This afternoon, Health Care for America Now! director Richard Kirsch stated that there were not enough votes to pass a public option through reconciliation in the Senate.
This statement came on a conference call with supporters this afternoon. Billed as a "Finish Health Reform Right Strategy Call" with Senator Al Franken, over 3,500 people were listening in by the first fifteen minutes.
The strategy presented on the call for finishing health care reform was two-fold:
House should pass Senate bill with a pledge from the Senate to fix it in reconciliation. Senator Franken talked of "pledge and pass," which means the House needs to pass the Senate bill with a pledge from the Senate that it will be fixed in reconciliation. This is somewhat in conflict with Speaker Pelosi's statement that the Senate must actually pass a reconciliation bill before the House acts at all. A pledge alone isn't good enough for the House. Franken stated that he also thought the Senate bill needed to be improved, but that "the perfect--and we all have different ideas of what perfect is--shouldn't be the enemy of the very good."
Into the streets to create political will. The second part of the strategy is to make enough noise through protests, rallies, letters to the editor, and calls to Congress to create enough pressure for Congress to pass health care.
When asked by a caller if it was possible to include a public option during the Senate reconciliation process, HCAN director Richard Kirsch said, "I will be frank with you," and went on to say there are not enough votes. Kirsch said that perhaps this was the case back in the fall, but it is no longer the case now.
Kirsch did claim that the bill, if passed, would lead to a public option in a future health care fight. His reasoning, which seemed somewhat cryptic, was because the health care legislation currently before Congress would make the federal government more invested in health insurance than before. As private costs continued to increase, it would cost the federal government more money. Eventually, the federal government would tire of paying excessive fees to private companies, and support would build in Congress for the public option. Or something.
The four young men arrested last week for allegedly attempting to tamper with the phones at the office of Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-LA) have ties to Republican politicians, conservative think tanks, radical campus activists, and even the intelligence community.
It appears that Landrieu was targeted, at least indirectly, because of her stance on health care reform. Two of the men posed as telephone repairmen while a third taped them with his cell phone. A fourth alleged accomplice was arrested in a car a few blocks away.
Right wing operative James O'Keefe, famous for posing as a pimp to "expose" unethical behavior at the anti-poverty group ACORN, claimed that he and his crew were trying to expose a problem with the phones at Landrieu's office which were keeping constituents from reaching her.
Constituents getting a busy signal?
O'Keefe says they wanted to embarrass Landrieu by exposing whatever was wonky about her phones, but that justification strains credulity. Defenders of the four implied that Landrieu's people might have somehow disabled their own phones to avoid angry constituents. Supposedly, these citizens wanted to express their outrage at Landrieu's decision to vote for the Senate health reform bill in exchange for a line item to give Louisiana an additional $300 million federal health care dollars.
Some callers have reported trouble getting through to their representatives. Stephanie Mencimer of Mother Jones reports that members of the Tea Party movement have complained to her about not being able to get through to their members of congress. She tried calling some senators and also had a hard time getting through to a real person.
Now that he's out of jail, O'Keefe is furiously spinning his activities as investigative journalism gone awry, according to Justin Elliott of TPM Muckraker. O'Keefe told Sean Hannity in an interview that these tactics were standard journalistic tools. But let's be realistic, here. Impersonating a repairman to covertly access a Senator's phones is more Watergate burglar than Woodward and Bernstein.
O'Keefe's activist theater
O'Keefe and his buddies are political operatives who come out of the world of right wing campus organizing, as Dave Weigel reports for the Washington Independent. Over the years, they've earned notoriety by using various forms of political theater and media to advance their issues. O'Keefe and Ben Wetmore, a fellow activist who let the alleged tamperers crash at his house before the Landrieu operation, even got married to each other to illustrate that shady people can marry each other for benefits, just like with straight marriage. On his now-defunct blog, Countermedia, Wetmore urged conservative activists to target seniors with a health care robocall featuring a Barack Obama impersonator.
The Landrieu crew is no stranger to more traditional forms of conservative politics, either. O'Keefe and Wetmore both formerly worked for the conservative Leadership Institute, a group that funds political training for right wing activists. Fake repairman Robert Flanagan interned for Republican Senator Lamar Alexander and a GOP congresswoman. O'Keefe was revealed to be on the payroll of the right wing news site Big Government at the time of his arrest.
The Landrieu incident is a continuation of their campaign to use guerrilla video for political dirty tricks. O'Keefe became famous last year for videos that appear to show him dressing up as a pimp and soliciting questionable advice from ACORN staffers. The video touched off a panic that led to ACORN's federal funding being yanked.
Links to the intelligence community
Maybe they hoped to make the news rather than break it. The men are charged with attempting to tamper with Landrieu's phones, not just observe them. As I reported for AlterNet last week, one of the alleged tamperers has longstanding ties to the intelligence community.
In 2008, Stan Dai was the deputy director of a recruiting program for aspiring spies at Trinity Washington University. As Sahil Kapur reported in Raw Story, this program was funded by a $250,000 grant from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
Yesterday, Laura Flanders interviewed Dr. David Price and me on GRITtv about the links between O'Keefe's crew and the intelligence community. Dr. Price is an anthropologist who studies the relationship between the intelligence community and academia. He has been keeping a close eye so-called "centers of academic excellence" funded by the intelligence community on college campuses.
