Pelosi: "We're Good" with White House; No Amendments to Bill (Yet)

by: Chris Bowers

Thu Oct 29, 2009 at 15:21


I was just on a progressive new media call with Speaker Pelosi on the health care bill. Quick report:

  1. Vote in two weeks, or more. Speaker Pelosi anticipates that there will be a vote next week or the week after "under the best of circumstances." So really, two weeks is the earliest there will be a vote on final passage.

  2. No amendments (yet). She has not given thought to floor amendments at this time ("I have not gone to that place" was the exact quote).  She would have to be talked into amendments, but she is open to it. Further, she added that those who are opposed to the bill will have procedural options on the floor other than amendments, such as motions to recommit and instructions to conferees.

  3. On Bart Stupak. In what was almost certainly a reference to Bart Stupak's efforts to disallow any health insurance plans in the new exchanges from covering abortions, she said that "no poison pill" amendments that would kill the entire bill would be allowed. If offered, Stupak's amendment would probably pass, and then the entire bill would go down because it would lsoe dozens of pro-choice Democratic votes.

  4. Relationship with the White House. On whether the White House offered enough support during the process, the Speaker said "we're good" and "no complaints."

  5. Kucinich amendment. I asked the Speaker about whether the bill contained the Kucinich amendment allowing states to adopt single-payer health care.  The Speaker replied that the bill did not include this amendment, noting that it only passed through committee in the first place due to Republican support.  She did say that she is meeting with Representatives Kucinich and Weiner later today to discuss what happens next for single-payer.

  6. Single-payer substitute amendment. On bringing a substitute amendment on single-payer to the floor (Representative Weiner's desired amendment), she said that such an amendment cannot be brought to the floor until it is scored by the CBO. Whether or not such a score will come to pass will almost certainly be discussed in her meeting with Representatives Weiner and Kucinich later today.

  7. On the Senate bill. Referring to the Senate, she said "we're the strongest  bill on the table."

  8. Millions already reading the bill. As of 2:45 p.m., there were over 8.2 million downloads of the health care bill. Which is probably why the Speaker's blog is crashing.
Although Speaker Pelosi did not say so on the call, the whip operation for the health care bill was demanding answers from all members by 3:00 p.m. eastern.  So, right now they are probably adding up the results, and seeing if they are at 218 or not.  More information as I receive it.
Chris Bowers :: Pelosi: "We're Good" with White House; No Amendments to Bill (Yet)

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Pelosi: "We're Good" with White House; No Amendments to Bill (Yet) | 48 comments
I was on a Frank Pallone call (4.00 / 2)
If anyone is interested, I posted my account at Blue Jersey:

Frank Pallone on health care reform.

He was very positive,as you'd expect if you've been following.  

ps. Thinking of lambert, I specifically confirmed with him that the exchanges/public option start in 2013.


New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

Kucinich amendment (4.00 / 2)
noting that it only passed through committee in the first place due to Republican support.

why is that a bad thing???????

Presumably because . . . (4.00 / 1)
The GOP support was intended to make the whole bill harder to pass.  I'm for the amendment, no idea what impact it's presence/absence would have on passing the whole bill.  I would tend to suspect not much, but who knows?
[ Parent ]
If the bill outlaws single payer experiments in the states... (4.00 / 2)
... which is what not having the Kucinich amendment, in effect, does (by permitting successful challenges to single payer programs under ERISA), then the bill should not pass.

After all, one of the powerfully stated initial rationales for the incremental approach was that it would lead to single payer. Outlawing single payer experiments at the state level hardly seems like a good first step toward that goal.

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

[ Parent ]
It does not outlaw anything... (4.00 / 1)
...the amendment only makes it easier for states to deal with ERISA issues.  Big difference!

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
This is a major loss. (4.00 / 4)
There are up to six states which would have begun moving to single payer immediately if ERISA and other federal obstacles were relaxed.
[ Parent ]
Linky goodness? (4.00 / 1)
I believe you, but a list would be nice. We might call the Reps in those states, for example.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
What possible justification is there (4.00 / 6)
for Congress to deny states the power to enact their own universal health care systems?  

Support a Pennsylvania Progressive for Governor - Joe Hoeffel
[ Parent ]
The insurance companies will have a real problem... (4.00 / 1)
... when single payer is shown in the general population, and not just for over-65s (Medicare) or veterans (the VA).

