The Simple Calculation On Health Care Reconciliation

by: Chris Bowers

Fri Apr 03, 2009 at 17:40


Let's play Democratic political strategist for a moment. Which of the following two options do you think would be more popular with voters? Is it:

  1. Less expensive, more widely available health care delivered through a partisan legislative process that excludes congressional Republicans;

    OR

  2. The health care status quo, and a bi-partisan legislative process that includes congressional Republicans?
Perhaps I am missing something, but when it comes to allowing health care reform to go through the budget reconciliation process, that is the basic political calculation Democrats need to make.

Unless you are so far up David Broder's butt that you can only see his intestines, it should be obvious that more voters would prefer cheaper, more widely available health care to bipartisanship any day of the week and twice on Mondays. Bipartisanship is an abstract, vague ideal, while health care costs are very real. If anyone actually chooses bipartisanship instead of more widely available health care, then their priorities are out of whack to the point where they are representing David Broder in Congress, rather than their own constituents.

Chris Bowers :: The Simple Calculation On Health Care Reconciliation

Tags: , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
The Simple Calculation On Health Care Reconciliation | 23 comments
no kidding (4.00 / 4)
Maybe during the campaign Obama should have spent more time talking about health care and less time talking about "changing the tone."  

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
voters? (4.00 / 1)
who cares? they'll believe what they're told. the question is, what does the money want? and the money isn't shy about explaining that in detail.

if you're a blue-state Democratic Senator, your opponent is likely to be a total loon, so your constituency has nowhere else to go. if you're a red or purple Democratesque, you get that too, plus a good chunk of your constituency are Republicans, and what's popular with them is slightly askew from the norm. in either case, what matters is being the incumbent and outspending the opponent. (i gather that this is what seems to be thought to matter, anyway.)

i think having the approval of Broder et al is nice but not motivating on its own. "it makes you look more moderate", as Rahm would say.

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

ewwwwww! (4.00 / 1)
Would the colonoscopy you described be covered under option 1 or 2?
I think you have the wrong calculation chris (4.00 / 2)
the public doesn't care how it is passed but if it is passed or not

maybe the dems want the reps to be able to block it so they can use it in the 2010 elections

I hope it's not so, I want it to pass

no (4.00 / 2)
The public cares if it actually works.  People know when their lives get better, or don't.
[ Parent ]
You're missing one thing (0.00 / 0)
Trying for option 1 isn't guaranteed to work.  So, what you have is the value of option 1 times the probability that we can get option 1 plus the value of swinging and missing times (100% minus the probability that we can get option 1).

The optimal strategy, which you can model with a game theory matrix, depends on what value you assign to failing at health care (which some would consider negative, based on the interpretation that the Clinton health care plan's failure had a negative impact) and how likely you think going for the much better plan will succeed.  You would also have to include estimates about the non-negligible possibility that a bi-partisan legislative process will result in a better health care status quo than current.

Your political calculation doesn't represent political reality.  However, it is a useful over-simplification that may be used to back some people into a corner and get them to support a more progressive health care plan.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

We are not coming from the same perspective (4.00 / 1)
The perspective I am talking about is that of an individual Senator voting for or against the reconciliation process on this matter. The perspective you seem to be talking about is that of the Senate leadership and / or the Obama administration attempting to use the reconciliation process on this matter.

Another difference is that you seem to think there is a possibility meaningful health care reform will be passed with the 60-vote threshold. I don't.

With those perspectives in mind, when it comes to voting for or against reconciliation on this matter, the option I described is actually this simple. Whether or not the health care plan passes, the issue on that vote is whether you valued health care over bipartisanship. I see no possibility for both.

[ Parent ]
Jesus, don't you people read Ezra Klein? (0.00 / 0)
Reconciliation sounds like an absolutely horrible option for health care.

http://www.prospect.org/cs/art...

Furthermore, reconciliation would ensure that health care reform would be temporary rather than permanent.

Frankly, I WOULD rather see a slightly watered-down, but solid and permanent, passage of universal health care than subjecting a more progressive proposal to some kind of lottery. By all means, reconciliation sounds great as a last resort. But I think even passing a moderate universal plan like Wyden-Bennett would be preferable to that.

not sure exactly what you're pointing too (4.00 / 1)
The main concern to me is that each provision can be challenged:

The matter is not simply academic: The Byrd rule allows senators to challenge the acceptability of any provision (undefined) of a reconciliation bill based on whether or not its effect on government revenues is "merely incidental" (undefined). Thus, if you enter reconciliation with a health-reform bill, it's not clear what's left after each and every provision -- however that is defined -- is challenged and a certain number of them are deleted altogether: the tax portions, certainly. And the government subsidies. But is regulating insurers "merely incidental" to government revenues? How about reforming hospital delivery systems? How about incentives for preventive treatment? Or the construction of a public plan? An individual mandate?

