For those who still don't get it: Dean is advocating a FASTER way to pass HCR

[jgraz]

He's not saying kill HCR completely -- just kill the abortion of a bill currently in the Senate. Take up the House bill, already passed, and ram it through in Reconciliation.

I defy anyone to come up with a strategy that sticks with the current Senate bill and delivers Health Care Reform more quickly.

[CaliforniaPeggy]

1. Now, THAT I could live with...

I hope you're interpreting him correctly.

[rurallib]

4. That is exactly how I understood Dean, Peggy

The "news" media has twisted his words so that everyone thinks he only wants to kill HC.
Nope, Dean just said this isn't reform, we can go back to medicare buy-in using a different strategy and get the job doen.
It is what repubs did for 10 years.

[Fire1]

26. Dig it! n/t

[Hello_Kitty]

2. Speaking of abortion

Why is it that strategists like Axelrod and MSM pundits are trashing Dean and the "left" for pushing back against the bill but haven't said boo about Sen. Nelson, who is threatening to vote against cloture over the abortion amendment? Seems to me Nelson and Lieberhoser are doing far more to "kill the bill" than Dr. Dean or the liberal base.

[freddie mertz]

21. Because they either 1. have completely caved to the right, or 2, agree with him.

Or both.

Who cares anymore?

[Vincardog]

3. If the drones lying about Dr. Dean admitted that, Who would tell me I can't have my pony?

Some times the talking points are so thick around here I could swear it is inhabited by a bunch of paid shills.

[BeyondGeography]

5. You'd deliver half a bill that way, IF it worked

Per Sen. Harkin:

“The medical community, the public health community and others interested in wellness realize that it is a big deal to get this in the bill. We lose all of that if we go to reconciliation — all of the insurance reforms on pre-existing conditions, and no lifetime caps, and no gender discrimination — we lose all of that,” Harkin said.

Although Dean believes that such provisions can be recaptured later, through subsequent amendments and modifications of a final health reform bill with a public option, Harkin is adamant that the changes must be made now.

“I told that we have trouble passing a resolution saying there are seven days in the week,” he said, labeling the current Republican policy of using as much floor time as possible on every bill as “scorched earth.”

“What are we up to, 90 filibusters now? It means it has gotten to the point where everything has to be filibustered — everything. We have a defense appropriations bill on the floor right now that would probably get 90-plus votes … yet it is being filibustered,” he said. “In September we had the extension of unemployment insurance. It took us three weeks to get it to the floor, and then it passed 100 to nothing. Why would that take three weeks? It wasn’t amended. It wasn’t changed. It just took three weeks. That is what is happening.”

http://iowaindependent.com/23933/harkin-think-of-health-care-reform-as-a-starter-home

[madfloridian]

6. uh, Dean IS saying make the changes now. Is anyone paying attention?

Does Harkin not even know what Dean said.

[karynnj]

27. I would ask if Dean understands what Harkin, a fifth term Senator said

Now, many have said Dean knows more about healthcare because he was a DR. Harkin, who has a longer record as a progressive, has a FAR deeper understanding of the Senate.

[depakid]

17. Even if that were true- put those provisions in a separate bill- DARE ANYONE TO BLOCK THEM

and if they do, use it as a theme for a nationalized election against one of the most unpopular set of corrupt entities in the country.

Talk about a way to muster and retake the populist anger and anxiety in America and use it to elect more progressives....

[Gregorian]

7. Then it'll need 60 votes to avoid a filibuster. OOPS, that's wrong. Only 50 votes. (See link)

Edit- So now even after all of the reading I've done I still don't remember the details of bill passage.


I've been hoping the House bill gets some action in this bill. Whatever that means. I'm still unclear about the process. But what I read is that reconciliation would require a new bill rewritten within the rules of reconciliation. And it would have to be voted on in the House and Senate before going to the president. And that maybe there could be ping-pong back and forth between the two houses.

I haven't seen a lot of discussion on this. Just things I've gleaned from posts.


edit- Jonathan Cohn is one who seems to really have a good handle on the process.

http://www.tnr.com/blog/the-treatment/reconciliation-why-most-dems-dont-want-go-there

Just a snip of it-

By now, you may be familiar with the way reconciliation works--and the pitfalls it presents. Under the so-called "Byrd rule," only measures that have a non-incidental effect on the budget may go through the reconciliation process. It is up to the Senate parliamentarian to make that judgment. And it seems at least possible--some, though not all, would say probable--that the parliamentarian would exclude key portions of reform legislation, such as some of the insurance reforms. Reconciliation presents other problems, as well. There's a time limit on debate over the bill itself, so Republicans could launch an official filibuster. But they could introduce an endless stream of amendments.

