Reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, should be the fallback plan in the Senate

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 11, 2009 at 14:58


Even as he is bringing a health care bill with an opt-out public option to the Senate floor next week, Harry Reid is making it clear that he is open to a triggered co-op if he is unable to find 60 votes for cloture:

Even as Senate Majority Leader Reid seeks votes for a healthcare bill with a public option that states can opt-out of, Reid has allowed Sen. Thomas Carper, D-Del., to work on what one aide called a "Plan B" if Reid cannot line up 60 votes for cloture.

Carper said he and some other senators, whom he declined to name, are working on an alternative public option if the opt-out falls short.

In states where private insurers fail to offer affordable coverage, Carper said the alternative would permit them to set up a non-profit board, likely appointed by the president, to offer insurance.

Yikes!  A triggered co-op!

If there is any bright side to this, it lets us all know what is at stake in the Senate fight over the next few weeks.  Either we round-up the five problem Senators--Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson--to vote for cloture, or else the Senate will bring a triggered co-op to the conference committee.  Those are pretty high stakes.

In addition to applying pressure on the five problem Senators, one move we need to make is to push for reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, as the fallback plan.  Right up until the end of the process, the bill can still be split into two parts: one with the new regulations that requires 60 votes to reach cloture, and one with the public option and subsidies that can be included in the budgetary process and which cannot be filibustered.

Since there are at least 51 votes for a public option in the Senate, and since reconciliation is still on the table, if we don't end up with a public option it won't be because we didn't have the votes.

Chris Bowers :: Reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, should be the fallback plan in the Senate

Tags: , , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, should be the fallback plan in the Senate | 33 comments
Question re reconciliation (0.00 / 0)
Do we know it would work?  That is, what would happen if the bill containing the regulations doesn't reach cloture and thus is not enacted?  And how likely is this?
here's mcjoan with quotes from schumer (0.00 / 0)
Forget 60, Harry. Any compromise you have to make with Lieberman (and now Nelson and Casey on abortion) ain't gonna be worth it. Get serious about this and start, at the very least, making reconciliation a real threat. Go back to the Schumer split bill plan from this summer before Kennedy's seat was filled:

Are you planning on having an interim appointment from Massachusetts?

No, I don’t know. That would be up to the Massachusetts state legislature but I know they’re considering it. Ah, so, so the bottom line is that even with 60 or even if Olympia Snowe comes to some kind of agreement, it’s going to be hard, and I’ve always favored using reconciliation for good parts of the bill. I think that will get you the best bill, the strongest bill and the bill that will have the greatest positive effect on the American people. Ultimately, we’ll be judged not by whether we pass the bill, but ultimately we’ll be judged by whether it works. Leaving the bill as something that doesn’t work, even if we pass it, leading to hurting both the country and the party.

Is it possible that using reconciliation will produce an ineffective bill, because of procedural problems like the Byrd rule?

We’ve looked at it and you can’t use reconciliation for everything, [but] you can use it for a good number of things. There’s nothing wrong with using it for the places where you can use it and then trying to get the 60 votes on the places where when you can’t. You’d be surprised — the number of places where you can use it is larger than we first thought.

Use it. Use reconciliation for the good parts of hte bill and pass the other critical insurance reforms, which are not controversial (despite the fact that Boehner forgot to include them in his bill) through the regular 60 vote process. We have a better chance of getting a strong public option and killing the Stupak Coathanger amendment this way.

But Reid's got to have the spine to do it. And once he does that, the spine to get the caucus to do what it needed to do months ago--cut Lieberman loose.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyo...
[ Parent ]
Thanks, but (4.00 / 1)
I still wonder whether:

a) The non-reconciliation part can really be limited to provisions that are "non-controversial".

b) Regardless, whether opponents of the "good parts" that can pass through reconciliation won't still filibuster the other piece of the bill in order to kill the whole thing.  I mean they aren't that stupid, and their insurance company friends certainly aren't.

