Three interesting articles re: health care - sounds like there will be some movement

First the Senate ~
Next Step for Senate Liberals: Get the Ball Out of Baucus' Court
Brian Beutler | September 8, 2009, 9:21AM

... Once it's out of committee, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid will take the lead in merging it with legislation voted out of the Senate Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions committee--and at that point, the fate of the public option in the Senate will be largely in his hands.

Many observers expect that he'll affix a public option to a trigger, which will be pulled years down the line if insurance companies don't lower prices and expand access on their own.

... For weeks now, it's been clear that a bill without a public option will be a hard sell in the House, but a bill with a public option will be a hard sell in the Senate. By the end of the day, we should have a clearer idea who's going to win that tug of war.

Next Step for Senate Liberals: Get the Ball Out of Baucus' Court | TPMDC

Click to expand...

Then the House ~
Key Liberals Willing to Bargain
Sept. 8, 2009
By Tory Newmyer and Steven T. Dennis
Roll Call Staff


... The “trigger” approach has been considered a deal-killer by liberals on and off Capitol Hill, and the willingness of some Congressional Progressive Caucus members to entertain it reflects a recognition that a bruising August recess has imperiled prospects for reform and redrawn expectations for what is possible.

“This is a way to get a bill,” Rep. Bill Pascrell (D-N.J.) said. “I believe it’s worth listening to because I want legislation that is going to, in some shape or form, expand coverage and bring down the cost of health care.”

Liberals stressed that the shift does not amount to an abandonment of their commitment to a “robust” public insurance option. They said they would only support a trigger if that approach guaranteed the same access, quality and affordability.

“I don’t want to give the impression that I’m so flexible that I’m willing to compromise away meaningful reform,” Rep. Jim McGovern (D-Mass.) said. “But there may be a variety of ways of getting there than the one I originally formulated in my mind.”

The development could open a path forward for the White House, which has so far been vexed by the threat of a liberal rebellion in the House if it backs off a far-reaching public insurance option or a revolt by Senate moderates if it insists on one.

more ...
Key Liberals Willing to Bargain - Roll Call

Click to expand...

And, last, an article about the 'reconciliation process' in the Senate (aka 50 votes plus Biden ... ) ~

The pros and cons of reconciliation


... Reconciliation is a rarely used legislative maneuver designed to apply only to bills on spending, taxes or both. Under it, legislation is fast-tracked, so amendments are limited, and debate is closed after 20 hours. It requires just a simple majority of 50 senators for passage, not the 60 votes needed to thwart a filibuster.

The procedure was created in 1974 but wasn’t used until 1980, when then-House Budget Committee Chairman Leon Panetta (D-Calif.), now director of the CIA, employed it to pass spending cuts.

Since then, Republicans have invoked the process to cut taxes or spending in 1981, 1996, 2001, 2003 and 2005. Democrats used it to cut taxes and increase spending in 1990 and to raise taxes and cut spending in 1993, according to an analysis by Michael Solon, a lobbyist at Capitol Legistics and a former adviser to Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

As Congress began using the process more regularly, lawmakers also began to find ways to get policy past its seemingly impenetrable revenue-related framework.

The 1997 Balanced Budget Act, for instance, was passed through reconciliation and created both the State Children’s Health Care Program, known as SCHIP, and the Medicare Advantage program for the elderly.

The Bush White House considered using reconciliation to pass its prescription drug plan for seniors, but it was blocked when then-Sen. Don Nichols (R-Okla.) objected to creating a new spending program with fast-tracked legislation.

But Solon said he couldn’t recall a time when Congress “rewrote an entire part of the private sector” through reconciliation.

If Senate Democratic leaders decide to proceed down this road, most experts say the proposals by Senate Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.) to pay for health care overhauls would easily fall under reconciliation guidelines.

“A lot of this stuff is going to cost money. The stuff that costs money, they can do,” said Martin Paone, a lobbyist with Timmons & Co. who, as a top Senate aide, managed Democratic floor strategy for years.

They’d have to avoid one booby trap, though.

A reconciliation bill cannot increase the deficit beyond the budgetary window. That was the fine print that forced President George W. Bush to accept a sunset on his 2001 tax cuts.

The Bush White House gambled that the Democrats would never take the political risk of allowing the tax cuts to lapse. But the Republicans bet wrong, and the tax cuts are set to expire next year.

more ...

The pros and cons of reconciliation - Politico.com Print View

Click to expand...

jackalope said:

Three interesting articles re: health care - sounds like there will be some movement this week ....

Click to expand...

DarkWizard12 said:

And that movement will fail, guarrenteed.

Click to expand...

Supamanu said:

Does anyone else suspicious as to how they are going to lower costs and at the same time start insuring more people, including the costlier pts with preexisting conditions.

Click to expand...

formerroadie said:

They can't without a public option. That's the point of what all of us liberals have been saying.

Edit: No, the public option is the best way to lower costs, but putting everyone in the pool will also do that as long as there are proper regulations on the system. That said, public option will need to be in place. Conservatives need to stop fighting what everyone knows will work. Why do we know? Because we see it work fine in many other countries.

Click to expand...

Weiner: “I Don’t See Any Way” I Can Vote For Bill Without Public Option

We now have a House Dem who’s not a member of the progressive caucus signaling he won’t vote for a health care bill without a public option.

Dem Rep. Anthony Weiner, who’s taken on a counterintuitive and increasingly high profile role defending the public plan, just said for the first time in an interview with me that he doesn’t see “any way” he can vote for a bill without the public option in it.

“I dont see how I could,” said Weiner, when I asked whether he’d vote for a bill without a robust public plan. “I dont see any way I could.” His throwing down of the gauntlet is more striking when you consider that he’s known at home in New York as a moderate who’s not known for bucking leadership.

more ...

Click to expand...

Snowe: White House Needs to Compromise on the Public Option
Brian Beutler | September 9, 2009, 3:31PM


"I talked to [President Obama] last week while I was in Maine and I talked to him on Monday as well," Snowe said on MSNBC earlier today. "We talked about the public option. I was ... urging him if he could take the public option off the table in his speech this evening so it could provide, I think, a momentum of a different kind in moving this issue forward overall."

Despite this pressure, Obama is nonetheless planning to support the public option in his speech tonight, by some accounts very strongly. However, Snowe remains convinced that the President will be flexible on the public option when push comes to shove.

Click to expand...

jackalope said:

Three interesting articles re: health care - sounds like there will be some movement this week ....

Click to expand...

danarhea said:

I will bet you dollars to donuts that MY upcoming movement happens before this one does. :mrgreen:

Click to expand...