Welcome Guest [Log In] [Register]
Add Reply
Blogging the healthcare debate.
Topic Started: Feb 25 2010, 12:43 PM (1,127 Views)
Baldo
Member Avatar

Pelosi & reconciliation

Pelosi flatly rejected Republican criticisms of Democratic plans to rely on a parliamentary procedure called "reconciliation" that requires a mere majority of 51 Senate votes, blunting Republicans' ability to kill the bill with delaying tactics that require 60 votes to overrun.

"What you call a complicated process is called a simple majority. And that's what we're asking the Senate to act upon," she said, outlining a three-step process to get the bill through.

Lawmakers would agree on the overall substance of the bill, then the Senate would determine what it can do with "reconciliation," and then the House would act, she said.


http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=CNG.ce7b18ff74d1dcc6be3181f05e48255b.151&show_article=1

Senator Mitch McConnell, said: “Using reconciliation would be an acknowledgment that there is bipartisan opposition to their bill, another in a series of backroom deals, and the clearest signal yet that they’ve decided to completely ignore the American people.”

When Pelosi was picked as Speaker of the House in 2006 some of us in California knew it would be an fatal mistake for the Democratic Party.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 

Pelosi Struggles to Corral Votes for Health Care Bill
February 27, 2010
By SHERYL GAY STOLBERG and ROBERT PEAR
WASHINGTON — The future of President Obama’s health care overhaul now rests largely with two blocs of swing Democrats in the House of Representatives — abortion opponents and fiscal conservatives — whose indecision signals the difficulties Speaker Nancy Pelosi faces in securing the votes necessary to pass the bill.

With Republicans unified in their opposition, Democrats are drafting plans to try on their own to pass a bill based on one Mr. Obama unveiled before his bipartisan health forum last week. His measure hews closely to the one passed by the Senate in December, but differs markedly from the one passed by the House.

That leaves Ms. Pelosi in the tough spot of trying to keep wavering members of her caucus on board, while persuading some who voted no to switch their votes to yes — all at a time when Democrats are worried about their prospects for re-election.

Representative Dennis Cardoza, Democrat of California, typifies the speaker’s challenge. The husband of a family practice doctor, he is intimately familiar with the failings of the American health care system. His wife “comes home every night,” he said, “angry and frustrated at insurance companies denying people coverage they have paid for.”

But as a member of the centrist Blue Dog Coalition, Mr. Cardoza is not convinced that Mr. Obama’s bill offers the right prescription. It lacks anti-abortion language he favors, and he does not think it goes far enough in cutting costs. So while he voted for the House version — “with serious reservations,” he said — he is now on the fence.

“I think we can do better,” Mr. Cardoza said of the president’s proposal.

Representative Frank Kratovil Jr., Democrat of Maryland, is also unconvinced. He voted against the House bill on the grounds that it is too big and too costly — a view that some constituents in his Republican-leaning district share. In case he did not get the message, one of them hanged him in effigy this past summer outside his district office on the Eastern Shore of Maryland.

“This system is broken; we have to do something,” Mr. Kratovil said. “But my preference would be to do smaller things.”

Under the Democrats’ tentative plans, the House would pass the health care bill approved in December by the Senate, and both chambers would approve a separate package of changes using a parliamentary device known as budget reconciliation.

The tactic is intended to avoid a Republican filibuster, but in the Senate, the majority leader, Harry Reid of Nevada, faces challenges if he tries to use it. He is having trouble persuading a majority of his caucus to go along.

In the House, lawmakers like Mr. Kratovil, Mr. Cardoza and other swing Democrats will come under increasing scrutiny from leadership as a vote draws near. Of the 219 Democrats who initially voted in favor of the House measure, roughly 40 did so in part because it contained the so-called Stupak amendment, intended to discourage insurers from covering abortion.

Some, notably Representative Bart Stupak, the Michigan Democrat for whom the amendment is named, will almost certainly switch their yes votes to no because the new version being pushed by Mr. Obama would strip out the House bill’s abortion restrictions in favor of Senate language that many of them consider unacceptable.

An additional 39, like Mr. Kratovil, are fiscal conservatives who voted no the first time around. Ms. Pelosi is hoping that she can get some to switch those no votes to yes in favor of Mr. Obama’s less expensive measure.

But persuading Democrats who are already on record as opposing a health overhaul to do a turnabout will not be an easy task, especially during a midterm election year in which Democrats’ political prospects already look bleak. Of the 39 Democrats who voted against the House measure, 31, including Mr. Kratovil, represent districts that were won in 2008 by Senator John McCain of Arizona, Mr. Obama’s Republican rival. Fourteen, including Mr. Kratovil, are freshmen, who are generally considered more politically vulnerable than more senior lawmakers.

