Reid's Plan: Public Option + Opt-Out?

[berni_mccoy]

I haven't seen the bill or heard that it has been released, but just now on The Morning Meeting, a chart was displayed, very quickly, that showed a side-by-side comparison of the House and Senate plans.

Both have a Public Option, but the Senate includes an Opt-Out.

There appears to be a difference on who is getting taxed to pay for it, but the chart only says "Millionaires" class for House bill and "Cadillac" class for the Senate, whatever that is supposed to mean.

Has anyone heard or read any other details on the Senate plan?

The only thing I can comment on this chart that was displayed is that an Opt-Out would be better than a Trigger. And as Sen. Gregg noted, Reid's job is to get this passed in the Senate (most likely getting 60 votes for cloture). Afterward, it is expected that they would merge the two in Conference, moving the Senate bill closer to the House bill and bring it back to the Senate where only 51 votes would be required to pass it.

If they remove the Stupak Amendment and the Opt-Out in conference, then this would probably be an acceptable bill.

[daleanime]

1. Depends...

Is the public option open to all and at least at Medicare levels? Any bill that forces us to provide more profit for insurance companies is just a republican resurrection plan.:mad:

[KharmaTrain]

2. It's All Inside Baseball

And that's what's frustrating but an important part of this process. Right now the game is getting 60 votes to move ahead into reconciliation and the choices appear to be opt out or a trigger. A trigger probably gets Snowe to jump over but it waters down any final bill far worse than an opt out.

My hopes and bets are with you. The Stupid Stupak C-Street Ammendment was a poison pill that caught Pelosi by surprise...and won't survive reconciliation as most politicians don't want to deal with the abortion hot potato and this one at the same time. Opt out or trigger is another matter...as there are still some blue dogs who will want a bone in the House. But let's see how things play out...first is getting past cloiture and that won't be easy.

[karynnj]

3. You've seen more than I have

One point, they CAN filibuster the conference bill. We actually did filibuster one defense appropriations bill, that was a conference report, in 2005 because Stevens had added drilling in ANWR. The filibuster led to them removing the provision, with Stevens playing a very convincing foiled Rumpelstiltskin role - saying he would quit the Senate and saying there were Democrats he would no longer go on trips with (both threats were bigger in his mind than they were here.)

I do think there might be fewer people who would filibuster as earlier a filibuster could change the bill, here it is more likely to kill it - though as in the above example, it is possible to force something out or in. (Unfortunately, here given that we are the ones wanting it to pass, they are the ones more likely to be able to do something like that.)

I suspect that Stupak may be rewritten, but not removed. They may change the wording to insure it does not provide one cent more of federal money for abortion, but remove anything that made it harder as well. In other words, make it clear that it is neutral and does not change the status quo.

[berni_mccoy]

4. I believe Stupak will be removed.

If it isn't, the final bill won't pass the House. Furthermore, there is no need for abortion language in the bill because of the Hyde Amendment.

[karynnj]

6. I agree with you that it isn't needed - what I was suggesting was that

they likely will need to have something that each side will not be thrilled with, but which they can see as a win. I suspect that to get the votes on the right they will have to restate the Hyde amendment within the bill - even if it is redundant. Obviously, I would prefer no abortion language, but that would be seen as a "loss" by the conservative Democrats.

[asjr]

5. One way or another we will be screwed. Both

houses have thrown us tidbits for a year, even before Obama was elected. The Repubs and "moderate" Dems have deluged us with talk about cost. I am waiting for someone in the Dem party to say out loud We wasted taxpayer money on an illegal war to kill people and get our men and women killed, why can't we spend money now on helping people to live. Very few are saying anything about the surplus that was left by Clinton and how quickly it was spent by Republicans on a whim. We can't really do anything about Pakistan, Afghanistan (also known as Turdistan), Iraq, etc. They are going to do what THEY want to do, not what we want them to do. If Obama doesn't get us out of the entire area he may as well not run for re-election. I've lived through WW2, Korea, Vietnam and am sick of war.