Right now, most of what we know about the incident comes from a single affidavit from an FBI officer and leaks from law enforcement. We'll probably learn a lot more about the men and their motives if they go on trial.
'Very, very close' to passing reform
In other health care news, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) told participants on a conference call yesterday that Democrats are "very, very close" to passing health care reform. According to Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly, who was on the call, Pelosi signaled that the House will not pass a bill until the Senate passes a list of modifications to be reinserted during budget reconciliation. Brian Beutler of TPM DC reports that progressives shouldn't get their hopes up for reviving the public option: Pelosi conceded that a public option lacks the necessary support in the Senate.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
On a blogger conference call today, Speaker Nancy Pelosi flatly stated that the Senate must pass a fix to the health care bill before the House will pass the Senate bill. From Greg Sargent, who was also on the call:
On the call, Pelosi was asked by a reporter whether the Senate would have to go first. "Yes," she replied, twice, saying her members had repeatedly said they wouldn't pass the Senate bill if it weren't fixed before they were asked to vote on it.
When asked by a different report how many votes there were for the Senate bill in the House without the fix, Speaker Pelosi replied "very few." When asked if there were any parliamentary obstacles to the Senate acting first, she told Brian Beutler:
"No. It is not an obstacle to this path forward."
In closely related news, at least 15 Senators have now made public statements in favor of fixing the health care bill through the reconciliation process.
Later on in the call, when asked if she believed the Senate bill was worse than no bill at all, the Speaker said "there are many members who will not vote for the Senate bill" without the fix.
When asked by another reporter if there was enthusiasm about the public option in her discussions with the White House, Pelosi cryptically replied "I will leave that to you to decide." The implication is that no, there was no enthusiasm from the White House, and that the public option would not be part of any bargain with the Senate. She also reiterated that she will do what it takes to reach 218 votes.
Although I was unable to ask a question on the call, I have placed a follow-up question about whether the Speaker believes it is possible to pass the health care bill without adding the restrictive, anti-women's health language pushed by Representative Stupak. Further, I asked about the dozen or so members who supported the health care bill in November only on the condition that Stupak's language was included. Would those members be pushing to add the language to a series of regulatory measures, such as the repeal of the anti-trust exemption for the health care industry, that the House will take up next week? When a response comes, I will publish it on Open Left.
As a background to a jobs bill and the financial regulation package, health insurance reform will drag on for several more weeks, and might never be passed.
As a result of that, climate change legislation is on life support, and will likely be shelved (and even the back-up plan of using the EPA to regulate greenhouse gasses might be shelved).
And, as a result of those delays, immigration reform is almost certainly off the table for 2010.
The conservative videographer who donned a pimp suit to embarrass the anti-poverty group ACORN was arrested in New Orleans, LA for allegedly conspiring to bug the office of Democratic Sen. Mary Landrieu.
It's not clear why Landrieu was targeted, but many suspect that she was singled out because she played a pivotal role in advancing health care reform.
Filmmaker James O'Keefe and three other men have been charged with been charged with entering federal property under false pretenses for the purpose of committing a felony, according to Justin Elliott of TPM Muckraker. At RH Reality Check, Rachel Larris notes that, if convicted, the four could face up to 10 years in prison.
Like chum in the conservative shark tank
Landrieu, a conservative Democrat, negotiated an extra $100 million in Medicaid funds for Louisiana in exchange for allowing the health care bill to come to the senate floor. Accepting health care for the poor in the interest of health reform was like chum in the conservative shark tank.
Rush Limbaugh called her the most expensive prostitute of all time. "She may be easy, but she's not cheap," crowed Glenn Beck. It got so bad that Democrats call on Sen. David Vitter (R-LA) was called upon to denounce the chorus of conservatives attacking his fellow Louisiana senator as a prostitute. (Correction: Vitter did not call Landrieu a prostitute.)
O'Keefe must have realized that an exposé of Mary Landrieu would be a hot commodity.
"This is Watergate meets YouTube," said Mother Jones Washington Bureau Chief
Health care reform in limbo
The arrests could not have come at a better time for the Democrats. Health care reform is in limbo as congressional leaders plan their next move after losing their filibuster-proof majority. The bugging scandal is deflecting attention from tense internal negotiations.
Brian Beutler of TPMDC reports that the House Democrats are converging on a strategy to get reform done: The House will pass the Senate bill and the Senate will fix it through budget reconciliation.
The Republican counter-strategy
While the Democrats agonize over what to do next, that senate Republicans are honing strategies to thwart any Democratic attempt to pass health care reform through budget reconciliation, as Dave Weigel reports in the Washington Independent. The reconciliation process allows both sides to vote on unlimited number of amendments. GOP leadership is hinting that if Dems take the reconciliation route, they will be forced to vote on every politically embarrassing amendment the opposition can dream up.
The stakes are high. In the American Prospect, Paul Starr reminds progressives that there's till a lot worth fighting for, even without a public option. For all its faults, the Senate bill would still cover 30 million uninsured Americans, expand Medicaid, end discrimination based on preexisting conditions, and set up exchanges designed to keep rising insurance premiums in check.