It's hard to say. The ultimate decision is left up to the Senate parliamentarian, whose rulings are unpredictable.

But if it passes, it is as permanent as any other law.

New Jersey politics at Blue Jersey.

[ Parent ]
who controls/appoints the parliamentarian? (0.00 / 0)
the majority?
[ Parent ]
found it (4.00 / 1)
The Senate Parliamentarian serves at the pleasure of the Senate Majority Leader, and functions under the direction of the Secretary of the Senate as a non-partisan employee of the Senate. The House Parliamentarian serves with the consent of the Speaker of the House, also in a non-partisan capacity, advising Members of both parties. The complexity of the job requires years of apprenticeship, and the leaders of both chambers have respected the institutional experience necessary to perform the job well. Sitting Parliamentarians hire their own assistants, and for decades, those assistants have advanced to the position of Parliamentarian when a vacancy has occurred.

http://www.c-span.org/question...
[ Parent ]
The GOP fired two of them... (4.00 / 1)
...when the parliamentarian did not agree with them...

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 ]
Reconciliation is not the best option.. (4.00 / 1)
....but the threat of reconciliation is what forces Republicans to come to the table...  It's necessary to have that option to prevent obstructionism...

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 ]
How about the threat of facing voters? (4.00 / 4)
The greatest threat would be forcing them to either vote or filibuster a popular bill supported by 57-59 senators. The public wants something done on this issue. Apply the pressure and make them choose.

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners."
[ Parent ]
parties (4.00 / 1)
What's really annoying is the fundamental arbitrariness of bipartisanship in the current situation.

Democrats have 59% of the seats in the Senate, and they represent a percentage of the country's population that's even greater. If it gets passed by those representatives alone, health care will have been ratified by a broad segment of the people's representatives.

What if there were 92 Democrats and 8 Republicans in the Senate? Would bipartisanship still be such an important end in itself?

Great question Chris. (0.00 / 0)
In fact, I think it would be more than worthwhile for Markos or some other progressive to do a national poll with that exact question.  Or actually, to be a little less biased, simply ask whether people would rather "Congress pass President Obama's universal health care plan in a process excluding congressional Republicans" or "maintain the health care status quo in a bipartisan legislative process".  I think the answer would be illuminating.

I support John McCain because children are too healthy anyway.
Markos is not particularly progressive (4.00 / 2)
but I agree with your point: a poll like what you describe would be interesting.

Join the Iowa progressive community at Bleeding Heartland.
[ Parent ]
Just a thought (0.00 / 1)
They're big fat pussies, but we're bigger, fatter pussies so they're not afraid of us.
TR for the gratuitous misogyny. (4.00 / 1)


Montani semper liberi
[ Parent ]
It's the Dem Wanker Caucus Stupid (0.00 / 0)
The only reason to need reconciliation is if the Bayh/Nelson wanker caucus is going to oppose real reform/change and you really only have 50 votes.

OTOH, if a good bill is put forward and supported by the full caucus -- meaning it has 57-59 votes (depending on seating and health issues) -- the GOP would be crazy/suicidal to filibuster something a solid majority of the public wants. I'd be shocked if at least a few GOP senators didn't defect (a la the stimulus bill).

In short -- the best political solution is a good, if not perfect, bill that can maintain public support and force the GOP to actually filibuster or vote. If they actually choose crazy/suicide the Dems could well pick up a few more seats in 2010. Then reconciliation would be moot.

...Adding, I'm not a big fan of Baucus being central to writing this bill, however if he can produce something reasonable it's going to be hard for the wankers to oppose. If we can hold our caucus together around a good bill we'll be in good shape and the GOP will be screwed between a rock and a hard place...

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners."

re (0.00 / 0)
OTOH, if a good bill is put forward and supported by the full caucus

you mean a good political bill yes if I read your message correctly yes?

because if a bill A is supported by Bayh/Nelson and bill B is not supported by Bayh/Nelson we know bill B is the better one

[ Parent ]
"Good, if not perfect" (4.00 / 1)
I meant good as in public policy good. In your example, though B may be better, but it doesn't necessarily follow that A must be bad. As I said in my opening, the only reason to need reconciliation is if you believe the Bayh Dogs won't support a (public policy wise) good (if not perfect) bill.

"The White House obviously has a loser mentality - but America rallies around winners."
[ Parent ]
If the Obamanauts actually gave two grams (0.00 / 0)
of stinky, warm shit about the "Left," they wouldn't be so jolly about sticking their bloody, reeking, shit-encrusted thumbs in our eyes, now would they? Maybe they wouldn't giggle in so unseemly a fashion as they jammed their center-right agenda up our asses? Maybe, they'd use some lube?
The Simple Calculation On Health Care Reconciliation | 23 comments





Donate to Open Left




blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you
LIBERAL INSTITUTIONS
STATE BLOGS
USER MENU

QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox