Breaking News on health care: White House to split reform bill in two

[IndianaGreen]

As reported on MSNBC, White House to rely on Democrats only to pass the most expensive part of bill.

On edit:

Keith Olbermann broke the news as he handed the show to Rachel Maddow.

Rachel:

Some parts through budget reconciliation rules.

MSNBC crawler: WSJ is the source of the story (keep in mind Murdoch owns WSJ)

AUGUST 20, 2009.

New Rx for Health Plan: Split Bill

By JONATHAN WEISMAN and NAFTALI BENDAVID

The White House and Senate Democratic leaders, seeing little chance of bipartisan support for their health-care overhaul, are considering a strategy shift that would break the legislation into two parts and pass the most expensive provisions solely with Democratic votes.

The idea is the latest effort by Democrats to escape the morass caused by delays in Congress, as well as voter discontent crystallized in angry town-hall meetings. Polls suggest the public is losing support for the overhaul plans, giving Republicans less incentive to go along.

Democrats hope a split-the-bill plan would speed up a vote and help President Barack Obama meet his goal of getting a final measure by year's end.

Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a piece of parliamentary sleight-of-hand called reconciliation.

In recent days, Democratic leaders have concluded they can pack more of their health overhaul plans under this procedure, congressional aides said. They might even be able to include a public insurance plan to compete with private insurers, a key demand of the party's liberal wing, but that remains uncertain.

Other parts of the Democratic plan would be put to a separate vote in the Senate, including the requirement that Americans have health insurance. It also would set new rules for insurers, such as requiring they accept anyone, regardless of pre-existing medical conditions. This portion of the health-care overhaul has already drawn some Republican support and wouldn't involve new spending, leading Democratic leaders to believe they could clear the 60-vote hurdle.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

[Eric J in MN]

1. Fine, if they pass the Public Option half first.

If they pass the other half first, then we may get stuck with mandates to buy private insurance (if the Public Option doesn't pass.)

[JeanGrey]

9. If we were doing this right (i.e, getting rid of insurance companies)

it wouldn't be "expensive". After all we are spending DOUBLE what other countries spend for less effect. All we have to do is go to single payer and our expenses should fall like a stone.

What's the problem? Our elected officials don't want to lose than jingle, jangle, jingle.

[Eric J in MN]

36. Statistics

Health spending per person:
US $7,290, UK $2,992

Life expectancy:
US 78, UK 80

From 'The Independent:' http://tiny.cc/MEpJq

[JeanGrey]

46. EXACTLY. So when our "elected officials" try to chicken out

by saying it's too expensive and won't pass, they are SIMPLY LYING.

[Phx_Dem]

2. Isn't that what Howard Dean was telling JoeScar yesterday?

Someone posted the transcript and it sounded to me like he was saying there would vote on two different bills in order to get public option without the Senate Blue Dogs, unless I misunderstood what Dean was saying (which could be the case!).

[jenmito]

4. No. The "two different bills" he was talking about were one from the House and one from the

Senate.

[drm604]

5. It certainly sounds like it.

Why else would they split it up?

[jenmito]

12. No. He said the House would have their bill WITH a public option and the Senate would have

their bill WITHOUT a public option and they have to get together to reconcile it into one bill at which time Dean said they could slip the public option into the final bill and then use reconciliation to pass it.

[polichick]

3. Rachel is talking with Bernie Sanders about it now. nt

[Phx_Dem]

6. This just shows, there is more than one way to skin a cat.

[polichick]

7. We've been talking about going back to the drawing board today - this is good! nt

[Phx_Dem]

10. People need to keep the faith. There is no way in HELL Obama

is going to lose the health care reform fight. There is no way he went into this battle casually and naively, as many on cable news and DU suggest. Fineman said today that Obama was legislatively inexperienced . . . blah blah blah, sugesting he didn't know how to handle the GOP onslaught. Puhleeeeeze. Obama is more strategically brilliant that all of those assholes put together.

WE. SHALL. FUCKING. SEE about that Fineman, Olbermann, Maddow and the rest of you Debbie Downers.

[polichick]

13. imo it's important that progressives are holding his feet to the fire right now. nt

[Phx_Dem]

18. It's not his feet that need to held to the fire, it's the Blue Dogs.

Obama has always advocated for public option. All the talk about bipartisian ship is mostly political shtick -- sure he'd like to get it, but knows he won't, at least not on health care. The Repugs already said it would be his Waterloo and "break him." He's knows fully well they won't support him on it.

A skilled poltician/strategist/manipulator does not show his cards in public. That's exactly what the Republicans have done; as someone posted "they shot their wad early" and now they have nothing. They're stupid. Obama is not.

It's not Obama you have to worry about; he's finding ways to get around the Blue Dogs but we should hold their feet to the fire anyway and punish them for being unsuppotive on HC reform.

[polichick]

22. Actually, the WH wanted Dems to STOP pressuring the Blue Dogs...

Progressives (through moveon.org) had paid for ads to shine the light on the special interests of the Dogs.

