Christ, deny your maker
He who tries, will be wasted
Feed my eyes now you've sewn them shut

[TheKentuckian]

21. He almost had to do it on purpose

He always favored the Senate debacle and thought he could shame, intimidate, and bribe his way over any opposition.

He wanted and stood behind bad legislation and it caught him.