A memo for reform
Finally, our sources tell us that Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly is making quite a stir on Capitol Hill with his memo advising the House Democratic caucus on the need to forge ahead with health care reform. In 1994, conservative commentator William Kristol wrote a health care memo to Republicans that became the backbone of their anti-reform strategy, even up to the present day. Benen hopes his memo will be a useful counterweight for Democrats. Benen warns the Democrats that it's far riskier to fail than to pass reform that doesn't please everyone.
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
The House could just pass the Senate health care bill, and President Obama could sign it into law. Problem is, the House doesn't have 218 votes unless there is a promise to pass a cleanup fix to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process.
Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure - or a "cleanup" bill - to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.
There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn't materialize, insiders said.
"The Senate moderates' viewpoint is, 'We passed our bill. We're not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,'" said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.
Large numbers of House think this response is unacceptable. They believe the Senate has acted on so few bills that the House has passed--jobs bill, climate bill, financial regulations, student loans, etc. As such, they feel it is very wrong for the Senate to demand that the House pass one of the few bills they did act on verbatim.
So, that is the current impasse on health care. The House might be able to pass the Senate bill with a promise of a reconciliation fix, but the Senate doesn't want to pass the reconciliation fix.
So, who are the Senators that oppose reconciliation at this point? Figuring that out, and making them change their minds, might be the best path forward on health care at this point.
I spoke to someone from Feingold's campaign about his position on reconciliation in light of the Massachusetts special election. She informed me that while Sen. Feingold is no fan of reconciliation, now that it's reconciliation or nothing (apparently), he would be willing to support reconciliation if that's what it took to get a good bill passed. It wasn't the slightest bit equivocal or hedgy; it was a straight "yes". So that's a bit of good news. Hopefully the House can get their act together.
Could the Massachusetts special election actually make things better for progressives? That would be very surprising, but it isn't out of the question.
If I were President Obama, I would spend the next year showing how government can serve a humble, helpful and supportive role to the central institutions of American life.
David Brooks' insipidly abstract advice gives me the perfect opening to repost this diary, my first, which itself touches on institutionalism.
Specifically, I argue that we’re at a point in history where our institutions are preventing the complete collapse of our standards of living while steadily skimming an increasing percentage off the top and concentrating it in the hands of the people who control them.
(Footage purchased from Sam Sumner, originally posted by Will Urquhart at Sum of Change)
As you may be aware, this weekend (tomorrow to be exact) marks the 37th anniversary of the passage of Roe v Wade, the supreme court decision that effectively legalized abortion nationwide. We have been working on a documentary about clinic escorts for some time now (tomorrow we will be making a big announcement about the film, sign up for our emails and you will be one of first to hear about it), so this weekend is a big chance for us to get some footage.
When I got back home from volunteering at the clinic, I saw an email from Operation Rescue announcing a press conference at the White House today. Luckily, I was able to track down a freelance videographer who sold us some great exclusive footage of Operation Rescue's President, Troy Newman, failing several times to name a single part of the current health care bills that allows for federal funding of abortion (although he knows for a fact it does, he just cannot tell you how):
The fate of health care reform is very much in flux after Scott Brown's victory in the Massachusetts special election last night. For example, the House leadership has cancelled a scheduled caucus meeting on health care today, opting instead for meeting with individual members. As such, take all of these developments as very, very tentative.
Chop up the bill into many different parts? Some House members, such as John Yarmuth and Bill Delahunt, are suggesting the health care bill should be broken up into several parts, with separate votes on each. The current line from the leadership is that idea isn't on the table:
"That's off the table at this point," a Democratic leadership aide said of breaking up healthcare reform into smaller bills - such as a standalone ban on the denial of private health coverage for pre-existing conditions - and gradually chipping away at the myriad issues Democrats have identified as plaguing the healthcare system.
Pass the Senate bill through the House, improve it in reconciliation? What does seem to be on the table is pushing the Senate bill through the House, and then improving it through the budget reconciliation process. Senate Budget committee chairman Kent Conrad appears open to the idea:
The Senate Budget Committee Chairman said Wednesday he's willing to use special rules to force a final healthcare bill through with a simple majority vote.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) made clear his openness to applying budget reconciliation to healthcare, a position he opposed prior to this week's special election in Massachusetts, is contingent on the content of the bill.(...)
"If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes," Conrad said. "Would I support it? I can't know that without knowing what would be included in the package."
.
House vote counting. In November, the House passed the health care bill 220-215. Since that time, Anthony Weiner Robert Wexler has resigned from the House. Also, Barney Frank now says he will vote against the health care bill, as does Raul Grijalva. Bart Stupak has also been lost, and with him as many as nine other members of the House. It is also hard to imagine that Republican Joseph Cao would still be on board. Some more conservative, non-Stupak Democrats might defect, too.
The leadership's best hope is that the Senate bill appeals to most of these Democrats, that some members of Stupak's ten will accept Ben Nelson's opt-out compromise, that the Progressive flank is mollified by a promise to improve the bill in the budget reconciliation process. It is a longshot, but not impossible.
This is shaping up to be a remarkably huge fiasco for Democrats. This level of disaster would be worse than 1994, because the economic situation ismuch worse and because the health care bill was defeated in a dramatic fashion by one candidate.
What Will Coakley's Defeat Mean for Health Care Reform?