I'm not sure this approach wouldn't work, but it's based on the assumption that we will easily get 60 votes for the (presumably necessary) non-reconciliation part of the bill, which it seems to me has simply been assumed rather than demonstrated.

[ Parent ]
It's complicated - and simple (4.00 / 1)
There are two elements here.

First, a serious reconciliation plan is inherently going to be complex: elements like the split bill are easy enough in principle to devise, but things like the Senate Parliamentarian element makes the practice much trickier. (What if he refuses to help draft the bills? What if he rules the 'clean' element in the reconciliation violates the Byrd rule?)

I'd really love to get into the minutiae of this stuff.

But - that brings us to the second element: reconciliation requires a bunch of Dem senators with qualities (cohesion, iron determination, singleness of purpose, ruthlessness) that the senators we have do not, as a bunch, possess.

Not for the first time, when things look as if they're not going too well, Bowers brings up reconciliation; the flaws in the plan get pointed out; he declines to engage seriously with the arguments and moves onto other matters.

Probably the same this time.

[ Parent ]
60 votes is dead (4.00 / 3)
If you say you're working on a back-up plan, you remove all incentive for wavering senators to back your first proposal.

Reconciliation now. We won't get 60.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog

yes (4.00 / 1)
go to reconciliation now

don't waste time with lieberman & co., they won't come around to support a decent bill, the bill that would get them will be horrible

[ Parent ]
who push where how? (4.00 / 1)
if anybody has leverage on the Senate, it's the House. it might be useful for Pelosi to declare a triggered co-op DOA. but after last week, will anyone believe it? i wish i could but mostly i don't. i think whatever comes out of conference will pass the House no matter how hideous, because that's how we do.

otherwise, though, what? we can push on Reid some more. we could try to get MoveOn to add this to their criteria for that war chest they're building. just voting for "the health care reform bill" is not enough.

could we get Sanders and Brown and maybe one or two others to promise to vote against cloture on the Frankenstein's option?

not everything worth doing is profitable. not everything profitable is worth doing.

A Clusterfuck strategy is needed (4.00 / 4)
The way to get reconciliation is to create a clusterfuck -- complete Senate gridlock -- where no plan can get 60 votes for cloture (assuming the Reid proposal is gutted or cant' get 60 itself). That requires some public option supporters (Sanders? Burris? Others?) to filibuster any degradation of the Reid proposal.

We won't get reconciliation simply to get a better bill. We'll only get reconciliation when it's clear that it's the only way to get any bill at all.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

Yes (4.00 / 1)
time for two new whip counts:

1) list of senators who will filibuster anything not containing a public option: and

2) 41 Dem Senators who will vote against a triggered co-op amendment because the Republicans will probably vote for it (a la Stupak amendment) just to gum up the works.

John McCain won't insure children

[ Parent ]
Aren't we there already - (0.00 / 0)
conditions for Senate Gridlock?

I'm referring to your comments in Chris' earlier post on the safety of 60 votes.

http://www.openleft.com/diary/...

[ Parent ]
Depends... (4.00 / 1)
...on whether a) enough Senate public option supporters (to reach 51 votes) are willing to compromise to triggers/coops for the sake of comity, protecting their industry sponsors and the goal 60 on passage cloture and, b) if so, is there one (or more) PO supporter(s) willing to be as absolute as their LieberDem counterparts and filibuster the "compromise?"

If we get 'a' and not 'b,' you know, for the sake of moving the process forward etc., then we're screwed. The changes will be made with 51+ votes and then passed. IMO, what you need to force reconciliation is absolute gridlock -- no version that can get 60 votes.

Here's one more horrifying thought: If we get 'a' and 'b' to force gridlock, there no guarantee that reconciliation won't be used to pass the trigger/coop bill. After all, it will have received 50+ votes.