[Phx_Dem]

35. I don't believe that for a second! It's possible they just wanted

Blue Dogs to think they "had their back?" And it's also possible those comments were taken out of context or never uttered at all.

To think the WH seriously wants liberals to not help them pressure Blue Dogs is ludicris.


edited typo

[polichick]

37. Well, both Rahm and Obama are politicians...

http://www.politico.com/blogs/bensmith/0809/Rahm_warns_liberal_groups_against_antiDem_ads.html

[babylonsister]

25. Hey, I agree!

:fistbump:

[Coexist]

8. Bernie Sanders likes the idea...

[Parker CA]

11. What exactly is the idea? How would the bill be split and what would each portion contain? Would

there be a public option in one of the two pieces of legislation?

[Phx_Dem]

14. I think that would be the main (only) reason to do it this way.

End run around Republicans and Blue Dogs to get a public option. Is that right? Anyone? Bueller?

[Coexist]

15. ram through the stuff, the expensive stuff, that can be done by procedure

and not subject it to a cloture vote. then in the following months, get the other stuff through. but lay the groundwork and build on it.

[Coexist]

19. here are some points from what he said...

- greatly expand community health centers
- get MDs into rural areas
- work on preventing diseases (diabetes, heart disease) instead of treating
- deal with ins reform; primary healthcare reform

get that through... then


'we can say we're making progress and then we can tackle the remaining issues'

[Coexist]

29. here's some details:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125072573848144647.html

The White House and Senate Democratic leaders, seeing little chance of bipartisan support for their health-care overhaul, are considering a strategy shift that would break the legislation into two parts and pass the most expensive provisions solely with Democratic votes.

The idea is the latest effort by Democrats to escape the morass caused by delays in Congress, as well as voter discontent crystallized in angry town-hall meetings. Polls suggest the public is losing support for the overhaul plans, giving Republicans less incentive to go along.

Democrats hope a split-the-bill plan would speed up a vote and help President Barack Obama meet his goal of getting a final measure by year's end.

Most legislation in the Senate requires 60 votes to overcome a filibuster, but certain budget-related measures can pass with 51 votes through a piece of parliamentary sleight-of-hand called reconciliation.

[Pirate Smile]

32. Only budget parts can go through by the Reconcilliation process which only needs 51 votes. The

rest of the Health Insurance Reform will need 60 votes so those parts will be put in a separate bill. Much of those reforms have broad support and wont have trouble getting 60 votes.

edit to add a link to some more info on Reconcilliation. http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2009/08/can_reconciliation_work_for_he.html

[stray cat]

16. thats encouraging - sounds rather clever - we will have to see

[Kingofalldems]

17. The DU taunter must be apoplectic over this turn of events

Furiously unrec-ing this one

[burning rain]

20. Well, Senate Dems better not screw up.

If they get provisions that insurance companies must accept anyone, cannot jack up your rates or dump you when you get sick, and cannot charge you higher rates if you have a pre-existing condition -- but fail to get the public option -- that will encourage big insurance to raise everyone's rates through the roof, especially if there's an individual mandate. Now that would provide the GOP a real club with which to clobber Dems at the next election, especially with younger voters.

[MarjorieG]

21. Bernie addressing how to address quickly insurance reform, primary care, county hospitals, etc.

I am also concerned about time frame to solve problems and big overhaul; some of these reforms can be enacted quickly.

I remember when reconciliation was first mentioned a few months when included in budget, mention of Rahm planning about splitting and getting through.

Now we need a certain policy to tout, which is why Obama held back until we're ready, rather than, oops, we changed our minds.

[MarjorieG]

23. Does Byrd Rule/reconciliation not impact passing budget part, because allocated at this yr's budget?

Confused...

[flyarm]

24. Does anywhere confirm the rates those with pre-existing conditions have to pay????

I have seen nothing that would cap the prices these insurance companies could charge people for pre-existing health problems..if there are no caps..sure they could offer it..but it could lead to astronomical costs for the payee that no one could afford the insurance..

without caps this would be nothing but bold faced bullshit!

Does anyone know if there would be caps or if that is even mentioned?

[dsamuels0078]

26. ha

Gibbs knocks this down 3 2 1


bipartisanship

bipartisanship

bipartisanship

bipartisanship

bipartisanship

bipartisanship

[Jennicut]

28. English is getting EVEN better then before...by the way, how is Japan?

[Teaser]

31. I wanted to let you know about a typo you made

you spelled several words correctly.

[nc4bo]

44. Glad that one is gone. He was trying to be stealthy with his bs. Good riddance to it. nt

[SpartanDem]

27. Both the House and Senate HELP bills make it illegal to charge based on health status

[flyarm]

30. But that does not answer my question..is there a cap anywhere mentioned that will

stop an insurance company from charging high rates to a family where say one member has a Pre-existing condition..because without caps..many will be shut out by cost!

all it takes is a definition..like "REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY"..OF WHICH NO ONE WITH MY INSURANCE COMAPANY CAN DEFINE..THEY JUST CALL IT 'resonable and customary"...