By Lindsay Beyerstein, Media Consortium Blogger
Last night, Republican Scott Brown defeated Democrat Martha Coakley in the special election to fill Teddy Kennedy's senate seat in Massachusetts. Coakley's loss puts health care reform in jeopardy.
With Coakley's defeat, the Democrats lose their filibuster-proof 60-seat majority in the Senate. However, as Paul Waldman explains in The American Prospect, Coakley's loss is not the end for health care reform.
Remember, the Senate already passed its health care reform bill in December. Now, the House has to pass its version of the bill. The original plan was for House and Senate leaders to blend the two bills together in conference to create a final piece of legislation (AKA a conference report) that both houses would vote on. Once the Democrats are down to 59 votes, the Republicans can filibuster the conference report and kill health care reform.
But if the House passes the same bill the Senate just passed, there's no need to reconcile the two bills. This so-called "ping pong" approach may be the best way to salvage health care reform. Some of the flaws in the Senate bill could still be fixed later through budget reconciliation. It would be an uphill battle, but nothing compared to starting health care reform from scratch.
The second option would be to get the bill done before Scott Brown is sworn in. According to Waldman, there could be a vote within 10 days. The House and Senate have already drafted some compromise legislation, which Waldman thinks is superior to the straight Senate bill. If that language were sent to the Congressional Budget Office immediately, the Senate could vote before Brown is sworn in.
Sen. Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) said in a statement last night that Brown won't be sworn in until the election results are certified, a process that could take two weeks. Historically, the winners of special Senate elections have taken over from their interim predecessors within a couple of days. If the Republicans were in this position, they'd use every procedural means at their disposal to drag out the process. The question is whether the Democrats have the fortitude to make the system work for them.
Remember how the Republicans did everything in their power to hold up the Senate health care vote, including forcing the clerk to read the 767-page bill aloud? They were trying to delay the vote until after the Massachusetts special election. If it's okay for the GOP to stall, the Democrats should be allowed to drag their feet on swearing in Brown.
Also, remember how the Republicans fought to keep Al Franken from being seated after he defeated Norm Coleman? For his part, Franken says he's determined to pass health care reform one way or another, according to Rachel Slajda of Talking Points Memo.
Incongruously, some Democrats are arguing that rushing to a vote would be a violation of some vague democratic principle. Sen. Jim Webb (D-VA) wasted no time in proclaiming that there should be no vote before Brown was sworn in. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA), of all people, averred last night that the Democrats should respect the democratic process and start acting like they have 59 votes while they still have 60.
All this talk of "respecting the process" is hand waving disguised as civics. According to the process, Scott Brown isn't the senator from Massachusetts yet. According to the process, you have the votes until you don't.
Talk about moving the goalposts. It's bad enough that we need 60 votes to pass a bill on any given day. Now, they'd have us believe that we also need 60 votes next week. Webb and Frank are arguing that Brown's victory obliges Democrats to behave as if Brown were already the Senator from Massachusetts. Of course, if Webb won't play ball, it's a moot point. The whole fast-track strategy is predicated on 60 votes. Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly thinks that Webb effectively took the fast-track option off the table with his strongly worded statement.
Katrina vanden Huevel of The Nation argues that this historic upset should be a wake up call to President Barack Obama to embrace populism with renewed fervor. I would add that Obama was elected on a platform of hope and change. There is no better way to fulfill a promise of change than to reshape the nation's health care system and provide insurance for millions of Americans.
Ping pong, anyone?
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
1. Why Scott Brown won There were three key factors to a Scott Brown victory: national trends, relatively lower Democratic turnout, and Scott Brown as the superior candidate.
National Trends. Nationally, Democrats down 9% from 2008. The current national House ballot shows Democrats ahead by 0.67%. In 2008, they won by 9.65%. Scott Brown needed a 26% swing from 2008, and got 9% of it from the national political environment.
Lower Democratic turnout. With the exception of Rasmussen, the generic ballot polls in the national House forecast are currently measuring "all adults" or "registered voters" instead of "likely voters." When they start measuring "likely voters," current evidence indicates they will probably find another 2-3% swing in favor of Republicans, based on a relative lack of Democratic enthusiasm.
The earliest polls on the campaign in January, UNH and Rasmussen, showed Coakley ahead by an average of 13%. So, two weeks ago, Scott Brown was just where the national political environment and relatively low Democratic enthusiasm would have put him.
Running a better campaign. Scott Brown made up the rest of the difference by being the superior candidate with the superior campaign. The final On Message, Rasmussen, Cross Target, PPP and Research 2000 polls showed, on average, Scott Brown with a net favorable rating 18% higher than Coakley's. That is the rest of the swing right there.
Given their relative numerical impact, ranked in terms of importance, the factors were: 1) Brown is the superior candidate, 2) national trends, 3) relatively lower Democratic turnout.
Feel free to postulate whatever unprovable, subjective and / or anecdotal explanation you like. Make sure that this explanation fits into whatever preconceived notions you have about politics. It is what everyone is doing, these days--now you can be cool, too!
****
What happens to health care, and what the election means, can be found in the extended entry.
Maybe Coakley is a bad candidate. Yesterday, I argued that Coakley was an average candidate, rather than a bad one, because her net favorables in Massachusetts were the same as President Obama's approval rating. I took this to mean that Coakley is doing no worse than national Democrats in Massachusetts, and just ran into a very good candidate in Scott Brown.