Therefore, since the aim of the bill is to give the business model of health care for profit a new lease on life by guaranteeing the health insurance companies a big new market, single payer experiments cannot be permitted to succeed.

It's just a matter of public policy.

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

[ Parent ]
That's a reason (4.00 / 1)
[ Parent ]
Depends upon one's perspective (4.00 / 1)
Profits justify for some.

"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."
[ Parent ]
I love how the most bipartisan amendment gets dropped (0.00 / 0)
during a time when bipartisanship is to D.C. Democrats what sex is to a horny teenager.

I guess bipartisanship is only good when it comes in the Snowe/Nelson/Bayh/Lieberman flavor.  If it's Kucinich's dirty work it could nail down every Republican vote and still be cast aside like legislative trash.

[ Parent ]
No poison pill! (4.00 / 4)
This is the advantage of having a mother of five as speaker of the House -- she knows how to deal with whiny brats!

Montani semper liberi
Yeah, but according to Pelosi, single-payer is a poison pill. (4.00 / 2)
Hence her decision not to allow a vote on the Kucinich and Weiner amendments.  She's afraid of losing the right-wing of her party if such amendments were to pass into the final legislation, even though she never had its support to begin with.


[ Parent ]
With no state single payer experiments, the bill should not pass (4.00 / 2)
Period.


I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
I'm in agreement. (4.00 / 1)
:^(


[ Parent ]
from fdl (4.00 / 2)
Also, the public plan for the uninsured is not tied to Medicare rates, which probably means that even the skimpy 9-10 million people estimated to sign up by the CBO for the original plan is a big overestimate. It is even possible, if the plan resembles the one in the Senate HELP bill, that no one would sign up for this plan; in other words the plan would be moribund.
...
There was one bright light amid the darkness due to Medicaid coverage being expanded to 150 percent of poverty level, up from the 133 percent in the original versions. It will be interesting to see how many people qualify when the CBO scores the bill. This makes one thing crystal clear: the Medicaid expansion has ended up being a far more important part of this bill than the public plan for the uninsured. Back in July, they were roughly equal in importance: the Medicaid expansions would cover 11 million more people, and the uninsured plan would cover 10 million. One figure is now certain to rise significantly and the other seems destined to fall.

This puts the lie to the HCAN claims of the significance of the "public option," or to use more honest language, the uninsured plan. The biggest expansion of public programs under this bill will now come unequivocally from the Medicaid single payer plan. The hoax has now been revealed: there will be little significant impact from the uninsured plan, and at this point it may even be advisable to stop discussing it entirely and focus any efforts on retaining the Medicaid expansion in conference.

http://seminal.firedoglake.com...

it says 150% is $33,000 for a family of 4

what do you think about the medicaid expansion?

This is one the best parts of the bill for poor people. (4.00 / 1)
It will also prove more expensive than people think, based on the experience in states like New York which have significantly expanded their Medicaid programs. It faces competition from the Cantwell amendment in the Senate which is cheaper because it forces these folks into managed care. But managed care can be spotty in rural areas so Medicaid is better overall.
[ Parent ]
If the medicaid provision is the most important part of the bill (4.00 / 1)
then it's only there to keep progressives on board to vote for a crappy insurance company bailout.

Seriously, many doctors are refusing to take Medicare patients, and in many states the patients on medicaid can be dropped from a treatment plan for something simple like just missing one visit.

Screw the medicaid provisions, they aren't enough to make a bad bill worth passing, and this is looking more and more like a bad bill.  

[ Parent ]
Quick question... (4.00 / 1)
Do the Democrats really not have enough votes to stop the Stupak amendment if it came to the floor?  What a crappy caucus we have if so.
probably not (4.00 / 2)
there are a lot of otherwise progressive representatives who are not pro-choice.

Kucinich was one until 2003.

[ Parent ]
How big is this public option and what's next? (4.00 / 1)
Passing a health care reform bill with a public option is obviously a huge progressive victory in the movement for universal affordable health care.

My questions are not directly related to Speaker Pelosi's comments, but I thought I'd ask them here anyway.  They also may be premature questions, but here goes:

How do progressives, such as Chris Bowers, rate the current public option proposals in the House and Senate Bills?

