No Senate reconciliation for health care?

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Nov 18, 2009 at 13:25


In addition to the release of the Senate health care bill this evening (Senate Democratic caucus meeting, 5 p.m. eastern, with CBO score), the buzz today is that Senate majority leader Harry Reid won't use reconciliation for health care reform.  This would reduce the chances of passing a public option in the bill, given that Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Blanche Lincoln and Mary Landrieu have to committed to voting for cloture on a bill with a public option.

However, the actual article reporting that Reid won't use reconciliation this isn't quite so definitive:

In a meeting Nov. 16 with Democrats who support a Medicare-like public option, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., indicated that he did not plan to try to move a health bill through reconciliation, other Democrats said.

"I'm not going to quote him, but suffice to say, after the meeting was over I thought it was unlikely," said Bob Casey, D-Pa.

Regan LaChapelle, a spokeswoman for Reid, said, "We are not ruling anything out, but Sen. Reid is continuing to work to put together a bill that will garner the 60 votes needed to overcome a Republican filibuster.

Not sure how much this actually changes anything.  "Unlikely" isn't the same thing as "never."  Reconciliation rarely came to the forefront in public discussions of health care, which almost always made it pretty "unlikely" that the Senate would use reconciliation.  In fact, back in April, the Senate did not even include an option to use reconciliation health care in the budget, and only added it later on at the behest of the House.

The remaining questions are reconciliation are two-fold:

  1. If the current bill reaches an impasse as the final vote nears, is Reid more willing to make concessions to Landrieu, Lieberman, Lincoln, Nelson and others than he is to use reconciliation?  The answer is probably "more willing to make concessions."

  2. How late in the game can the bill still be split into two, with the regulatory measures passing through 60 votes and things like the public option passing with only 51?  The answer here, I believe, is as late as the conference committee between the House and Senate. Right up until the very end.
Really, it was never very likely that the Senate would use reconciliation, so I'm not sure this changes much.  Then again, it was never very likely that the Senate would include a public option of any sort in the health care bill, and that did happen.

There is still a long time to go in this process--a minimum of three weeks until the conference committee, for example.  If it is apparent that reconciliation is the only way to get a good bill, it still doesn't seem impossible that it can be used.  It is a longshot, but it wlways was a longshot.

Chris Bowers :: No Senate reconciliation for health care?

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
it's a noshot (0.00 / 0)
When the impasse arrives, Obama and Emanuel will demand they concede to a trigger acceptable to all the holdouts, PLUS Snowe, and it'll happen. Two reasons: 1. reconciliation will be seen as a huge, possibly fatal step backwards; and 2. it won't conclude before the SOTU. No way it happens.

oh, and the White House (0.00 / 0)
will be fully cognizant of the fact that they are daring Senate and House progressives to kill health care reform. This general path was always the blueprint, laid out for all in Emanauel's remark this spring, "The only nonnegotiable principle here is success. Everything else is negotiable."

[ Parent ]
And if nothing can get 60 votes... (4.00 / 2)
"The only nonnegotiable principle here is success. Everything else is negotiable."

...reconciliation will be the only path to success.

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


[ Parent ]
not a single pundit, politician, or reporter (0.00 / 0)
will label a bill passed through reconciliation as a "success," and therefore Obama will be unable to convincingly portray it as a success. The reason for that is very simple, and self-inflicted: from Day One, he made it crystal clear through his rhetoric and strategy that he would NOT draw a line in the sand on the public option. The only reason we could get to reconciliation IS the public option (I mean, no one is talking about going to the barricades for the strongest exchange possible, or the most generous subsidies possible). Therefore, everyone will rightly recognize that the battle to preserve the public option is being waged despite the President. It's not his fight. And if successful, none of the credit will fall to him.

Do you think that's Rahm's game plan? Or do you think, as I do, that everything Rahm has ever said and done points to only one option: rewarding the conservadems and screwing the progressives? "Everything is negotiable" means there will never be a point where "nothing can get 60 votes."


[ Parent ]
Rahm ain't God (0.00 / 0)
I agree that what Rahm means by that is 'cater to Conservadems, make the lefties cave.' But what if a few of the lefties won't cave? What if the Conservadems also hold firm? Then what? Assuming the GOP will provide no help there may be no ground to negotiate 60 votes. Never say never. Rahm ain't God.