Today, however, the RNC poll shows Coakley's net favorable ratings 16 points below Obama's. Also, Mike Allen makes an astute observation about how Coakley, rather than national Democratic troubles, is to blame:
Smart point from Mike Allen on MSNBC: He says one sign the Massachusetts race isn't necessarily a referendum on health care and the Obama agenda - and is more about the candidates - is that Coakley was leading by 15 points only a week or so ago. "That wouldn't be the case if it were all external factors," Allen said.
Good point. National Democrats have not seen a comparable plummet in the polls over the past two weeks.
Election advice from some dude with plummeting approval ratings. Joe Lieberman, whose approval rating has plummeted over the past month because of his right-wing moves on health care (see PPP, CNN and Q-poll), now says that Democrats should move the right because of the Massachusetts special election.
Election advice from some dude who made his career based on his last name. Evan Bayh, who would never have been elected to anything in his life if his father wasn't Governor of Indiana, says "[i]f you lose Massachusetts and that's not a wake-up call, there's no hope of waking up." Thanks for the advice Bayh, but winning my campaign for Pennsylvania State Democratic committee was more difficult than having to run as a Bayh in Indiana.
Massachusetts Secretary of State dismisses Coakley campaign claims of voting irregularities. At the very least, that Coakley is making such claims is a signt aht she won't concede quickly in the event of a close result.
If Brown wins, Dems won't have time to pass merged bill through Senate before Brown is seated. The entire business about Democrats trying to pass a merged version of health care reform through the Senate between the election and Scott Brown being sworn in is, predictably for a Republican complaint, stupid. Assuming Scott Brown wins and there is no protracted recount, the 10-15 days it will take for Brown to get an election certification is simply much too short a time for the Senate to pass a new health care bill. Keep in mind that:
No deal on the merged bill has been reached,
Once a deal is reached, it will be sent to the almighty CBO, which will take at least a week to score the bill;
Once a score is returned, it will take the House three days to pass a bill;
Once the House passes the bill, it will take the Senate three days to pass a bill
All of which means that even if Democrats were willing to make such an aggressive move (which they are not), then Congress would not move fast enough to pull it off anyway.
Under the outline currently being discussed, which the sources stressed is still fluid, the threshold for the tax on insurance plans would be raised above what passed the Senate - which was a tax on insurance plans costing $23,000 and up for families.
In addition, health care policies for state and local workers and health care policies negotiated by labor unions would not be subject to the excise tax until 2017.
The sources also say a working idea is to remove dental and vision plans from the calculation.
One of the sources familiar with negotiations said that in addition to protecting health plans negotiated under collective bargain agreements, labor leaders are pushing to expand the deal to exempt health plans for all Americans making under $200,000 a year.
Regulatory reform. Reportedly, the White House is backing the House of Representatives on including a national exchange instead of a state by state exchange, and on repealing the anti-trust exemption for the health care industry. However, those discussions remain in flux, and deal has been reached yet. No guarantee either way, right now.
Reproductive rights? No word on whether the final bill will contain the Stupak amendment (which would create a national ban on abortion procedures in insurance), or Ben Nelson's state opt-out language. Pro-choice House members have been pushing for Nelson's language.
Overall deal now imminent--Friday or Saturday. The excise tax was one of the largest remaining obstacles to a final deal between the House and the Senate. The timeline for such a deal appears to be either tomorrow or Saturday, at which time the bill would be sent to the CBO for review.
Timeline. The House will likely send a bill to the CBO on Friday or Saturday. The CBO will reportedly take between 10 to 13 days to return a score on the bill. From that point, it will take the House between one day and three days to pass the bill, and the Senate another three days. All told, this means the final bill will be passed by the Senate as late as early as January 29th, and as late as February 4th. The State of the Union address is on February 2nd.
Coakley loss blows whole thing up--or does it?. With the Massachusetts Senate election on January 19th, and the Senate voting on the bill on January 29th at the earliest, it seems entirely possible that a victory by Republican Scott Brown would sink the whole deal...
...or would it? As David Waldman writes, the Massachusetts special election would not be certified until February 20th, and Senate rules require certification to swear in a new member. Republicans delayed Al Franken from taking his Senate seat for six months because of this, and Democrats could simply do the same to Republicans in order to pass the bill.
Also, as noted by multiple people in the comments, the House could theoretically just pass the bill that the Senate already passed, verbatim, and send that to the President. That is one possibility, but I doubt the House has the votes for the Senate bill. Some Progressives could be lost, and some conservative Dems would be scared off by a by a Brown win. Republican Joseph Cao would probably be lost, too. Stupak, and some of his acolytes, might also vote against it. All in all, with only a three-vote margin, the Senate bill might not be able to pass the House.
The man who admitted to gunning down Dr. George Tiller in church last May went on trial in Kansas on Friday. Tiller was one of a small number of doctors performing late term abortions in the U.S.
Scott Roeder admitted to shooting the Tiller, but he is pleading not guilty to murder, as Robin Marty reports in RH Reality Check. Yesterday, Judge Warren Wilbert shocked observers by allowing Roeder's lawyers to argue that their client is guilty of voluntary manslaughter, not premeditated murder.
