First Gang of Six Member Backs Reconciliation for Healthcare

[laughingliberal]

Source: Huffington Post

A Democratic member of the "Gang of Six" senators charged with finding a bipartisan solution to health care reform said at a town hall Monday that he would support using the budget reconciliation process to push a bill through the Senate if necessary.

Reconciliation is a parliamentary procedure that would allow Democrats to pass health care reform with 51 votes, meaning the party could do it without any Republican support.

Sen. Jeff Bingaman of New Mexico has been one of three Democrats participating in the widely-watched Finance Committee negotiations. His willingness to consider reconciliation is another sign that a a genuine bipartisan deal may be impossible.

Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/25/first-gang-of-six-member_n_268518.html

---

Let's hope this is a sign the dominoes are about to fall to the left.

[FVZA_Colonel]

1. It's not a guarantee we'll get a strong public option if reconciliation is used,

but it seems at least possible.

[laughingliberal]

2. It is not a guarantee but it is the first sign out of Baucus' Committee

that any of them are willing to drop the pretense of a 'bipartisan' agreement. Okay, maybe it is the 2nd sign. Article yesterday had Baucus verbalizing support for a public option, for what it's worth.

[wryter2000]

9. I heard that on Mama's show this morning

Maybe the tide has turned.

[xchrom]

3. sorry -- but i have to know what 'strong' means first.

everything else is 'reform' related only to insurance -- i don't NEED insurance --i NEED healthcare.

[laughingliberal]

4. Without a public option that can compete vigorously

we are going to get a mandate to buy from the private insurance companies. It will amount to a hit on working class and middle class Americans. Obama Whitehouse has been touting this committee's bill as "the one to watch." If we see them starting to call for Democrats to pass the bill without the party of NO involved it is a good sign. I don't see how they could not go for a good, progressive bill if they drop the 'bipartisan' goal.

[Teaser]

7. Obama Whitehouse has been touting this committee's bill as "the one to watch."

When have they done this? Where have they done this?

[laughingliberal]

17. At Obama's Town Hall Meeting in Montana

Obama kept referring to Baucus' work

Widely believed to signal his support of the Senate Finance version. Not saying I agree but it was somewhat anxiety provoking

edited to clarify

[Hippo_Tron]

29. I've seen a different interpretation of that signal

It has been suggested that the point of that meeting was to subtly motivate Baucus' constituents to make him do the right thing.

[laughingliberal]

30. Another distinct possibility

I was surprised to see Baucus came out yesterday and stated he believed in a public option.

[No Elephants]

33. I don't understand. Is anything besides money stopping you from getting health care?

If not, you need insurance. And help paying for it, too, if that's what you need.

On the other hand, if there are not enough doctors in your area or something like that, you're right. Insurance will not help you.

[Jackpine Radical]

5. Despite all my pissing & moaning & pessimism around here lately, something

just hit me here.

If you can't get 60+ for a "bipartisan" bill with a strong public option (in order to suck in a few Republicans and the Blue Dogs),

you equally can't get 51 for a budget reconciliation-type bill without that strong public option. The true progressives like Feingold won't play if there is no SPO. Therefore, to talk at all about going for 51, you have to be talking about bringing the progressives with you. That means you need the SPO.

[wryter2000]

10. Yup

Besides, the House will block anything without a public option.

You haven't been wrong to complain. It's been looking so bleak lately.

[Kingofalldems]

6. Republicans posing as blue dog Democrats are not amused

[Fearless]

13. Excuse me while I warm up the band...

:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:
:nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity: :nopity:

[wryter2000]

8. Yeehah

Way to go, Bingaman. Maybe this is the beginning of the break-up of the log jam.

[SKKY]

11. I thought that was the plan all along...

...it makes sense to me. Give them a chance, but knowing they won't, push this to reconciliation where you only need 51 votes. That way, we're guaranteed a strong public option.

[No Elephants]

34. Reconciliation is not a guarantee of anything. It is full of pitfalls.

[Fearless]

12. About time!

[McCamy Taylor]

14. It is good public health policy and a wise political decision for the Dems.

Win/win all around.

[backscatter712]

15. Definitely good news.

Bingaman has expressed support for the public option in the past, and I think he's recognizing that the Gang of Six negotiations aren't going to get anywhere.

Definitely a sign that we're about to see health care rammed through.

[salguine]

16. I'm not going to break out the party hats until we see what we actually get. If all

that happens is the Democrats pass, with 51 votes, some shitty plan that forces everyone to buy insurance, or anything else that doesn't actually fix the problem but preserves the status quo, I don't really see that as a solution. And I've been around long enough to know better than to believe it before I see it.

[laughingliberal]

18. Not ready for the party hats, myself, but

If the Democrats are going for passage without Republican support, there is no reason not to give us a real reform bill. I do believe the money raised in 3 days online for progressives gave all the DINO's a moment to reflect. They might win their seats back without the health insurance industry but they will not win them if the Democratic voters desert them.

[salguine]

19. From their point of view, there IS a reason not to give us a redorm bill—a HUGE reason. And

that reason is spelt "$". They know which side their bread is buttered on. I'd be willing to bet that nearly all of them would gamble that an avalanche of Pharma and HMO dollars would override a tide of angry voters.

[laughingliberal]

23. Perhaps. We shall see.

I know the money is damned important to them. But all the money in the world won't elect them if the base stays home. They won't get Republican votes. And they can't win with Independents alone. I'm guessing they know that.

[No Elephants]

36. Neither Party can win without its base, nor with only its base. Hence, the centrists,

aiming for those not affiliated with either Party.

[No Elephants]

35. IMO, tthey lack the courage to drop the Republican amendments.

[AlbertCat]

20. Pretty good news...but this Gang of Six BS!!!!

Why isn't the whole committee deciding? Why is the Gang of Six a 50/50 thing. Who chose them and why? We overwhelmingly voted in Dems so why isn't the Gang of Six, if it must exist, 5 Dems and one Repug?

[laughingliberal]

25. I'm with you, there

I have no idea who decided that the rest of the committee should be left out. But the split should have represented the makeup of the Senate-60/40.

[Union Yes]

21. You mean a Dem is actually gonna act like a F'n Dem? That's change we can believe in for a change.

:patriot:

[humbled_opinion]

22. Yes signs like this give encouragement

Leadership is the key. Take a strong stand for a strong public Option thats what will win the people over. The squishy middle is just looking for a strong leadership message. The sooner we have universal health coverage the better let the right whine about it but when people are actually able to go to the doctors without worrying about financial ruin it will be a boon for our economy and our nation.

I am sure this argument is just as difficult as it was for FDR to make the argument for Social Security in 1935 but look at it now who in their right minds would argue against Social Security....

Oh thats right the idiots on the Right tried to dissolve social security during the 2005 election.... LOL too funny.

[Union Yes]

24. recd

[Honeycombe8]

26. Bless New Mexico. Must be something in the water out there.

This tells me that there IS a recognition among the Democratic Senators that the Republicans aren't going to vote for a health care bill, no matter what provisions it has or doesn't have.

[still_one]

27. I'll believe it when I see it /nt

[laughingliberal]

28. Well, I never believe anything until I see it and then I still question it

But this is the first crack in the veneer of the gang of six that appeared ready to negotiate until the next century to achieve that elusive, "bipartisan' bill. It does have me thinking the battle for real reform is not over, yet. I was not so sure 2 weeks ago.

[mrdmk]

31. Reconciliation will be problematic at best. The bill will be without any financial backing

link (3rd paragraph down) http://www.thomhartmann.com/2009/08/06/july-31-2009-show-notes/

<snip>
There is a lot of confusion with health care, with 3 House committees, the Obama administration and 2 Senate committees. Some are saying it will be 2013 or 2018 before single payer would be in effect, if we got it at all. Replace public option with nuclear option? People are dying. Complicated story. It does not take 60 votes, but 50. 60 are needed to stop Republican filibusters. Bernie thinks all Democrats and maybe some Republicans should stop filibusters. According to the Institute of Medicine, over 18,00 Americans die because they don’t go to doctors every year. Senator Kennedy is ill (passed away as of Tuesday 08/26/09) so they are down to 59, need at least one Republican. Budget reconciliation is an approach, but it carries with it a lot of rules, they would need to chop up the bill.
<end of snip>

So with the Reconciliation approach, the Public Option provision will be removed because of the financial considerations.

link (See The Byrd Rule) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_%28U.S._Congress%29

<snip>
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. § 644) outlines what reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be extraneous in six cases:

* (1) if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;

* (2) if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;

* (3) if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;

* (4) if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;

* (5) if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and

* (6) if it recommends changes in Social Security.

If a provision violates the Byrd Rule, then any Senator may raise a procedural objection and unless 60 Senators vote to waive the objection, then the offending provision will be stripped from the bill.
<end of snip>

All six cases must be met otherwise, the offending provision will be removed.

Also watch who is saying that the Senate needs to go with the reconciliation approach.

[No Elephants]

32. NUCLEAR OPTION is the only foolproof way.

This is the most important legislation since the Civil Rights Act of 1964. It's worth it.

Yeah, I know the Republicans will retaliate when they are in the majority. So what? Think about it. So what? They are never going to agree with us on anything anyway.