What will be next in terms of health care?  Will President Obama "be the last" to take up this cause or will there be more work to do in terms of achieving affordable health care for all U.S. residents?

Any responses or links to articles that touch on these questions would be most appreciated.

This bill really only deals with expanding coverage, not controlling costs. (4.00 / 1)
Since health care inflation will continue unchecked, premium subsidies will increasingly fall short. This will need to be addressed with a major revision of the reform within a decade. The bill does have several (weakened) cost control provisions including an advisory panel that gives suggestions about cost-effective treatments, and the public option. Medicare drug price negotiation is a huge cost-saver in the House bill, but it violates a backroom deal Obama made with the industry so it will have to be stripped out in conference committee.
[ Parent ]
I thought (4.00 / 2)
controlling costs was one of the primary things we were fighting for (and the primary thing Obama wanted).  If it's not going to do anything to control costs, then why should we support it?  We'll just be putting tens of millions more people into the system with increasing costs and no way to pay for it.  That doesn't sound like it's going to make things better for people.  If anything, it sounds like that's going to make things worse.  Much worse, because the only way people will be able to avoid it is if they're destitute.

What the fuck is wrong with our congress that this is the best they can come up with?  It's sick.

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
As Pyrrhus says... (4.00 / 1)
"Another victory like this and we are undone."

How in the name of sweet suffering Jesus is a public option that isn't open to all and will have 10 million enrollees by 2019 (CBO estimate) a "huge progressive victory"?

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

[ Parent ]
As Pyrrhus says... (4.00 / 1)
"Another victory like this and we are undone."

How in the name of sweet suffering Jesus is a public option that isn't open to all and will have 10 million enrollees by 2019 (CBO estimate) a "huge progressive victory"?

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

[ Parent ]
re: 10 million (4.00 / 1)
the 10 million number is if the exchange remains limited to non-workers and business <25?
[ Parent ]
The 10 million... (4.00 / 1)
... is the CBO estimate before the release of the bill. Presumably it's still valid, but the situation is dynamic. If somebody wants to show there are going to be 130 million enrollees, a la the original Hacker public option proposal, then great.  

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Another left-wing veto. (4.00 / 5)
I suppose it's obvious, but it might be reiterated: the ability of the left to block the Stupak amendment is another instance of a credible threat from the left to shoot down a tainted bill.

Part of the larger story over health care in the last few months has been whether the left wing can make the sorts of credible veto threats that the centrists routinely make in order to get their way.  The argument is repeatedly made that, because a public-optionless bill is still better than no bill, the threats by the left to vote down a P.O.-less bill are not credible.  This is generally part of a larger theory that threats from the left are not credible, because the centrist-moderated bill is generally still better than no bill (political scientists, for instance, will almost always argue this way, as will "realistic" pundits).  But in fact there are plenty of examples where the left does in fact exercise a veto -- it's just that a) it happens in a much more unobtrusive way (no one outside of the most engaged knows anything about the Stupak amendment, though they certainly would know if it passed!), and b) issues like choice are somehow categorized differently than policy issues like health care.  The result is that people don't realize that the left is issuing credible veto threats all the time, and that it would be no miracle for them to have done so over the public option.  Sure, it would be hard -- the stakes are high -- but it is by no means the case that, because they are the left wing rather than the moderate wing, they have no credibility to their threats.  The Stupak veto proves otherwise.  

I was right on Stupak, apparently (yay, me!) (0.00 / 0)
Away with false modesty!

Despite a degree of disbelief elsewhere, it seems that Stupak was a credible threat after all - as I suggested.

I infer from what Chris says that the usual provision for a motion to recommit with instructions will not be present in the rule under which the bill is taken - that would have been the route for Stupak to work his mojo.

(Of course, you wonder whether, if the miracle happens for the House GOP in 10, they might become stingier with MTRs, with the health care rule as pretext.)

Plus - so many Dem anti-abortionists in the House? Who knew...  

In short, Pelosi's screwing us again. (4.00 / 3)
No Kucinich amendment, no Weiner amendment.  What exactly are we getting out of this bill again?  Because it sure is looking a whole lot like nothing right now.


That's the sense I'm getting, too. (4.00 / 1)
It feels like the leadership is trying to break the prog bloc, which is the only thing that has a chance of killing a crappy bill, which in turn is what this bill is starting to sound like.  I'm always open to arguments for it being good, but the only good I'm reading out of this so far is all superficial stuff.  Nothing that deals with the core issues.