Kansas law allows the accused to plead "imperfect self-defense" if he had an "honest but unreasonable belief" that deadly force was necessary to protect innocent third parties. Roeder says he killed to protect the unborn. Pro-choice activists are alarmed that the judge allowed Roeder to use this defense. If he beats the murder rap, Roder could face just five years in prison. In the unlikely event that his legal gambit is successful, the precedent could be tantamount to declaring open season on abortion providers.
No doubt Nidal Hussein sincerely believed that he was protecting innocent lives when he murdered 12 soldiers at Fort Hood last November. Somehow, I doubt the Army will be as deferential to Hasan's crazy religious ideas as Judge Warren Wilbert has been to Roeder's.
In other health care news, Robert Reich of TAPPED asks whether the rich or the middle class will pay for health reform:
There's only one big remaining issue on health care reform: How to pay for it. The House wants a 5.4 percent surtax on couples earning at least $1 million in annual income. The Senate wants a 40 percent excise tax on employer-provided "Cadillac plans." The Senate will win on this unless the public discovers that a large portion of the so-called Cadillacs are really middle-class Chevys-expensive not because they deliver more benefits but because they have higher costs.
Reich cites a shocking statistic: Less than 4% of the variation in the cost of insurance coverage is based on differences in benefits provided. Most of the difference in price is based on the perceived riskiness of the beneficiaries. So, if you're in a high risk pool comprised of, say, retired autoworkers, you're going to pay a lot more for the same benefits than someone in a younger, healthier risk pool. When you look at it that way, it seems unfair to pay for reform on the backs of people who are already paying more for the same thing due to circumstances beyond their control.
President Barack Obama and Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius are meeting with top labor leaders on the "Cadillac tax," as Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo reports. Obama and Sebelius are trying to hash out a compromise that would be acceptable to the unions, who so far, have been implacably opposed to taxing expensive health care plans. The unions are reluctant to give any ground on this issue because so many of their members have accepted expanded health care benefits in lieu of wage increases over the years. Taxing those benefits now would effectively erase some hard-won gains by workers. Obama and the unions are reportedly discussing some kind of grandfather clause proposal that would exempt existing plans and only tax new plans.
Elsewhere in our high-deductible democracy, it turns out that health insurers secretly steered more than $20 million to the U.S. Chamber of Commerce to oppose health reform while publicly professing to support the effort, according to Josh Harkinson of Mother Jones. The bagman was America's Health Insurance Plans (AHIP). While AHIP was soliciting donations to run attack ads, AHIP's top lobbyist, Karen Ignagni penned an op/ed in the Washington Post assuring the public that AHIP supported reform.
Steve Benen of the Washington Monthly hopes that the scandal will give ammunition to Democrats in the last big push to pass health care reform: "Policymakers struggling to resolve differences on the final reform bill may want to keep a simple adage in mind: Don't let AHIP's duplicitous campaign win."
This post features links to the best independent, progressive reporting about health care by members of The Media Consortium. It is free to reprint. Visit the Pulse for a complete list of articles on health care reform, or follow us on Twitter. And for the best progressive reporting on critical economy, environment, health care and immigration issues, check out The Audit, The Mulch, and The Diaspora. This is a project of The Media Consortium, a network of leading independent media outlets.
Coakley still with a 90.6% chance to win. Normally, a lead of 8.2% would give Coakley a 97.5% chance to win. This is because only 7 of the 138 closest statewide general elections from 2004-2009 show a difference of 8.2% of greater from the final polling average to the final result (((7 / 138)/2) = 0.025).
However, because of the difficulties associated with special election polling, her chances of winning are only 90.6%. This is assuming average polling error in special elections to be the same as primary elections (7.0%), instead of general elections (3.9%). This makes a lead of 8.2% equivalent to a lead of 4.6%. In the 138 closest statewide general elections from 2004-2009, there were 26 instances where the final polling margin was 4.55% or more divergent from the final vote result (((26 / 138)/2) = 0.094).
What about those rumored polls? No rumored polls are included in my averages. Until those polls are released to the public, they will stay that way. This includes the rumor of a Republican poll showing Coakley up 11%, a Boston Herald poll showing Coakley up only 1%., and Coakley's internal polling showing her up only 5%. Let's look at each of these rumors:
Even if the 11% poll exists, it was taken too long ago to be included in the final averages, so it doesn't matter.
The 1% poll from the Boston Herald was first rumored 5 days ago. Media outlets don't sit on sponsored polls that long. It doesn't exist. It was either referring to the PPP poll that eventually showed Brown up 1%, or it was just bullshit.
Taegan Goddard's rumor about Coakley's internal polling only showing her up 5% must refer to the one-day sample of her internal polling on the 11th. This is because Coakley released an internal poll that was conducted from January 8th through the 10th, and Goddard reported the rumor on the evening of the 12th. At that time, the interviews for internal polling on the night of the 12th would still have been ongoing. So, even if Goddard is correct, he is referring to a one-day sample, which would have a high margin of error, and as such is not to be taken seriously.
In short, the rumored polls either don't exist, or they don't matter.