“The concern among Democrats right now is that there are more yes votes reconsidering than no votes,” said David Wasserman, who tracks House races for the nonpartisan Cook Political Report. “My sense is that for Democrats to pass this bill, they would have to convince several members who are already in serious jeopardy, even after voting no on the first health care bill, to put passage of the bill ahead of their own chances of being competitive in the fall.”

But politicians do not want to be martyrs. They want to hold onto their seats.

Ms. Pelosi is facing resistance from some of her most senior members, like Representative Ike Skelton, Democrat of Missouri and chairman of the Armed Services Committee. He has been in office since 1977, but is facing his toughest re-election challenge in years.

Mr. Skelton says he does not see any improvements in the measure that would cause him to vote in favor of it; like Mr. Kratovil, he favors a smaller, less ambitious bill. “It would be a lot easier,” he said, “if we cut this back to basics — take two or three or four issues on which everyone agrees and build on it.”

Others, like Representative Jason Altmire, a Pennsylvania Democrat who also voted against the House bill, seem to wonder aloud why Mr. Obama is bothering. With so many Democrats feeling nervous about their past votes in favor of the health bill, Mr. Altmire said, he can imagine vote-switching in only one direction: from yes to no.

“I don’t know of any no votes at this point that would switch unless the bill is substantially changed, including me,” he said. “And I know of a handful of yes votes who regret it and would relish the opportunity to put a no vote on the board so they could go back home and talk about that.”

Analysts like Mr. Wasserman say Ms. Pelosi’s best chances for no-to-yes conversions rest with Democrats who are retiring, because they do not have to worry about their political fortunes. So far, there are only three: Representative John Tanner and Representative Bart Gordon, both of Tennessee, and Representative Brian Baird of Washington.

Mr. Tanner has told colleagues he has no intention of switching his vote, said one Democratic lawmaker who has spoken with him. And in interviews on Friday, Mr. Gordon and Mr. Baird sounded decidedly noncommittal.

Mr. Gordon said his constituents were “starting to get a little bit tired” of hearing about health care. He said he wanted to see “at least a partially bipartisan bill” — something that now seems impossible in the House, given that the lone Republican who voted in favor last time, Representative Anh Cao of Louisiana, has publicly changed his mind.

Mr. Baird said he was “totally undecided” about whether he could support the new version taking shape in Congress, though he did say the bipartisan forum Mr. Obama conducted at Blair House on Thursday would “potentially” make him more likely to vote for the legislation, perhaps because Republicans seemed so dug in against it.

“At several points,” Mr. Baird said, “President Obama tried to find common ground, only to see the other side go back on message.”

Publicly, House Democratic leaders are trying to sound upbeat. The House Democratic whip, Representative James E. Clyburn, Democrat of South Carolina, said last week that he felt “pretty good” about the chances of passing Mr. Obama’s bill. But the leadership has not yet started counting votes, and a senior House leadership aide, speaking on condition of anonymity, conceded that rounding them up would not be easy.

“It’s going to be a heavy lift,” this aide said, “but so have many other votes. In the last health care vote we really didn’t have the majority until the afternoon, and this will probably be that way, too. That’s how these votes come together in the end.”

Carl Hulse contributed reporting.

I'll hold myself to 3 remarks on this article, one which invites many more. The first is that the passge of the health bill does not look likely or wise for most.

Second, the NY Times doesn't even seem to promote it.

Last, I've had the understanding that the "reconcilliation" approach requires "deficit reduction" when only the majority is required in the Senate. The net outcome of the proposed health care bill is a trillion plus in the red to reduce a few billion from the deficit. IIIRC about how it works, I'm lost on how it can be used. I supposed spending a dollar to save a dime is the government's way of reducing the deficit, but come on...

Edited by kbp, Feb 27 2010, 11:46 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

Quote:
 
Republicans Gird for Democrats' End Run on Health Care

The Senate appears to be gearing up to use a rare budgetary maneuver to push through a Democratic-supported health care plan, but even the Senate Democrat's top budgeter says it can't be used for wholesale reforms.

The Senate appears to be gearing up to use a rare budgetary maneuver to push through a Democratic-supported health care overhaul, but even the Senate Democrat's top budgeter says it can't be used for wholesale reforms.

Sen. Kent Conrad, D-N.D., the chairman of the Senate Budget Committee, said the rules around "reconciliation" only allow for items that can be budgeted to be approved through the process that allows for a simple majority of 51 Senate votes.

"The major package of health care reform cannot move through the reconciliation process. It will not work," Conrad said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

"This whole bill cannot be passed on reconciliation. It would be the budget elements of the bill, with a simple majority vote," Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., agreed on "Fox News Sunday."