Of course, the parliamentarian might not make so many adverse rulings. Even if he did, the Democrats could always pass what they could through reconciliation, and then try to pass the rest of reform through the standard process. If Republicans tried to gum things up with amendments, Democrats could accuse Republicans of obstruction--and hope that voters see it as President Obama versus Mitch McConnell, a fight Obama probably wins.

But--and this is the key point that skeptics make--reconciliation might alienate more conservative-leaning Democrats in the Senate. These Democrats are desperate for Republican cover (even if it's just Snowe). As a result, holding even 50 votes for reform via reconciliation might not be that easy. It could be done, for sure. But, once concessions to those centrists are made, the bill might not look that different from what the Senate would have produced through the usual procedures.

[chill_wind]

8. Dean (WAPO)- Dec 17.

"If I were a senator, I would not vote for the current health-care bill. Any measure that expands private insurers' monopoly over health care and transfers millions of taxpayer dollars to private corporations is not real health-care reform. Real reform would insert competition into insurance markets, force insurers to cut unnecessary administrative expenses and spend health-care dollars caring for people. Real reform would significantly lower costs, improve the delivery of health care and give all Americans a meaningful choice of coverage. The current Senate bill accomplishes none of these.

(more)

"To be clear, I'm not giving up on health-care reform. The legislation does have some good points, such as expanding Medicaid and permanently increasing the federal government's contribution to it. It invests critical dollars in public health, wellness and prevention programs; extends the life of the Medicare trust fund; and allows young Americans to stay on their parents' health-care plans until they turn 27. Small businesses struggling with rising health-care costs will receive a tax credit, and primary-care physicians will see increases in their Medicare and Medicaid reimbursement rates.

Improvements can still be made in the Senate, and I hope that Senate Democrats will work on this bill as it moves to conference. If lawmakers are interested in ensuring that government affordability credits are spent on health-care benefits rather than insurers' salaries, they need to require state-based exchanges, which act as prudent purchasers and select only the most efficient insurers. Sen. John Kerry (D-Mass.) offered this amendment during the Finance Committee markup, and Democrats should include it in the final legislation. A stripped-down version of the current bill that included these provisions would be worth passing."


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=389x7253593#top

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2009/12/16/AR2009121601906.html

[Gregorian]

10. Dean wants reconciliation

Here's more from a link I posted just above your post. And I don't mean to distract from your post. I just want to add to it.


Howard Dean's group, has (via TPM) launched a campaign to pass health care reform through the reconciliation process. The idea is that while there may not be 60 votes in the Senate to support a public option, there may be 50. And, in the reconciliation process, legislation can pass with just 50 votes, with no worries about rounding up the 60 it takes to break a filibuster.

As discussed here and elsewhere, many times, it's an intriguing idea--and not just because it might make a public option possible. Fifty votes instead of 60 means fewer interests to accommodate. Democratic leaders in the Senate could stop watering down reform in order to appease centrists and Republican Olympia Snowe. With reconciliation, in theory, it'd be possible to get something that looks less like what Senate Finance will take up this week and more like what the House and Senate HELP committees passed over the summer--that is, a bill with better funding, more generous subsidies and financial protection, along with (perhaps) more far-reaching reforms of the medical delivery system. All very good things.

[Sheltiemama]

31. That's what he kept saying on Keith's show earlier this week.

I greatly respect Dr. Dean.

[AllentownJake]

9. This is like drug re-importing

You can't have the mandates in reconciliation and people were promised some mandates.

[Jersey Devil]

11. There are limitations on reconciliation that might prevent a lot of the bill

from passing under the "Byrd Rule" and a lot of ambiguity about the terms of that rule. So what if they try it and Byrd himself, who made up the rule, says "No, you can't do it that way." Did you ever consider that maybe they asked him already and aren't doing it the "easy" way (reconciliation) because you can't?

[jgraz]

12. Perhaps, but then you wrap that up in a bill that you pass in regular session.

Let's see Joe & the Repukes filibuster the things they already agreed to (e.g. no pre-existing conditions).

On the other hand, if you have a public option, you can tie ALL new insurance regulation to the budget as it will help reduce the number of people who need to rely on the government for insurance.

[uponit7771]

14. Right, pass regulations via regular process and price controls via reconciliation

[uponit7771]

13. The limitations on what can pass reconciliation would strip the bill down no doubt

[Phx_Dem]

15. I think you're the one who doesn't get it. Reconciliation is only for budget

related bills. Almost everything remaining in this bill in the way of regulations would be stripped during reconcilliation. There would be nothing left. This has been said numerous times by Ron Wyden, Lawrence O'Donnel and a couple of others.