Why do the polls diverge so much? Which one is right? First, the polls don't actually diverge. As Mark Blumenthal showed on Sunday, they just project different turnout levels. All pollsters seem to agree that the higher the turnout, the larger Coakley's advantage becomes (and vice-versa). The campaign is tied among those who are "absolutely certain" to vote, but Coakley has wide leads among those who are less certain to vote.
The best bet, given the success of polling averages in predicting elections, is to just average all of the polls. With an average error of only 2.6% (actually 2.57%) from the final 15-day average to the final result, simple polling averages have proven to be the most accurate measure of election results available. It is more likely that there is a kernel of truth in all the polls than absolute accuracy in one or two of them.
Doesn't Rasmussen show the campaign tightening? My research shows, pretty conclusively, that including multiple polls from the same polling firm in the average, rather than just the most recent poll from each polling firm (which is what I did in 2008), reduces the error in the polling averages. So, the issue isn't if one polling firm shows the campaign tightening, but if the overall average is tightening. On that front, the Rasmussen poll did show the campaign tightening, but only from 9.8% to 8.2%.
What is the lesson in all of this for Democrats? This one is easy: the political environment is terrible for Democrats, and they are going to lose seats in 2010. Duh.
Why is Democratic turnout so low? This is very hard to say. No one has conducted a survey asking people who voted in 2008, but who do not intend to vote in 2010, why they don't intend to vote in 2010. Until such a poll is conducted, every theory about why Democratic turnout is down is just pure speculation. In most cases, pundits will just say that Democratic turnout is down because Democrats aren't doing what that pundit thinks they should do.
If Scott Brown wins, then the health care bill will not pass. There will be no 60th vote for Democrats in the Senate, meaning they have to go through Olympia Snowe. However, many members of Congress might well be scared off by the Scott Brown win, thus causing some lost votes on the right. Also, with everything the House Progressives feel like it has already had to swallow, some votes will probably be lost on the left, too. With only a three-vote margin in the House, a zero vote margin in the Senate, and the need to restart the month-long House-Senate negotiation process entirely, it is very difficult to envision the bill passing in any form if Scott Brown wins. In all likelihood, the whole thing unravels at the finish line.
With so much at stake, Dems, unions piling on ads. Given everything that is at stake in the Massachusetts special elections, both SEIU and the DSCC are making major advertising purchases in the campaign. They know Scott Brown is a longshot, but that he can still win. And they know what that means for the health care bill.
When is the election? The election takes place in six days, on Tuesday, the 19th.
This is the main political event in the country right now. If you want to help out, visit Martha coakley's website, and take action.
Only 34% of Americans oppose the health care bill from the right, making this position less popular than legalizing marijuana.
There have been four public polls on the question of marijuana legalization over the past year. The results were as follows:
Should marijuana be legalized?
Pollster
Date
Legalize It
Average
2009
40.5%
Gallup
Oct '09
44
ABC / WaPo
Apr '09
46
CBS / NYT
Mar 09
31
CBS / NYT
Jan '09
41
In 2009, 40-41% of the country favored the legalization of marijuana. By comparison, looking at relevant polling, over the last two months only 34% of the country opposes the health care bill because it goes too far:
Does health care reform go too far / is too liberal?
Only 34% of the country opposes the health care bill because they think it goes too far or is too liberal. That is decidedly less than the 40-41% of the country that faces marijuana legalization.
With only 34% of the country opposing the health care bill from the right, that means it would take a congressional district with a Cook partisan voting index of, roughly speaking, Republican +16 for the majority of people in a given congressional district to oppose the bill from the right. No Democratic Senators come from a state with such a right-leaning electorate, and only four Democratic members of the House represent such districts: Bobby Bright (AL-02), Walt Minnick (ID-01), Gene Taylor (MS-04) and Chet Edwards (TX-17). A handful of others Democrats are close, represetning districts in the range of R+12 to R +14.
None of this makes the health care bill popular, or that a consensus has been reached on health care reform. However, what it does show is that right-wing opposition to health care is nowhere close to a majority position nationwide. There will be almost no negative political repercussions for the Democratic members of Congress and the Senate who vote in favor of the health care bill.
A lot of Democrats are going to lose in 2010, but it does not appear that many will lose specifically because of their support for the health care bill.
Over the last week, tens of thousands of people have sent a letter to President Obama, Speaker Pelosi, and Majority Leader Reid telling them to finish health reform right. Joining them, hundreds of organizations who care about health reform - from huge international unions to small community groups - and health care and political experts like Jacob Hacker, Wendell Potter, and Mike Lux have also signed on to the letter.
With one voice, we're all fighting for some very important things as the House and Senate health care bills head into conference to be reconciled, things like the public option, affordable health care for all, and strong insurance regulations.
Can you join us and sign your support? Just click the banner at the top of this site, or click over to http://FinishReformRight.com
Though Democratic leaders will attempt to work quickly, the aide added that even once a final bill is negotiated between the chambers it would take 10 to 13 days for the Congressional Budget Office to produce an official cost estimate.
After the CBO returns its final report, it will take another 72 hours for the House to vote on the bill. And then, after that, it will take another 30 hours for the Senate to pass the bill.
All in all, this means that it will take at least 14 days, and possibly as long as 18 days, for Congress to send the health care bill to President Obama's desk even after negotiations are finished. That would mean January 25th, even if negotiations finished today, which they won't.
