House Retains Public Option In Compromise, But Delays Vote Until September

House Retains Public Option In Compromise, But Delays Vote Until September | TPMDC

Yeah! Public option still on the table and Blue Dogs getting in line! Excellent.

Ok, here's some late breaking detail on the nature of the compromise between House Blue Dogs and Democratic leadrs.

I'll fill in more blanks as I get more information, but here are some key aspects of the agreements. After a week or so of canceled hearings, the Energy and Commerce Committee will continue to mark up House health care legislation this afternoon, and pass a bill by the end of the week. On substance, the exemption from penalties to small businesses that do not provide health care to workers has been raised slightly to include small businesses with payrolls of $500,000 per year or less.

The public option hasn't gone away, and remains in tact. States will be able to erect health care co-operatives if they choose, but that would be in addition to the public option.

I'm still not entirely clear where the $100 billion cost cut comes from, and, as before, it's hard to know what will happen to the politics of this over the August recess. But there will almost certainly be a bill ready for a vote when the House comes back into session in September.

Click to expand...

I think everyone one in Congress agrees that our health care system does need to be changed somewhat. I don't think anyone is arguing that treatment, surgery and general access to services are a problem within our health care system. The problems stem from access/coverage to everyone and how to keep the overall cost of health care down.

I'm glad to hear that the House is taking more time to work through the issues. I'd much rather they take their time and get it right than to rush anything through. Health care reform is probably the only area of the President's platform that concerned me. Not that I thought he'd butcher it, but rather I knew it would be an extremely difficult issue to get right...or improve.

While I'm glad that the momentum seems to be shifting yet once again on the health care debate, and the chances of it becoming a reality, I think the Blue Dog's may have overstated their opposition to the bill if they did a complete 360 this fast. My question now is why the sudden change of heart? By sudden I mean it was 2 days ago that they said there were a dozen issues that was keeping them from supporting it. I find it odd they could work out that many sticking points so quickly.

Surely they realize that was a dangerous strategy in showing such a huge difference within their party in the face of growing opposition to the health care bill.

I haven't read all the details yet of why the sudden change, but as a voter who supports a Blue Dog in my voting district, I'm not very happy with how this all played out.

tumbleweed said:

While I'm glad that the momentum seems to be shifting yet once again on the health care debate, and the chances of it becoming a reality, I think the Blue Dog's may have overstated their opposition to the bill if they did a complete 360 this fast. My question now is why the sudden change of heart? By sudden I mean it was 2 days ago that they said there were a dozen issues that was keeping them from supporting it. I find it odd they could work out that many sticking points so quickly.

Surely they realize that was a dangerous strategy in showing such a huge difference within their party in the face of growing opposition to the health care bill.

I haven't read all the details yet of why the sudden change, but as a voter who supports a Blue Dog in my voting district, I'm not very happy with how this all played out.

Click to expand...

I was reading a 'process' article the other day that said sometimes it's difficult to tell someone who's speaking out against a bill b/c they are going to vote against it, from someone who's speaking out against the bill b/c they are trying to improve their bargaining position.

I don't know how much of the Blue Dogs speaking out has been the first, but I suspect for most/many of them, it was the latter.

ps - Intrade odds took a dive Friday and yesterday, but went up 13.0 points today. Now sitting at 40.0% chance of passage by Dec 31, 2009:

Intrade Prediction Markets

Yes, the momentum has changed for the better and it looks like they are going to stay a bit longer to get it done too so the recess won't interfere. Love it!!!

according to cnn, 4 of the 7 dogs on commerce-energy caved for a savings of 100 bil

that is, 3 of the 7 are still in opposition, melancon being the most notable

the point---it got thru committee, congrats

now, the FLOOR

point #2---as this bill stands, it's best hope is to get thru lower parliament, just like cap and trade, by a squeaker margin of 4 or so

any bill (especially one so big and important) that skinnies its way thru lower house by so narrow a majority is DOA on the expensive blue carpet

point #3---thus, as it is formed presently, this compromise has NO CHANCE in the senate

two days ago kent conrad (the guy on baucus' GATEWAY cmte, senate finance, who elicted the killer testimony from cbo/elmendorf that the COST CURVE under waxman/rangel, contrary to reversing its trajectory as required to underfund all obama's ambitions, instead rather steepens its trajectory up SIGNIFICANTLY) said to the media that in this senate, as it is currently comprised, there is no chance of a reform passing entirely on blue lines

conrad said 2 days ago that if there are no REDS backing whatever reform, it's dead

he's right

that's why yesterday you heard so much talk about the 3 dems and 3 repubs (led by kerry and judd gregg) who could maybe try to shake hands on a deal that drops completely any "govt option"

basic reality #1---you have got to have some gop support for, fingerprints on whatever reform you intend or you have no chance in the senate

sorry, it's just the way it is

point #4---this movement thru energy-commerce, therefore, with the govt option still alive can be seen as a setback

at least, it's going the wrong way if your goal is ultimately to pass anything

basic reality #2---ANY PLAN THAT EXPANDS COVERAGE TO INCLUDE ILLEGALS---IN THIS ECONOMIC LANDSCAPE---IS POLITICAL SUICIDE

i am sincerely shocked (once again) at the tineared stupidity of the democratic leadership on this

so dogmatic, so harvard

so a-political

pelosi/obama do NOT understand america if they think NOW is the time even to contemplate a budget bankrupting expansion of med insurance that includes 15 or so million illegal americans

i'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of covering our hispanic neighbors and friends, i'm discussing the POLITICS of it only

upshot---this passage thru COMMITTEE in lower house is not much progress

compared to where we've been, ok, sure---congratulations

but looking down the road, obama's health care may be in even more trouble

what the 4/7 of the dogs on committee agreed to today is gonna CATCH HELL before the full floor

pelosi had to "break both arms" to get cap and trade thru by a margin of 4

3/7 of the dogs SIGNALLED their continued OPPOSTION to waxman/rangel today, look at it that way

this was done to provide political cover for the president, for the party, only

waxman/rangel has ZERO chance in the senate

sorry

either obama's gonna have to meet judd gregg and mr grassley half way or he is DOOMED on the expensive blue carpet

that's the lay of the land

a couple other quick realities:

1. waxman/rangel contains large CUTS TO MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

how do YOU feel about that?

how do you think that's gonna fly POLITICALLY?