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

[ Parent ]
re: reconciliation (0.00 / 0)
2. it won't conclude before the SOTU.

can you elaborate?


[ Parent ]
Do not trust Reid. (0.00 / 0)
Sorry to say, Reid has proven to have the public good as the least of concerns.
I think he needs and will force through a less than mediocre 60 vote bill to prove himself as an effective leader worthy of re-election in what may be his last campaign, rather than take strategic action for the sake of a great 51 vote bill.

Thanks to Bill Clinton and his centrist coalition, Harry was reminded that mediocrity, like castor oil, tastes like crap but probably won't kill you.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


Why not? (0.00 / 0)
How has Reid been working against us on health care? Don't get me wrong, I don't always agree with my Senator and I do think he's a tad too conservative even for today's Nevada. However, he's still our Senator and he's done more to get a good health care bill WITH a public option passed than even President Obama.

He's gone out on a limb here in going against the "Rahmbo" push for a trigger to please "President Snowe". The least we can do is stop with the circular firing squads and actually work to pass a decent bill.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


[ Parent ]
Tell Stupak to stop shooting, then. (0.00 / 0)

Tell Nelson, Bayh, Cooper and Ross to stop firing.

Tell Lieberman, Lincoln and Landrieu to hold their fire, as well.


[ Parent ]
I have. And yes, they're problems. (0.00 / 0)
I was just replying to someone who was bashing Reid for actually helping us on the health care bill. Of course we need to go after bad ConservaDems, but it makes no sense to attack those who are helping us.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.

[ Parent ]
He showed his 'skills' when he gave the keys to Lieberman and Baucus.. (0.00 / 0)
Look at what that the Reid approved August recess did to Obama, health care reform in general and to our 'mandate'.
What a NIGHTMARE.

Then look at how Boxer handled the climate change bill.

Harry's blatant and repeated weakness prohibited the White House from getting more involved early on without appearing to go over Harrys' head...Obama thought Harry could lead.

Don't you now feel foolish after being teabagged to death by the same three Republicans on Baucus's committee Harry postponed the bill for, because he 'thought' they would be on board?    
It was an incredibly stupid and brainless set of strategies to use on one of the most important bills, ever.

In a sense though, you are right. Harry does work very hard.
He's just not close to being ML material. Were I a Nevadan, I would re-elect him only if during the campaign he stepped down.  

Nationalism is not the same thing as terrorism, and an adversary is not the same thing as an enemy.


[ Parent ]
It isn't impossible, but it's not pretty... (0.00 / 0)
If reconciliation is used, health care reform will be temporary and Republicans would be able to totally dismantle it if they ever regain power. I can see why so many folks are nervous about using reconciliation. But I've heard some rumblings around town that Reid is seriously considering either reconciliation or "the nuclear option", so I don't think it's off the table... Especially if Lieberman, Nelson, Lincoln, and Landrieu keep throwing a fit like this.

I guess we need to just keep focusing on these ConservaDem "problem children" for now and help Reid round up those 60 votes. It doesn't seem like Obama's willing to lift a finger to preserve even a state opt-out public option, so it's up to the progressive grassroots to stop the Senate from watering down this bill any more.

Yes, Virginia, there are progressives in Nevada.


re: temporary (0.00 / 0)
If reconciliation is used, health care reform will be temporary

I thought it hcr would need to be renewed if passed via reconciliation only if it adds gto the deficit, no?

I guess we need to just keep focusing on these ConservaDem "problem children" for now and help Reid round up those 60 votes.

I say screw them and use reconciliation.  


[ Parent ]
"More willing to make concessions" (4.00 / 1)
The real question is at what point do concessions lose votes on the other side? Who will make a stand against further concessions? Where will the line be drawn?

Every Reid concession is a progressive enabled concession. You only stop making concessions to one side when doing so loses you votes on the other side.

Reconciliation? Only when it's clear that nothing can get 60 votes and you have a true clusterfuck. Who will stand up and say 'no more concessions' and create a reconciliation clusterfuck?

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


Senators like Harkin, Rockefeller, Franken, Brown, Sanders, and others should make it clear they will not vote for weaker bill (4.00 / 2)
People who are their constituents should be calling and asking for that.  

I intend to send an email to Boxer and Feinstein that they should be firm for a stronger public option.


[ Parent ]
Donate to Open Left







QUICK HITS

blog advertising is good for you


blog advertising is good for you
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search