Under the limitations of reconciliation, items like prohibiting insurance companies from denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, establishing health insurance exchanges or preventing lifetime caps on insurance are not covered under reconciliation.

But supporters of the legislation promoted by President Obama at a marathon health care summit last week say that's just what Americans roundly support.

"They want to end the preexisting conditions. They want to afford health insurance. ... And they want to stop the insurance company abuses," Menendez said on "Fox News Sunday."

Last Thursday's summit at Blair House in Washington, D.C., was a crystalline moment, say participants and observers, in that it demonstrated the philosophical differences between the parties on the role of government in health care reform. It also solidified the notion that most every elected official in Washington agrees something must be done to change the way people access health care.

But agreement ends there, and that's what's causing such angst. Democrats say that reconciliation will be used to cut taxes, expand small business insurance policies, reduce costs for the same plan Americans now have and decrease the deficit.

But big-ticket items like shifting Medicare revenues to fund a new program or expanding government payments to the states to use for Medicaid are exactly what the GOP opposes.

Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wis., said the funding elements of the bill won't balance spending the way Democrats assert.

The Congressional Budget Office's claims for a $132 billion reduction in the deficit over 10 years is based on its inability to strip out aggravating details, he said, but much of the legislation that would be passed through reconciliation involves the double-counting that sends the package into the red.

"The legislation that's been put in front of them is full of smoke, mirrors and gimmicks. ... If you take all the double counting out of the bill, which the CBO can't do because that's the way it's put in front of them, this thing has a $460 billion deficit in the first 10 years, a $1.4 trillion deficit in the second 10 years," he said.

"Let me give you an example. It double counts Medicare cost savings. It double counts increased taxes for Social Security, increased premiums for this new CLASS Act. ... If you're going to say that all these Medicare cuts are improving the solvency of Medicare, which is what they say, then you can't use that money to spend on the creation of another government program."

Sen. Jon Kyl, R-Ariz., who appeared with Menendez, said reconciliation is not designed for the purpose of passing a massive new entitlement program. He said the tool is limited because it is designed as a budget balancing maneuver. Kyl added that Americans are "leery" of any bill that spends about $2.5 trillion over 10 years.

"The tax cuts that my friend Bob Menendez talks about are really direct subsidies to the insurance companies. There was a deal made with the insurance companies. We will force everybody to buy insurance and then we, the federal government, will pay you, insurance companies, directly. It's not a tax cut to people. The people never see the money," he said.

The limits of reconciliation also make it an inappropriate tool for passing a major overhaul, said Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell.

"Many of these insurance reforms we could pass on a bipartisan basis, but you wouldn't have to cut Medicare by half- a-trillion dollars, levy a half-a-trillion-dollar tax increase, put that on the side, and let's talk about insurance reform and legal reform, getting rid of junk lawsuits against doctors and hospitals. Those are the kinds of step-by-step reforms that we've been -- that we've been talking about," McConnell, R-Ky., said on CNN.

Republican Rep. Marsha Blackburn said her state of Tennessee already tried a similar idea with Medicaid and failed.

"We rolled the dice on this in Tennessee over a decade ago, made the gamble that near-term expenditures could be offset by long-term savings. Those savings never materialized," she said.

Conrad called the elements of reconciliation "side-car" items.

"The role for reconciliation would be very limited. It would be on side-car issues," Conrad said.

"Anything that doesn't score for budget purposes has to be eliminated. That would eliminate all the delivery system reform, all the insurance market reform, all of those things the experts tell us are really the most important parts of this bill," he said.

Even if Senate Democratic lawmakers do decide to go for the brass ring by using reconciliation, the legislation still has to be matched in the House of Representatives, and that's not a sure thing.

"I think their bigger problem is going to be in the House of Representatives where they basically don't have any votes to spare on a pure majority vote," Kyl said

The House passed a different version from the Senate last year on a 220-215 vote, but new vacancies and some representatives' refusal to go along with the Senate bill puts House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in a difficult position.

In an interview that aired Sunday Pelosi said that the time for talk is over, but determining the policy, learning what the Senate can achieve and then counting votes among House Democrats still have to take place. She declined to say whether she's got the votes to pass a new bill.

"We have a very diverse party, but we all agree that the present system is unsustainable. ... We cannot afford the rising cost of -- of health care," she said.


Good article that touches deeper on what is required to use the "reconcilliation" plan. It appears to support how I understood it to work.

The Democrats evidently feel they can call overspending a "deficit reduction" and hope to tack on the rest of their health care plan a piece or two at a time later.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
longstop
longstop
Article from Redstate.

http://www.redstate.com/moe_lane/2010/02/27/health-care-reconciliation-is-an-exercise-in-futility/

Health care reconciliation is an exercise in futility.