2. just wait til the dogs (and others) get home for recess---they are gonna hear it hella hyper from their homies

The Prof said:

pelosi/obama do NOT understand america if they think NOW is the time even to contemplate a budget bankrupting expansion of med insurance that includes 15 or so million illegal americans

i'm not talking about the rights and wrongs of covering our hispanic neighbors and friends, i'm discussing the POLITICS of it only

Click to expand...

I don't know what kind of margin the bill might pass the House with, so I skipped those parts, however, the bill will not be budget bankrupting, by the time it gets to the floor it will be deficit neutral over 10 yrs. Also, the House bill does not cover illegal aliens.

jackalope said:

I don't know what kind of margin the bill might pass the House with, so I skipped those parts, however, the bill will not be budget bankrupting, by the time it gets to the floor it will be deficit neutral over 10 yrs. Also, the House bill does not cover illegal aliens.

Click to expand...

no, friend, the heller amendment failed in ways and means along party lines on july 17

heller would have ensured that e-verify be used to ensure that only legal citizens receive whatever expanded med coverage emerges

Newsmax.com - Obama Health Plan to Cover 12 Million Illegals

as for the margin of passage of waxman/rangel on the full floor, of course i don't know either

but 3/7 of the bluedogs in energy-commerce are OPPOSED today

strong indication that as many dems are squeamish here as they were over cap and trade last month which passed by a margin of 4

jackalope said:

I don't know what kind of margin the bill might pass the House with, so I skipped those parts, however, the bill will not be budget bankrupting, by the time it gets to the floor it will be deficit neutral over 10 yrs. Also, the House bill does not cover illegal aliens.

Click to expand...

cbo/elmendorf does not agree with your assertion of revenue neutrality, either

and whatever 4/7 of the dogs signed on to today has yet to be scored

100 bil of savings is not gonna balance, i'm afraid

100 bil is pennies compared to what's needed

and don't forget, friend, that much of the "revenues" pelosi/obama are counting on comes from CUTS TO MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

that's a big part of what so pissed off elmendorf when he testified on thursday the 16th before baucus' GATEWAY cmte (senate finance) under questioning from kent conrad

the same day cbo/elmendorf testified in the GATEWAY that the COST CURVE does NOT reverse its trajectory but instead steepens up SIGNIFICANTLY

The Prof said:

cbo/elmendorf does not agree with your assertion of revenue neutrality, either

and whatever 4/7 of the dogs signed on to today has yet to be scored

100 bil of savings is not gonna balance, i'm afraid

100 bil is pennies compared to what's needed

and don't forget, friend, that much of the "revenues" pelosi/obama are counting on comes from CUTS TO MEDICARE AND MEDICAID

that's a big part of what so pissed off elmendorf when he testified on thursday the 16th before baucus' GATEWAY cmte (senate finance) under questioning from kent conrad

the same day cbo/elmendorf testified in the GATEWAY that the COST CURVE does NOT reverse its trajectory but instead steepens up SIGNIFICANTLY

Click to expand...

As I stated in my post by the time it gets to the floor it will be revenue neutral. The first CBO scoring was not the same as the second, and the second CBO scoring (which showed a $239billion increase in the deficit over 10 yrs) is not even current anymore. There have been at least 3 add'l provisions added, which the CBO has also scored.

The revenues that they are counting are tax increases, as was campaigned on, the rest of the way to pay for it is cost savings, and I'm good with that being cuts to Med/Med. You don't get cost savings unless you cut.

As a side note, Obama has already said he will not sign a bill that is not deficit neutral, so there will not be in increase in the deficit from the final product.

jackalope said:

As I stated in my post by the time it gets to the floor it will be revenue neutral. The first CBO scoring was not the same as the second, and the second CBO scoring (which showed a $239billion increase in the deficit over 10 yrs) is not even current anymore. There have been at least 3 add'l provisions added, which the CBO has also scored.

The revenues that they are counting are tax increases, as was campaigned on, the rest of the way to pay for it is cost savings, and I'm good with that being cuts to Med/Med. You don't get cost savings unless you cut.

As a side note, Obama has already said he will not sign a bill that is not deficit neutral, so there will not be in increase in the deficit from the final product.

Click to expand...

thank you, jackalope, very fair and reasonable you are

many WILL be bothered by shavings, not savings, from medicare and medicaid, sacred cows my entire long life

many seniors will be offended, i fear

cbo/elmendorf, too, who expressed objections before baucus' senate finance on thursday, the 16th

and when the world finds out that millions of illegals are included...

in other words, much easier said than done

good luck, friend

cliff

jackalope said:

As a side note, Obama has already said he will not sign a bill that is not deficit neutral, so there will not be in increase in the deficit from the final product.

Click to expand...

And we all know how well Obama keeps his promises...