Reconciliation would only work well for a public option bill by itself, without the rest of the bill attached. If this is what Dean is advocating, he doesn't know anything about the senate rules or reconciliation. He should talk to Wyden.

[jgraz]

16. Enlighten us all... what does "budget related" mean?

(hint: just about anything you want)

[depakid]

18. He doesn't know- because the definitions themselves are ambiguous

If one can make a case for ANWR drilling-- then one can make a case for a whole lot of things.

[jgraz]

19. If we had some aggressive leadership in the party, this thing would already be done.

So fucking frustrating... :banghead:

[depakid]

20. It is indeed a matter of political will and fortitude (or whether Dems want to keep their majority)

which they may well lose by making excuses, looking like weak, inept appeasers and passing this unpopular, dysfunctional crock of a Senate bill.

Here's the skinny:

The basic theory of the Byrd rule is that any legislation considered under the budget reconciliation process should principally affect federal revenues. A tax cut, for instance, can be considered under the reconciliation process. A new federal holiday cannot. But between those two examples sit crucial ambiguities.

The Byrd rule states that legislation is unfit for reconciliation if it "produces changes in outlays or revenue which are merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision." I asked Jim Horney, a budget expert at the Center for Budget and Policy Priorities, how you define "merely incidental." And what, exactly, is a "provision"?

He sighed. A provision, he said, is "not defined anywhere. It goes well below a title or section of a bill and even below a paragraph. But exactly what it is nobody knows." And the Senate rules offer no more clarity on the definition of "merely incidental." Asked if anyone had developed an accepted meaning, Horney seemed almost apologetic. "No," he said. "Absolutely not."

The matter is not simply academic: The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision -- however that is defined -- is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?

It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable. Under George W. Bush, Republicans managed to ram tax cuts, oil drilling, trade authority, and much else through reconciliation. But they were as often disappointed: The GOP leaders fired two successive Senate parliamentarians whose Byrd rule rulings angered them.

[jgraz]

22. At this point, I really wonder if the Dems *want* to keep the majority

After all, it's a lot easier to play the timid loser if you don't have 60 votes in the Senate.

[depakid]

24. Considering how many have been behaving- on issue after issue

that's a legitimate question.

It's a pretty good bet at this point that if things continue as they are, that at the very least, a lot of blue dogs (who have the smallest swings) will be gone- along with Reid and Blanche Lincoln.

In some respects- considering their self destructive actions- and the deleterious effect they have on the party (including blameless candidates down ticket at the state and local levels) that's a silver lining.

[karynnj]

29. ANWR drilling was not passed under reconciliation

If it could have been, it would have passed in the Bush years, rather than failing each time.

[depakid]

30. But NOT because the process wasn't available AND used

That's the key point- one that all too many are ignoring- or making excuses about.

[karynnj]

32. What ? They couldn't pass it under reconciliation which took 50 votes

Instead, it was always subject to filibuster (cloture votes). The Republicans had more than 50 votes - they needed 60 on this.

[depakid]

33. Get your facts straight- makes for more effective apoligias (60 votes not required)

One example of how it went down:

Republican leadership in the U.S. House of Representatives, bowing to pressure from GOP moderates, stripped provisions that allow oil and gas drilling on the coastal plain of the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge and offshore in the Lower 48 from a $54 billion budget reconciliation bill late Nov. 9.

A group of 30 moderate Republicans, led by Rep. Charlie Bass, R-N.H., voiced objections to the legislation earlier, vowing to vote against it if ANWR, offshore drilling and cuts to certain entitlement programs remained in the bill. The sweeping bill trims government programs such as Medicaid and food stamps and alters several regulations in an effort to reduce the federal deficit. The House Resources Committee included ANWR drilling in the bill to generate $2.5 billion in new revenue.

The concession, which also lessened cuts to food stamps, came during a meeting of the House Rules Committee, the final stop for the Deficit Reduction Act before it heads to the House floor.

The move, however, offers no guarantee the bill will pass. Forty conservative Republicans from western states vowed earlier in the week to oppose a bill that did not contain ANWR drilling.

http://www.petroleumnews.com/newsbulletin/136136612.html

[karynnj]

28. Heck, he should listen to Bernie Sanders! Who disagrees with him

[La Lioness Priyanka]

23. yes, he is and reconcilation is the smart way to get this achieved

[amborin]

25. good idea!