"Pelosi Considers Two Track Strategy For Health Care Reform"

[Clio the Leo]

Pelosi Considers Two Track Strategy For Health Care Reform
Brian Beutler | January 27, 2010, 5:41PM

Politico is reporting that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is pursuing a dual-track strategy for health care reform.

"We believe that it's possible to have comprehensive health care reform as we go forward, but at the same time, it can be on another track where some things can just be passed outside of that legislation, and we'll be doing both," Pelosi said.

But what exactly does that mean? A top House aide clarifies.

"We can work on a comprehensive bill...we've got to figure out what the process is, who goes first, and whether the Senate goes first or second it doesn't matter but the fact remains that it could take a couple weeks for them to debate on the floor," the aide said. "While we're doing that: What else can we do in the meantime?"

"This is just an example," the aide went on, "but the anti-trust exemption isn't in the Senate bill. So that couldn't be added through reconciliation. So the House could pass a couple of smaller things that can pass as freestanding items, and can't be added through reconciliation."

This strategy offer a number of potential benefits. First, it has the potential to make the bill better in the eyes of the House (provided the ancillary bills passe the Senate. Second, it turns up the pressure on all parties to make sure that a final, comprehensive bill passes. And it takes public attention off of the prevailing story of procedural logjams and Democratic infighting.

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/pelosi-considers-two-track-strategy-for-health-care-reform.php

[karynnj]

1. Excellent idea

I would think that a standalone bill that eliminates the anti-trust exemption will have bipartisan support - in fact, I would predict an interesting pattern. I also think it would be excellent for the Democrats to propose a version of tort reform they could support - I know Kerry proposed using something like MA's law - Ensign's was unfair as it constrained just the one side.

I agree with the point that it does take the story off the logjam. It also could create more reason for the House to have some trust in the process. If the bills are populist - what could be better than eliminating teh anti-trust provision? - it could help turn public opinion.

[Jennicut]

2. Great news. Looks like everyone has been brainstorming some actual

strategy for a change.

[PHIMG]

3. Break it into the good bill and bad bill

Separate it into good bill and bad bill. Let the insurance company do the lobbying for the bad bill. Put all the politically popular and hard to vote against stuff in the good bill. Insurance companies can take it or leave it.

Good bill - is insurance reforms - ban on annual benefit caps - out of pocket caps - guaranteed issue - community rating - public option, etc.

Bad bill - subsidies for insurance - "the exchange" - private mandate

THE BEST COURSE IS TO BRING Medicare for All to the floor and let the Republicans and Democratic sell outs vote against Medicare.

[RBInMaine]

7. I mostly agree, altough P.O. can't pass. BUT, add pre-existing conditon reform and allowing people

to stay longer on parents plans. Also, more interstate competition and some fair tort reform. Also, get rid of the RX donut hole.

[thunder rising]

4. Considers, plans and studies leads to almost, maybe and didn't .. blah blah blah

[AlinPA]

5. These are all bullshit stories. Every 12 hours we have "news" that Pelosi is

doing this or that with the health care bill. It's dead and Harry Reid is totally out of it.

[Jennicut]

8. That is typical when reporters want to post that they have special news

when nothing is in concrete yet.
I do need a drink or something after all this though...

[RBInMaine]

6. THAT is the RIGHT approach. PASS some POPULAR and PROGRESSIVE insurance reforms, and take on the

rest a little later.