Democrats Preparing Health Care "Plan B"

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:30

Following the August recess, Democrats appear ready to drop "bi-partisan" negotiations, and push health care through with a party-line vote:

With the health care bill languishing in the Senate and under fire in the House, Democratic leaders are quietly preparing for Plan B.

Under the scenario now being discussed, bi-partisan talks would be aborted and parliamentary maneuvers used to force the bill through with a party-line vote.

Senate Finance Chairman Max Baucus, D-Mont., still has time to try to work out a deal with his Republican counterpart Chuck Grassley, but fellow Democrats are growing restless.

"There's rising disgruntlement with how Baucus has handled this," a senior Democratic aide tells ABC News. "We have to look at other options."

Good. There were several problems with the Baucus "bi-partisan" plan:

Over-representative of Republicans. The mini-committee of six included an even number of Democrats and Republicans (three on each side), even though Democrats control 60% of the seats in both the House and the Senate.
Negotiating with the wrong Senators. Two of the three Republicans being negotiated with (Enzi and Grassley) weren't even the key swing votes to reach 60 Senators.
Nothing in it for Republicans. Republicans have no political interest in passing health care legislation. they will be better off if it fails, electorally speaking.
Republicans weren't negotiating in good faith This is demonstrated by Enzi's demand that, other than the gang of six, all other negotiations in Congress and with the Obama administration must be dropped until they three Republicans in the gang agree to anything. Demanding total power over all negotiations is not actual negotiation. It is just a power grab.
Unrepresentative of the country. Those six Senators represented states that collectively formed only 3% of the national population.(Montana, North Dakota, Wyoming, Maine, New Mexico and Iowa)..

For the reasons outlined above, the Baucus bi-partisan plan was flawed in both concept and in execution. Further, whatever function it might have served as a public display to attempt bi-partisanship has already been accomplished.

At this point, if Democrats don't circumvent Baucus and Republicans, we are doing ourselves, and the country, far more harm than good. Abstract process concepts like bipartisanship won't reduce the percentage of GDP spent on health care, and certainly won't cover any more uninsured Americans.

Chris Bowers :: Democrats Preparing Health Care "Plan B"

Tags: partisanship, Democrats, health care, (All Tags)

Print Friendly View

Send As Email

Democrats Preparing Health Care "Plan B" | 13 comments

I agree completely, Chris. (4.00 / 7)

3% of the nation and half Republican. It always was a bad approach.

let's put good policy over bad optics of bipartisanship.

by: Tom Wells @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 13:50:48 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Thank you! (4.00 / 3)

let's put good policy over bad optics of bipartisanship.

I'd love for the White House to toss out the David Broder columns and take your advice.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:48:29 PM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I agree, and how about Weiner's suggestions? (4.00 / 5)

Weiner tried to force Republicans to be consistent and vote to get rid of Medicare; they wouldn't do it, because it is very popular, of course. But their constituents don't know it's a Federal program!

I've not understood the desire for bipartisanship on this, when the Republican Congress simply ignored and railroaded the Dems on everything.

Also, the tactics of AHIP (busing people all over the country and coaching them how to shout down Democrats on healthcare) recently found in a memo really shows the Mafia-Fascist orientation that big business has taken in this country, with Republican assistance: shout down everyone, then you'll get your way. Strong-arming, the protection racket ("security") et al: same as the Italian Noisists, the mafia, and the Nazi student movements of the 1930s. They worked, too.

All in the interest of monopolizing the money stream... (See ThinkProgress for the memo).

by: jjmm @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:31:36 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

I've said it before... (4.00 / 2)

During the stimulus debate, and I'll say it again now. I don't give a flying f*ck if this is a "bipartisan bill". I just want a bill that will work for us!