I think the assumption we should start with is that the bill is bad, and then try to disprove that assumption.  If it's a good bill, this won't be difficult to do.

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
What we're learning is that it's more important to declare victory.... (4.00 / 1)
... than to achieve it.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
[ Parent ]
Chris: (4.00 / 4)
You know I'm a harsh critic of yours, but I also want you to know I'm thankful for all the time and effort you're putting into this fight and others, and sharing what information you have with us.  You're invaluable to all of us on the left, and though I don't know you personally, I'll hazard a guess that you're a pretty darn good person, too. :)

Thanks for all you're doing for us.  Keep it up!

(Now back to my usual pessimism, already in progress.)

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.

Reading through the short-term bullet points. (4.00 / 1)
TOP 14 PROVISIONS THAT TAKE EFFECT IMMEDIATELY (pdf)

4. ENDS RESCISSIONS-Prohibits insurers from nullifying or rescinding a patient's policy when they file a claim for benefits, except in the case of fraud.

Unless the fraud is first proven in court, I don't see how this is any better than how it's currently done.  Anyone know where in the bill proper this is detailed?

9. IMMEDIATE SUNSHINE ON PRICE GOUGING-Discourages excessive price increases by insurance companies through review and disclosure of insurance rate increases.

Disclosure to whom?  Review by whom?  Do these reviewers have the power to stop a rate increase?  Would they be required to if they could?  Too many questions.

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.
States actually have a lot of power in this arena... (4.00 / 1)
...and even a bad insurance commissioner tends to side ith the people on matters of insurance.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
I think I found the section dealing with point 4. (4.00 / 1)
My legal-fu is weak, though, so I'm not sure if I'm reading this right.

From the 1990 page (dear lord!) bill (Title I begins on page 16; the relevant sub-section (f) on page 20):


TITLE I-IMMEDIATE REFORMS
SEC. 101. NATIONAL HIGH-RISK POOL PROGRAM.
[....]
(f) PROTECTION AGAINST DUMPING RISKS BY INSURERS.-
  1. IN GENERAL.-The Secretary shall establish criteria for determining whether health insurance issuers and employment-based health plans have discouraged an individual from remaining enrolled in prior coverage based on that individual's health status.
  2. SANCTIONS.-An issuer or employment-based health plan shall be responsible for reimbursing the program for the medical expenses incurred by the program for an individual who, based on criteria established by the Secretary, the Secretary finds was encouraged by the issuer to disenroll from health benefits coverage prior to enrolling in the program. The criteria shall include at least the following circumstances:
    1. In the case of prior coverage obtained through an employer, the provision by the employer, group health plan, or the issuer of money or other financial consideration for disenrolling from the coverage.
    2. In the case of prior coverage obtained directly from an issuer or under an employment-based health plan-
      1. the provision by the issuer or plan of money or other financial consideration for disenrolling from the coverage; or
      2. in the case of an individual whose premium for the prior coverage exceeded the premium required by the program (adjusted based on the age factors applied to the prior coverage)-
        1. the prior coverage is a policy that is no longer being actively marketed (as defined by the Secretary) by the issuer; or
        2. the prior coverage is a policy for which duration of coverage form issue or health status are factors that can be considered in determining premiums at renewal.

    (3) CONSTRUCTION.-Nothing in this subsection shall be construed as constituting exclusive remedies for violations of criteria established under paragraph (1) or as preventing States from applying or enforcing such paragraph or other provisions under law with respect to health insurance issuers.

(Formatting by me.)

From my understanding, the insurance industry can still rescind on a whim.  Then, when the person goes to the high-risk program (but not if they decide on a different insurance plan?), and if the reason falls within the criteria the Secretary (of Health and Human Services) establishes, the insurance company is supposed to reimburse for whatever had to be covered in the interim.

Does that sound right?

What stops the insurance company from going to court to contest this, dragging it out for years?  Also, I haven't seen anything on how this affects people once the PO is in effect (but again, it's a frickin' 1990 page bill, and I've only just barely looked at it).  Does the "high-risk pool" become the PO later on?  (So much to read, so very little time.)

If you don't fight, you can't win.
Never give up. Never Surrender.

[ Parent ]
Thanks for covering #5 and #6 (4.00 / 2)
And now whip for them.