What is resonable in Kansas is not reasonable in say..L.A. or NY..

My point being ..without caps the insurance companies can come up with definitions that really still shut out those with pre-existing conditions..by pricing the coverage so high , no one can afford it!

My point is , IO have had the same insurance for 30 years..it is only the past two that i started getting this "RESONABLE AND CUSTOMARY " BULLSHIT... and being told the Insurance co will only pay a certain amount ..because of 'REASONABLE AND CUSTOMARY " CRAP..WELL I HAVE QUESTIONED EXHAUSTIVELY..who is this being compared to??? and I get a run around and never a damn answer..all the hosptials in my area are owned by the same conglomerate..so who are they comparing for "reasonable and customary?"

when i need health care am i supposed to shop around first???? I ask these questions and get no damn answers..

so who is to say ,..if someone has a pre-existing condition they will not get some new "LINGO" THAT puts the prices so high no one with a pre-existing can afford it..sure the insurance companies can offer it..but what if no one can afford it?????????

that is damn well what will happen without caps! count on it!

[SpartanDem]

34. There are overall caps on premiums

but not one specifically for pre existing conditions since the community rating provisions would outlaw basing premiums on your health anyway.

[flyarm]

39. Countdown: Wendell Potter, Whistleblower

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5A39IpJF5Q0&eurl=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Edemocraticunderground%2Ecom%2Fdiscuss%2Fduboard%2Ephp%3Faz%3Dview%5Fall%26address%3D385x356855&feature=player_embedded

"35% contribution by consumers - more in line with what the Big Insurer wants.The final figures are being debated."
Business Week Aug 7th

( mine is now 20%..so that means i would go up 15%..wow I guess i should be thrilled .. what a freaking deal this will be ..right?????)



xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Ambinder: White House “Won’t Buckle” To Liberal Demands For Public Plan
By: Jane Hamsher Wednesday August 19, 2009 2:33 pm

http://campaignsilo.firedoglake.com/2009/08/19/ambinder-white-house-wont-buckle-to-liberal-demands-for-public-plan/
I know people are reluctant to believe that the President has no plans to include a public option in his health care bill, but according to Marc Ambinder, that is indeed the truth:

The White House and Senate Democrats won't buckle to demands from liberals that they revise their health care strategy, officials said today.

Liberals are demanding the inclusion of a public plan. The White House won't "revise" their strategy to accommodate them.

Glenzilla:

The attempt to attract GOP support was the pretext which Democrats used to compromise continuously and water down the bill. But -- given the impossibility of achieving that goal -- isn't it fairly obvious that a desire for GOP support wasn't really the reason the Democrats were constantly watering down their own bill? Given the White House's central role in negotiating a secret deal with the pharmaceutical industry, its betrayal of Obama's clear promise to conduct negotiations out in the open (on C-SPAN no less), Rahm's protection of Blue Dogs and accompanying attacks on progressives, and the complete lack of any pressure exerted on allegedly obstructionists "centrists," it seems rather clear that the bill has been watered down, and the "public option" jettisoned, because that's the bill they want -- this was the plan all along.

Max Baucus (who is negotiating the White House's bill) today reaffirmed his commitment to have a "bipartisan" bill. Since Republicans will never sign off on a public plan, that's not-so-subtle code for "no public plan." And any time anyone says that, including President Obama, that is in fact what they're saying.

[flyarm]

41. didn't you know ..It's all in the "small print"..

no where in my insurance policy ,does it say the insurance company, after 30+ years with the same coverage..that they can play the "reasonable and customary" bullshit either..but they doooooooooo!!

[DU GrovelBot]

33. ## PLEASE DONATE TO DEMOCRATIC UNDERGROUND! ##

This week is our third quarter 2009 fund drive. Democratic Underground is
a completely independent website. We depend on donations from our members
to cover our costs. Please take a moment to donate! Thank you!

[MadHound]

38. Here it comes,

The public option, single payer, all of that gets put off to an indefinite future while a Democratic Congress passes through a pig with lipstick and Obama can claim that he reformed health care.

[alcibiades_mystery]

40. Bookmarking

I hope to make this response my signature line.

[Teaser]

42. what the fuck are you talking about?

You don't even know, do you?

This is to help get the PO passed, or things like it.

Stop taking the ludes, man.

[MadHound]

43. Really? Will the public option be passed through reconciliation?

Oh, no it won't, apparently due to a Constitutional issue it can't be. So it will be left behind, as I said, to be dealt with at some indefinite point in the future, ie, never.

[harun]

47. You don't think all the corporate welfare crap is going to be in the first one?

And the stuff that actually helps people is going to be in the second one?

[Vinca]

45. This will be amusing.

I wonder how many Republicans will vote for the "bipartisan" half. My money is on zero.