Jeez, when did "bipartisanship" ever prevent unnecessary deaths, keep kids healthy, or help people afford their prescription drugs? Who cares about bipartisanship! Just get the job done and pass an HR 3200 that will actually move us forward in getting affordable, quality health care for all Americans.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

by: Andrew Davey @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:47:17 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

yes! (4.00 / 3)

Under the scenario now being discussed, bi-partisan talks would be aborted and parliamentary maneuvers used to force the bill through with a party-line vote.

music to my ears!

by: The Big Hurt @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 14:59:28 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Also, contrast with terrible Republican plan (4.00 / 4)

Introduced yesterday with little fanfare,

the Republican health bill would be a disaster for ordinary Americans, but it's the health insurance industry's dream. It slashes consumer-protection regulations, it increases health care costs by subsidizing private insurance while simultaneously deregulating it, and it would create another explosion of federal debt.

In short, it would destroy the best parts of our current healthcare system and make all the worst parts worse -- it would probably ensure that even fewer people could get care and would cost our country even more.

No sane person would try to negotiate with anyone who thinks this is a solution.

by: RandomNonviolence @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 15:20:01 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

What are the blue dogs thinking? (0.00 / 0)

They want to save a few million in insurance campaign contributions? For what?

NO ONE will be voting for them. No Democrats or Republicans will support someone who is 1) Still a Democrat and 2) Killed Public Health Care.

If you want to stay an elected rep, you better pick one side or the other. The middle is a certain death knell.

by: ravenshroud @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:20:20 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Why not compromise? (4.00 / 3)

Throw out the Health Exchanges and the co-ops and the firewalls and the whole 1000 pages.

Just start lowering Medicare eligibility.

Lower it by 2 years every year until everyone is covered. No new machinery, no nothing.

Medicare is a popular program, and the closer people get to needing it the better they like it, and the more they want to get into it. So, lower to 63, then 61, and so on and so forth.

If you want to get there faster, then make the increment 4 years, not 2.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.

by: lambert @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 17:49:02 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

we still need guaranteed issue (0.00 / 0)

so that people with pre-existing conditions do not continue to be screwed until they are old enough for Medicare.

We need a few other things in the bill too (like letting Medicare bargain for lower drug prices).

But in general your approach is a great idea.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.

by: desmoinesdem @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 00:22:36 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Lowering Medicare eligibility (0.00 / 0)

I forget where I got it from, but it's not my idea, so I can't take credit; it's "in the air."

It's in this hellaciously good video from Anthony Weiner on the amendment to finally give the Republicans a chance to abolish the government-run health care they hate so much -- Medicare!

And now that single payer is going to get an up or down vote on the House floor, we have a better chance to push these issues forward!

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.

by: lambert @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 08:37:21 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

Medicare for those Denied Coverage (0.00 / 0)

How about anybody that gets denied coverage by private insurance is eligible for Medicare immediately? This works as a REAL INCENTIVE for private health care insurance to step up and perform.

by: glenjo @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:25:18 AM CDT

[ Parent ]

It was a Gang of Seven (4.00 / 3)

Until July 22 when Hatch walked. Meaning that the original balance was 4 Rs to 3 Ds. Given a 60-40 D to R ratio 4 to 3 the other way is a pretty odd way to get to bi-partisanship. For all practical purposes Baucus has been caucusing with the other side.

by: Bruce Webb @ Fri Jul 31, 2009 at 22:39:06 PM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Trye and thanks (0.00 / 0)

The Progressive Caucus has come up with some good ideas, and, Rep Wiener and others tried in the House Energy & Commerce--but the Blue Dogs and GOP--not at all!! Baucus is operating under a $1.5 m conflict of interest and should step down and recuse himself. Put someone in charge who KNOWS COMMUNITY health care and lets get the most peopelp covered that we can, as quickly as we can!

That would be (in teh House ) HR 676, or, in Senate , Sanders Bill, but....

by: KDelphi @ Sat Aug 01, 2009 at 09:54:59 AM CDT

by: you @ soon

To post this comment click here:

Otherwise click cancel.

Democrats Preparing Health Care "Plan B" | 13 comments

Start a Petition »