The Massachusetts special election to fill Ted Kennedy's seat will take place on January 19th. The latest conservative persecution fantasy--currently being pedaled by the Boston Herald--is that Democrats would put off Brown's swearing in until February 20th in order to allow the health care bill to pass. However, the truth is that Brown will be sworn in a day or two after Coakley conceedes, and that the health care bill will probably be DOA, in terms of votes, if Brown wins anyway.
So, it appears that the Massachusetts special election for Ted Kennedy's seat will determine the fate of the health care bill. The three polls released on the campaign over the past week show Democratic nominee Martha Coakley ahead by 8.3%. Looking over the 138 closest statewide campaigns for President, Senate and Governor from 2004-2009, there were only seven instances where the final polling average missed the final result by more than 8.3%. That would translate into a paltry 2.6% of a Scott Brown victory, even given current polling.
Nate Silver has suggested that polling for special elections is notoriously difficult, akin more to primary polling, where he says individual polls have an average error of 7%. If that is true, it is quite different from general election polling (where individual polls have a mean error of only 3.9%. However, even this difference would only improve Brown's chances to 9%, still leaving Martha Coakley as the overwhelming favorite. Still, it is remarkable that a Republican has even a 9% chance to fill Ted Kennedy's seat, and a sign of just how bad things are for Democrats right now.
On Christmas Eve morning, Senate Democrats followed through on their promise to pass their version of a health insurance reform bill before the Christmas Holiday, delivering what has been hailed by many liberal commentators in major media outlets as an "early Christmas gift." However, American workers concerned about the rising costs of health care, the poor quality of service provided by private insurance for those who can even afford it, and the millions of people left behind by for-profit, market based health care ought not get too excited about the Affordable Health Care for America Act. This "early gift" is more like a lump of coal!
Health care workers, activists, and patients, as well as labor leaders and rank workers in general -- many of whom voted the Democrats back into power in the "hope" they'd deliver a Universal, National Health Service -- have been left feeling confused, frustrated, and downright betrayed. The Senate bill, like the House version, cedes even more power to the already influential private, for-profit insurance industry: the same industry that financed the Democratic Party and President Obama's victorious electoral campaigns in 2008 while simultaneously padding the war chest of the Republican Party. They also bankrolled the fear-mongering and reactionary tea party "movement," which turned the longstanding American tradition of town hall meetings into an "at your own risk" excursion in 2009. That is to say, the health care industry funded both "sides" of the "debate," and now stands to reap a tremendous profit from their investment; all at the expense of the American working class.
The Senate bill differs little from the version passed in the House back in November. For the first time, individuals will be required by law to purchase insurance policies and maintain coverage, or pay punitive tax fines for non-compliance. Much of the language of the regressive Stupak Amendment, which prohibits the use of federal funds "to pay for any abortion or to cover any part of the costs of any health plan that includes coverage of abortion," is included in the Senate bill. A tax on so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans will hit unionized workers especially hard and undermine generations of struggle by workers for a decent standard of living. The insurance industry will receive billions of dollars in additional profits, guaranteed by the personal mandate, fine scheme and taxpayer funded subsidies, and gain access to new markets as the privatization of Medicare/Medicaid continues unabated and Medicare faces upwards of $400 billion in cuts. The industry also gets to keep its decades-old anti-trust exemption.
This scheme will cost American taxpayers over $800 billion dollars over the next decade and will do next to nothing to control costs; handing the great bulk of that money to the same private, for-profit insurers who have made a killing (literally!) denying Americans coverage or providing extremely limited and unreliable coverage, driving up costs and forcing many working class individuals and families into bankruptcy and poverty. Even more despicable is the 12 year market protection extended to Big Pharma for name-brand and high-tech prescription drugs, effectively a government guarantee of private corporate profits. Over 20 million people will still be left uninsured by the Senate bill, and countless more will be left without access to the health care they really need because, as many people have learned in the recent economic crisis, insurance does not guarantee access to actual care, especially not "affordable" care.
Of course, the only health care guaranteed to be "affordable" to all is universal, FREE health care and we can only have this by demanding, organizing for and winning a "Medicare for all" reform that includes everyone and leaves no one out, along the lines of the now-defunct HR 676 or SB 703. Public opinion polling has consistently shown for nearly a decade that Americans prefer such a national universal program over market-based proposals, and back in 2005/06 many leading Democrats paid lip service to such legislation, even promising to pass it if only American voters would deliver Democrats a "super majority" in the House and Senate. Well, the Democrats got their wish, and all American workers got was this lousy bill for $800 billion, which we get the "gift" of paying for over the next decade.
As many Americans crowd the post-holiday lines at our local department stores, seeking to return or exchange unwanted gifts, we ought to remember that the party-line vote to approve the Senate Democrats' bill was 39-60, with the Republicans favoring doing nothing and the Democrats supporting what amounts to a multi-billion dollar handout to the industry which is directly responsible for the death of 60 people in the US each and every day and the bankruptcy of thousands. Neither of these corporate, capitalist political parties represents the interests of the American working class, who make up the vast majority. America needs a working class party, an independent, mass party of labor based on the unions to fight uncompromisingly for the real interests of the majority. Only thus can we end the rationing of health care services based on economic privilege and win FREE, QUALITY health care for all as a human right!
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