Which brings me the real point implied in all of this: It's really important that we start whipping and maintaining 51 votes for the Reid language. If triggers/coops cannot get 51 votes it puts the LieberDems in a bad spot and forces them to cause the gridlock or capitulate.

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
re: gridlock (0.00 / 0)
Here's one more horrifying thought: If we get 'a' and 'b' to force gridlock, there no guarantee that reconciliation won't be used to pass the trigger/coop bill. After all, it will have received 50+ votes.

that is horrifying

seems the clusterfuck strategy [1st post above] is needed badly

chris? adam? mike? start pushing it?

[ Parent ]
But maintain 50+ support for Reid's version of the bill (0.00 / 0)
That's the way I interpret this part of Steve's post:

Which brings me the real point implied in all of this: It's really important that we start whipping and maintaining 51 votes for the Reid language. If triggers/coops cannot get 51 votes it puts the LieberDems in a bad spot and forces them to cause the gridlock or capitulate.

[ Parent ]
Yes (4.00 / 1)
Better that we get to reconciliation with 51+ votes for Reid being blocked by the LieberDems than the other way around. If we're blocking 51+ votes for triggers/coops,  that's what will have the momentum going into reconciliation.

There's some high stakes here and we've been sleeping a little thinking the 60 vote myth protects the Reid language.  

Self-refuting Christine O'Donnell is proof monkeys are still evolving into humans

[ Parent ]
Given how bad the House bill is, (4.00 / 4)
how bad will it be when the Senate is done with it?  If they do reconciliation, will they eliminate the mandates?  I am not interested in subsidizing private for profit Medicaid, which is all that I think the House bill is.  If we are going to expand Medicaid, I want it government run -not privatized.   Like they privatized the military, they are also after health and human services.  They won't rest until they have the military, social security, and health and human services.  

I am afraid to trust them and think I would prefer to see the whole issue die.  I really don't see how "we" not "maybe some" of us come out ahead.  If Democrats again represent the some instead of the all, the conservatives will breath new life into dreaded welfare queens.    

Carper is a DLCer. (0.00 / 0)
No surprise.
Killing the whole thing should be the fallback (4.00 / 4)
My wife and I have been taking a closer look at this mandate.  It's terrifying.  If we hit the income limit, we'll just be squeaking by.  And then we're forced to spend 12.5% of our income on insurance?

We go under.  We lose our home.  The money's not there.

Or we're hit with a 2.5% fine.  For nothing.

The mandate might not be so awful for the very poor, or for the comfortable middle class.  But for millions of Americans in the middle, this is a disaster.

And how is it to be enforced?  The IRS?  Will our tax return have a box saying are you insured?  If not, add 2.5% of your income to what's due.  If insured, give company name and policy number.  And if you don't, or lie, you are now a criminal.  What happens when the government starts digging into our bank accounts.  When THEY decide we can pay based on their tables, and we're fined or sent to jail?  This isn't the crazy death panels.  This is right in there.

I'm in no way a teabagger.  But when they are saying keep the government out of our lives, my heart leaps.  If this bill wreaks havoc on my family, then it deserves to go down in flames.  Again, the details have been kept under the radar, and progressives are caught flat-footed.  Again, we'll see the problem at the last minute.

Sorry, I've sacrificed a lot over the years for social justice.  Gladly and proudly.  But I'm not going to be thrown under the bus because it's needed in order to make the Democrats look good.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

AH you are so right. (4.00 / 1)
You are being thrown under the bus!  Don't worry, you won't be alone!  Can you imagine....thrown in jail for not having insurance?  What about the Amish?  They will all go to jail.  None of them carry insurance.  They don't believe in it.  So you will be there with at least another 122,000 other folks.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.
[ Parent ]
There's gonna be a hardship waiver (4.00 / 2)
and I'm guessing that there'll be a religious waiver as well.

In which case we should start our own religion: I-Don't-Want-To-Give-My-Hard-Earned-Money-To-Those-Corporate-Bastards-ism.