Ed Morrissey sums up his major counter-argument thusly to Andy McCarthy’s argument that progressive Democrats are ready to trade control of Congress in exchange for imposing health care rationing on the populace:

Andy may be right that Democratic leadership has made the decision that political oblivion is an acceptable cost for a one-time remaking of America that Republicans will find difficult to reverse in the next session. However, I suspect that this strategy doesn’t account for the fact that the people who will actually have to end their careers may not appreciate getting forced into marching off a cliff while the leadership stays safely in their rear-echelon bastions of San Francisco and New York City.

…and I’d like to add my two cents: it won’t work anyway. People like to talk about how government programs and agencies never die, once instituted, with the Great Society and the New Deal being the most used examples. What’s not mentioned is that both of those programs were popular. People wanted a Social Security program. They wanted Medicare. They do not notably want this monstrosity of a health care bill*. And if the Democrats decide to (and manage to) force it down our throats anyway, Republican legislators will find a way to shut it down in January 2011. The government has had over two and a quarter centuries to develop bylaws, operational procedures, codicils, and whatnot; there is always going to be a legislative fig leaf, suitable for framing and rationalization.

I consider this bill dead. But if the Democrats are so determined to resurrect it, fine: we’ll just prune their internal power structure down to the roots in November and kill the bill again in January. In fact, that sounds kind of fun.

Moe Lane

Lots of comments.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
cks
Member Avatar

They first need to pass the Senate version in the House - Pelosi does not have the votes. I don not think there is enough arm twisting to bring that about. Is is no wonder that today on television she looked as if she had been sucking on an extremely sour lickle.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
abb
Member Avatar

cks
Feb 28 2010, 02:39 PM
They first need to pass the Senate version in the House - Pelosi does not have the votes. I don not think there is enough arm twisting to bring that about.
I think that is accurate. You can always tell when they don't have the votes - lots of chatter and hot air, yet no votes are scheduled.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

Obama, Reid, Pelosi are about to commit politcial Suicide. They are also about to throw away the filibuster rules out of the senate and the violate the rules of the House.

Let's see if any Blue Dog Democrats have any courage?

White House: Simple up-or-down vote on health care

WASHINGTON – The White House called for a "simple up-or-down" vote on health care legislation Sunday as Speaker Nancy Pelosi appealed to House Democrats to get behind President Barack Obama's chief domestic priority even it if threatens their political careers.

In voicing support for a simple majority vote, White House health reform director Nancy-Ann DeParle signaled Obama's intention to push the Democratic-crafted bill under Senate rules that would overcome GOP stalling tactics.

Republicans unanimously oppose the Democratic proposals. Without GOP support, Obama's only chance of emerging with a policy and political victory is to bypass the bipartisanship he promoted during his televised seven-hour health care summit Thursday.

"We're not talking about changing any rules here," DeParle said. "All the president's talking about is: Do we need to address this problem and does it make sense to have a simple, up-or-down vote on whether or not we want to fix these problems?"

DeParle was optimistic that the president would have the votes to pass the massive bill. But none of legislation's advocates who spoke on Sunday indicated that those votes were in hand.

"I think we will get to that point where we will have the votes," predicted Sen. Robert Menendez, D-N.J., a member of the Senate Democratic leadership. "I believe that we will pass health care reform this spring."

In a sober call to arms, Pelosi said lawmakers sometimes must enact policies that, even if unpopular at the moment, will help the public. "We're not here just to self-perpetuate our service in Congress," she said. "We're here to do the job for the American people."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100228/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
Edited by Baldo, Feb 28 2010, 05:42 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
Baldo
Member Avatar

"Bipartisanship is a two-way street. A bill can be bipartisan without bipartisan votes..."

When asked to grade the past year, Pelosi said, "I think I get an A for effort."

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/84089-pelosi-gop-has-had-its-day-217-healthcare-votes-in-sight


She is nuts!
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
LTC8K6
Member Avatar
Assistant to The Devil Himself
"I think I get an A for effort."

That's what you say when you fail...
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
kbp

That RedState article takes it for granted that the Republicans would have 60 Senate votes after the coming election. I'm not seeing that and I doubt that enough would change so soon if something was moved through on a simple majority (though I am lost WTH that could legally include, or what exactly they'll try to classify as legal anyway).

Edited by kbp, Feb 28 2010, 10:33 PM.
Offline Profile Quote Post Goto Top
 
1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous)
DealsFor.me - The best sales, coupons, and discounts for you
« Previous Topic · LIESTOPPERS UNDERGROUND · Next Topic »
Add Reply