I am in earnest -- I will not equivocate -- I will not excuse -- I will not retreat a single inch -- AND I WILL BE HEARD.  
Maybe you should (4.00 / 3)
Last time i checked you had a blog of substantial size that, unlike Open Left, actually talked about single-payer all the time.

Ever consider doing more than just talking about it? Can't just rely on other people to do your work for you.

[ Parent ]
Set an example yourself. (4.00 / 1)
You call yourself a left-winger, I presume.  Since you're actively pushing for something you know won't do the job and will likely kill genuine health care reform for at least another decade if not longer, you know what can be done to push Congress on single-payer.  You could try offering advice, maybe even use your blog to push for single-payer instead of this gutted and ineffective piece of legislative refuse.  But no, you just want to get snarky because someone insists on holding you to a higher standard.

Put your actions where your typing skills are, Mr. Bowers.  Help us push for genuine health care reform, and stop pushing for the weak compromise.  You know that the same things you've done to promote the bills you support can easily be used for H.R. 676.


[ Parent ]
Do you think that H.R. 676 has a chance of passing? (0.00 / 0)
Or do you just think maximizing it's vote is useful for other reasons?  I suppose it's conceivable that it could pass the House as an amendment with Republican support aimed at killing the bill, although I don't think most of them would do that.  It hasn't a prayer of getting 218 Democrats in the House or 50 in the Senate, leaving aside the filibuster thing.  Now I'm not saying don't push for it for long-term reasons.  If single-payer had a chance of passing this round I would give my guts for it.  But since it doesn't, and I don't agree that the bills on offer are "gutted and ineffective," I'm not devoting energy to it.
[ Parent ]
I remember when the CW was (4.00 / 2)
that ANY PO, weak or otherwise, had no chance of passing. Yet, some did not accept that answer and you can see the result.

Assuming defeat fron the outset is a sure fire way to fail. Even if a single payer proposal had no chance, as you say, there is some value in making the opposition go on record by voting against it, rather that rolling over as an opening bid. The conservatives should have been made to pry the single payer plan from the table. Ditto for every concession from now until the final bill w/amendments gets to the floor for a vote.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
You need to know where you are (0.00 / 0)
It is utterly obvious that single-payer had and has no chance to pass in this Congress, completely unlike ANY PO.  The CW and reality are quite different things.  Should progressives have tried to push it anyway, with the goal of getting a more left-wing bill?  I would say yes, although that approach doesn't always work -- the effects are less mechanical than you seem to be saying.  Positive thinking and smart, aggressive going after the prize are essential, self-delusion is harmful.
[ Parent ]
Be that as it may (4.00 / 2)
I'd suggest that the half-measure bill that appears to be taking shape is a fine example of what happens when folks decide that passing any bill is the definition of victory.

It is really a VINO: Victory In Name Only.



"It sounds wrong...
     ...but its right."

[ Parent ]
Having a vote on Medicare for All IS smart and positive (4.00 / 3)
Positive thinking and smart, aggressive going after the prize are essential, self-delusion is harmful.

I agree.  And this is how we go after the prize of Medicare for All.

1. Hold a vote on the Weiner amendment for H.R. 676 substitution.

2. See which Democrats in blue districts voted against it. (Obviously, there will be a large contingent of blue district Democrats who don't support it but will vote for it anyway for political cover.  Hopefully at least some will vote honestly.)

3. Target those blue district Democratic opponents for defeat in primary elections and replacement by Medicare for All advocates.

[ Parent ]
What I'm saying is this: (0.00 / 0)
HR 676 could have been used as the starting point, so that what we'd have ended up with is a much stronger public option than is being floated now.  Instead, we started with the half-measure and bargained down from there to the point where there's little worth passing.  It's madness.


[ Parent ]
thank you (0.00 / 0)
thank you very much chris for asking about the kucinich amendment. much appreciated.
thanks (0.00 / 0)
Chris, thanks for asking the Speaker about the Kucinich & Weiner single-payer amendments...
Pelosi: "We're Good" with White House; No Amendments to Bill (Yet) | 48 comments
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

Friends of the Earth thanks the OpenLeft community for the ideas you generate and your contributions to the progressive movement.
As an anti-spam measure, there is a 24-hour waiting period after registering before new users can comment.
blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2009, Powered by SoapBlox