[ Parent ]
And who defines the hardship? (0.00 / 0)
The same people who determine welfare eligibility?

True, I suppose, that they'll only jail people -- rather then just fine them -- for WILFUL failure to pay.  And how will they define wilful?  By the people seeking government revenue looking at their charts.  Look, I've paid taxes all my life, no problem with that in principle.  But these are hard times and I'm up against the wall.

As will be a lot of people.  People talk so calmly about how we need to pass some piece of shit now, and we'll improve it later.  But this bill is in fact an attack on the Democratic base, and the Democrats will pay for this in 2010 and beyond because it will make working people's lives WORSE!  And then what will we be able to pass?

A mandatory jobs program?  The teabaggers are fascist-led, but they strike some legitimate nerves that snide liberals just don't get.

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...

[ Parent ]
Don't Worry (0.00 / 1)
If you're a small business, the Cap and Tax bill will put you under the bus.

I think that if the Republicans step back from this legislation, it would sink the Democrats when the public finds out about all of the legislation and how it misses the goals of coverage and costs.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.

[ Parent ]
"Cap and tax" (0.00 / 0)
WTF?
[ Parent ]
Oh I get it (0.00 / 0)
but the sad fact of life is that it's not going to work without a mandate.  Now I think a fine is not only unnecessary but completely wrongheaded and counterproductive, and I've said before that there needs to be alternative ways to act on the mandate (auto-enrollment, setting aside the money in a health savings account) and we need to ensure that the subsidies are generous enough that people aren't going to feel any financial pain from this legislation.
[ Parent ]
but given that what you suggest is not the case ... (0.00 / 0)
... the current bill must die and a new one be written that contains your excellent suggestions

Full Court Press!  http://www.openleft.com/showDi...
[ Parent ]
Chuck Schumer is trying to get the savings account idea through (0.00 / 0)
and for what it's worth the fine has already been reduced, thanks to Olympia Snowe (for once she's done something I agree with).
[ Parent ]
Just because we have 51+ votes for a PO (0.00 / 0)
doesn't mean we have 51+ votes for a PO under reconciliation.

I imagine that if we use reconciliation there'll be at least a few Senators who suddenly won't go along with it because they have concerns over Senate procedure.

Vital point, this (0.00 / 0)
Which - dare I say? - I made six weeks ago, in response to Bowers' then apparent failure to recognise the distinction.

Which is still apparent.

[ Parent ]
I think (0.00 / 0)
that reconciliation isn't quite what it seems.  It would involve cutting up that hog of legislation and in many respects the individual pieces would not stand.  Knowing that all of the pieces would be interconnected, it will take a very long time.

Conservative......CNN news:Nopenhagen: US PRES 2 WKS LATE ATTEND 1 DAY, GORE JOURNEY BY TRAIN.
[ Parent ]
There might be a few that do that (0.00 / 0)
if people believe that holding up a vote on the central issue for the Democratic Party should be allowed in the name of Senate rules that are only honored in the breach and designed to avoid accountability.  I'm not sure the number of people outside the Senate who agree with that proposition is very large.

Politics is the art of the possible, but that means you have to think about changing what is possible, not that you have to accept it in perpetuity.
[ Parent ]
Robert Byrd opposes reconciliation (0.00 / 0)
As yet, nobody else has come out and said so.

Forgotten Countries - a foreign policy-focused blog
[ Parent ]
last paragraph (4.00 / 1)
The Democratic aide said staffers have tried to keep Carper's alternative quiet due to concerns that publicity could draw attacks from liberal activists, which could complicate efforts to line up support from the full Democratic caucus.

too late chumps!

Haha they're scared of us! (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
Actually, isn't it bad to let Senators know there's an alternative in the works (0.00 / 0)
because it encourages them to vote against Plan A?
[ Parent ]
Reconciliation, not a triggered co-op, should be the fallback plan in the Senate | 33 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox