KHN: Kaiser Health News

Topics:

Blog Watch

Posts Tagged ‘reconciliation’

Kicking Off A Busy Week

The week opened with bloggers critiquing the Democrats’ strategy to pass a health overhaul bill sometime this week.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small has a day-by-day time line to help track events.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn wonders, “What’s been taking so long?”  According to Cohn, “The broad outlines of the eventual House-Senate compromise on health care reform have been clear for a while now. But nailing down the details isn’t easy, as the excerpt above suggests. And it’s particularly difficult because lawmakers don’t yet know what the Senate parliamentarian will rule outside the bounds of reconciliation. Throw in the need to get acceptable Congressional Budget Office estimates, and you can see why this process has taken as long as it has.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein writes, “Shortly before midnight on Sunday, Democrats released a 2,309 page health care bill that will start the process of reconciliation — but don’t let that fool you, it’s not the actual reconciliation bill with all the changes you’ve been reading about. Instead, as Rep. Paul Ryan, the ranking Republican member on the Budget Committee, explained to me last week, this is just the ’shell’ bill — the vehicle that Democrats need to get moving on health care.”

Although the action today was in the House Budget Committee, the National Journal Online’s Robert Costa says the House Rules Committee “is where the real reconciliation package will be hammered out, probably later this week.” Costa interviews the top Republican on the Rules Committee, Rep. David Dreier of California, who said, ” ‘Our committee’s meeting won’t be the fait accompli…The real fait accompli will be when the bill is scheduled for a vote on the floor. I’m convinced that [Democrats] will pretty much get it done if they can get it there. Having been in that position before, I’m sure they will roll the dice if they’re three or four votes short.’”

TPMDC’s Brian Beutler reports from a meeting with Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who said, “‘Time is important for us here, because this city is the city of the perishable and every special interest group out there who doesn’t want this to pass–including the entire Republican party–benefits from any delay,’ Pelosi told those in attendance. ‘Delay is our enemy.’”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein explains, “Pelosi doesn’t have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi’s favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after. This is all about plausible deniability for House members who don’t want to vote for the Senate bill, although I doubt many voters will find the denials plausible.”

And Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey reacts to news that the White House may change its stance on special deals for individual states in the reform bills, saying, “In case you want to play The Price is Right with Bob Baracker, here are the new rules.  Single state deals are verboten, so no Cornhusker Kickback for you.  If two states get together to demand special deals, well, come on down!”

Monday, March 15th, 2010

Tags: , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Will Health Reform Pass?

Bloggers are wondering whether a health overhaul bill can actually pass — and most are focused on Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s ability to drum up enough votes in the House.

Time’s Karen Tumulty says Democratic lawmakers are caught in a “prisoners’ dilemma.”  According to Tumulty, “Every endangered member will be trying to figure out not only his or her own vote, but also which way colleagues are likely to go. This one is going to be so difficult to predict–right up until the very last minute.”

Five Thirty Eight’s poll reader extraordinaire Nate Silver points out that InTrade’s bettors set the bill’s odds for passage at just better than even — which has moved up “fairly significantly in the past 72 hours.” Silver examines what’s changed in the last several weeks, and decides: “That’s a lot of evidence to weigh. My head says yes — Pelosi will squeak this through — while my gut frankly says no. Either way, I’m not sure there’s a lot of arbitrage against that 52 percent number at Intrade, but I’d hesitate to call the bill a favorite to pass.”

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar says she’s “all but certain” that a health overhaul bill will pass. Her reasoning? “Unless the president and Pelosi have signed a secret political suicide pact, they wouldn’t be doing this unless they were quite sure they could pull it off. ”

Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that Democratic leaders estimate they are short between 6-12 votes in the House, so “To convince these lawmakers, House leadership is preparing a whip operation described as “all hands on deck.” Pelosi and Rep. James Clyburn (D-S.C.) will dispatch loyal lieutenants to help rub elbows and twist arms. Once the party settles on a final set of reconciliation changes, leaders in the labor community are set to launch a major campaign to help with the whipping, officials say.”

Slate’s Chris Beam explains how a Congressional whip actually works: “They count votes. The principle task of a party whip, formally known as ‘assistant party leader,’ is to keep track of the number of votes for and against a piece of legislation. They’re also responsible, along with the party’s leader, for “whipping up” support for a particular position.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein notes that a resigning Republican House member is delaying leaving his post so he can vote no on health reform, which means Pelosi still needs 217 votes to pass a bill.

But Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey thinks another scenario altogther may unfold: “The real nightmare scenario isn’t that the House might pass the Senate bill now, or in April.  It’s that Democrats might get stymied now, and then pass the Senate bill after the midterms in late November, and allow Obama to sign it into law well after the time when voters have held them accountable for their radical agenda.”

Friday, March 5th, 2010

Tags: ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Irreconcilable Differences

Bloggers take in President Barack Obama’s speech urging the passage of the health reform bill, in part through budget reconciliation, by Easter. But there’s still vehement disagreement over the legislations’ substance.

Heritage’s Conn Carroll reacted to yesterday’s event, saying, “there is one huge difference between the Senate bill and what the President kept referring to as my/our proposal: the Senate bill actually exists. For all the talk in Washington about Democrats in the Senate using reconciliation to pass a final version of Obamacare, one key fact has been overlooked: no reconciliation bill exists. Not in the House. Not in the Senate. Nowhere. It simply has not yet been written, and there are plenty of reasons to believe it never will.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein emphasized that this speech seemed different than Obama’s previous presidential statements: “What’s important about this speech is that it didn’t leave any paths open. It attacked the Republican bills, the arguments for piecemeal reform, and the idea that procedural impediments are sufficient to excuse the further delay of a verdict. This is the end of the line.”

Critical Condition’s Jeffrey Anderson says Obama’s claims about what his health plan will do are false, and argues “In reality, here are the three main things that Obamacare would change about the current health system:  One, it would reduce freedom. Two, it would raise costs. Three, it would ultimately reduce costs in the only way that a government-controlled system can: by rationing care.”

Cato’s Michael Cannon says Obama’s move to include health savings accounts in his new plan didn’t gain any Republican support, and “it may have cost him some Democratic support — or at least frayed the nerves of a few House Democrats.”

 Elsewhere, Brad Wright of Wright on Health hosts the newest edition of Health Wonk Review, a biweekly compendium of health policy blogging, where he charts the cyber chatter surrounding key developments feeding into the health reform dynamic — everything from the fracas surrounding insurance premium hikes to an analysis of the good and bad ideas that emerged at the president’s health summit.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn looks at a new ad from a conservative group that urges Democrats to vote against a reform bill.  Cohn thinks the add is “a vivid illustration of why changing votes is such a bad idea. Just read that script again. But, this time, stop after the first paragraph. That’s the ad conservatives will run against these members even if they change their votes. And it’s still devastating.”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky fact-checks statements on abortion funding from Rep. Bart Stupak, who authored an amendment restricting funding of abortions in the health bills.  Volsky says: “Stupak is just shifting the goal posts. First he complained about taxpayer funding for abortion and once Democrats strengthened the Senate language, he began arguing that private funds will not go towards abortion coverage. He simply can’t have it both ways.”

And Slate’s Timothy Noah created a ‘Mix-Up’ of health care statements from President Obama and former Gov. Mitt Romney, R-Mass.

Thursday, March 4th, 2010

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Obama Interjects Again

President Barack Obama gave a speech this afternoon that some have deemed his “last, best chance to move forward.” But opponents of reform are not enthused with his effort to include a handful of GOP health care ideas.

Cato’s Michael Cannon, reacting to Obama’s insertion of some Republican ideas after last weeks’ summit, says, “Dropping a few Republican ideas into a government takeover of health care is like sterilizing the needle before a lethal injection: a nice thought, but the ultimate outcome is the same.”

Heritage’s Conn Carroll agrees with Cannon, writing: “Simply adjusting the magnitude of the existing proposals or adding so-called conservative provisions does not change this fundamental direction.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrisey doesn’t think adding a few GOP ideas is good politics either: “This looks like yet another miscalculation, a gambit that will keep Congress tied up on ObamaCare well into the spring and perhaps the summer.”

Critical Condition’s Grace-Marie Turner says, “The president is expected to ask the Senate to twist its rules to force its health-overhaul legislation through a process designed exclusively for budget and spending-related issues. These are desperate, hard-ball political tactics.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein interviews Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad about that process, known as budget reconciliation. Conrad rejects Republican concerns that using reconciliation is a break from precendent and points to a number of Republican uses of the tactic.

Time’s Jay Newton-Small profiles Alan Frumin, the current Senate parlamentarian, and looks at how both parties have been prepping to get their way in a reconciliation debate.

Open Congress’ Donny Shaw compiled a list of provisions that were rejected under reconciliation in past years.

And the Huffington Post’s Ryan Grim reports that Ted Kaufman, D-Del., is the 34th senator to sign a letter in support of including a public option in a reconciliation bill.

Wednesday, March 3rd, 2010

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Talking Strategy

Bloggers are trying to keep up with rapidly shifting strategy options under consideration to pass a final health overhaul bill.

The Weekly Standard’s Matthew Continetti thinks Democrats are “making one of the biggest political gambles in American history. They’re betting that overhauling one-sixth of the American economy against the public’s wishes and by a partisan vote is going to pay off in the end. They have doubled down, and are hoping the house busts.”

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn details a Democratic memo that lays out a timeline for passing reform: “The gist is pretty simple: The House takes up the Senate bill and passed it by March 19. A few days later it passes a reconciliation bill and sends it over to the Senate, which starts the voting process on March 26.”   Cohn warns that schedules “remain in flux” and the GOP has  the option to offer endless amendments during a reconciliation process, even though the debate time is limited.

But The Huffington Post’s Sam Stein reports that there might be a way around endless votes: “Two experts in the arcane rules of the Senate said on Monday that, as president of the Senate, Biden has the capacity not just to overrule any ruling that the parliamentarian may make but also to cut off efforts by Republicans to offer unlimited amendments.”

Keith Hennessey lists seven challenges Democratic leaders would face by following a “two bill strategy,” including the sequence of votes (House or Senate first?) and a “voterama” where senators will have to vote up or down on proposed amendments.

Heritage’s Conn Carrol thinks a House passage is still up in the air, saying Speaker Pelsoi doesn’t currently have enough votes for reform, and “if you were watching the television yesterday it quickly became apparent that the leadership in the House has no idea how they are going to get them.”

Critical Condition’s Jim Capretta argues that Democrats can pass a smaller bill, despite talking points that stress the opposite.  Capretta continues, “Still, the very existence of the Obama team’s fallback plan should embolden those Democrats who are now resisting their leadership’s pressure to take up the full Obamacare package in coming weeks and pass it.

And The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a thorough look at claims from Rep. Paul Ryan, R-Wisc., that the health care porposals won’t control rising health costs or reduce the deficit.  Klein says, “before we dive so deep into the weeds that we’re seeing earthworms, here’s the basic conclusion: Ryan’s critique scores some clean points and also deploys a couple of dirty tricks, but it doesn’t damage the bill’s claim to reduce deficits and doesn’t even engage whether the bill controls costs.”

Tuesday, March 2nd, 2010

Tags: , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Health Summit Still Reverberating

Bloggers continue to analyze the health care summit, while others look at what’s next.

The Heritage Foundation compiled a “four-minute guide” video to last week’s summit.

The Daily Caller’s Jon Ward reports that “President Obama has taken a new line of attack against Republicans to neutralize their argument that his reforms would pose a government takeover of the health-care sector, arguing subtly that the GOP is committed more to the insurance industry than they are limited government.”

Hot Air’s Allah Pundit links to videos of Obama’s weekly address and the Republican response from Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla. They both spoke about the health care bills.

Health Beat’s Maggie Mahar looks at comments from a North Carolina college student about why she opposes the health reform bills and says, “These are the ‘philosophical differences’ that Obama acknowledged at the summit. I think it is important to recognize that not only Republican politicians but a fair number of our fellow citizens share this point of view.”

Time’s Karen Tumulty surveys a New York Times article looking at the vote count in the House and declares, “I think a major health care bill is more likely than not to pass. After what [Speaker Nancy Pelosi] managed to get her caucus to do last year, I would never, ever bet against the Speaker on a vote. And she is looking pretty determined on this one.”

The Washington Post’s Ezra Klein takes a look at budget reconciliation, including use in the past on health issues: “The Children’s Health Insurance Program was created in reconciliation, and so too was COBRA. The law stating that hospitals who take Medicare and Medicaid money have to see all patients who walk into their emergency room was also passed in reconciliation…”

Wonk Room’s Igor Volsky looks at  a proposal by Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., to exclude Medicare from the budget reconciliation process and concludes, “But on the whole, this is really a cynical move (and highly unlikely, since any rule change would require 67 votes). Republicans have consistantly supported far larger cuts to the Medicare program than what Democrats are currently proposing and are always complaining that the Medicare “entitlement” program will bankrupt the nation.”

 And The Incidental Economist’s Austin Frakt posts an analysis and graph visualing over-payments to Medicare Advantage plans.

Monday, March 1st, 2010

Tags: , , , , , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Panic After Pelosi

Democrats are still in panic mode as rumors fly about next steps in their marathon attempt to reform health care. The disarray continued after Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi told reporters Thursday that, “In its present form, without change, I don’t think it’s possible to pass the Senate bill in the House.”

Hot Air’s Ed Morrissey, reacting to the news, proclaims, “We’re probably looking more at a Square One approach, and this time the Obama administration may try to draft key Republicans into the talks in order to get bipartisan cover. Either way, it’s an ignominious defeat for Obama and Pelosi, whose radical approach and ‘I won’ attitude finally caught up with them.”

Josh Marshall, founder of Talking Points Memo and its reporting enterprises, is pessimistic: “In other words, plug pulled. Health care reform over.”

Ezra Klein thinks Pelosi’s comments were taken somewhat out of context, saying, “It reads more like she’s arguing the Senate bill will need to be changed in order to pass, which is a pretty normal stance right now.”

The American Spectator’s Philip Klein looks at House Majority Whip James Clyburn’s comments after Pelosi, and says, “So it’s unclear from his comments whether it’s still a theoretical possibility that Democrats may try to have the House pass the Senate bill and use reconciliation to modify it.”  Klein notes, however, that “passing a reconciliation bill isn’t as easy as it sounds,” because of the complicated procedures it entails, including writing a whole new bill.

In terms of next steps, Bob Laszewski cautions, “The problem with bipartisanship now is that the Republican base is not about to let any of their own Senators do anything to take the Dems off the political meat hook they are now dangling from.” Laszewski points to one of his posts from the day after the 2008 presidential election and reaffirms that a “modest bipartisan bill” is still possible — if legislators “take the road less traveled.” 

Keith Hennessey says, “Like a famous physics cat, the health care bill is in a state of quantum uncertainty,” and provides a table estimating the chances of various strategies.

NPR’s Julie Rovner asks if Democrats are “drawing the wrong conclusion” from the Massachusetts Senate vote.  She interviews public opinion expert Robert Blendon to make the case: “Thus, he says, what voters reacted to was not what the bills would do, but how they would be paid for. Which doesn’t mean lawmakers in Washington struggling to salvage their health bills don’t still have a problem. It just may be a different problem than the one they think they have.”

Elsewhere, some are blaming President Barack Obama.

The Atlantic’s Andrew Sullivan is posting emails from readers — who are both giving up on and keeping the faith in Obama.

The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn laments Obama’s lack of reassurance thus far following Scott Brown’s election to the Senate: “If health care reform is to be salvaged–and, I’ll be honest, I’m not terribly optimistic right now–it will take something more. It’s going to take the president showing the resolve and leadership that got him elected. The last 36 hours have made me doubt that he will. But, lord knows, he’s proven me wrong before. Maybe he’ll do it again.”

The New York Times’ Paul Krugman takes the frustration even further: “But I have to say, I’m pretty close to giving up on Mr. Obama, who seems determined to confirm every doubt I and others ever had about whether he was ready to fight for what his supporters believed in.”

And The National Journal’s Marilyn Werber-Serafini asks her experts, “should Congress scrap health care reform or work on a skinny bipartisan bill?” Responders so far include Tom Miller, Jason Rosenbaum, Kenneth Thorpe and Grace-Marie Turner.

Thursday, January 21st, 2010

Tags: , ,
Posted in Blog Watch | Comments Off

Revisiting Reconciliation

Bloggers are tracing predictable party lines in reaction to news that Democratic lawmakers are considering employing budget reconciliation along with the possibility of passing a health overhaul bill in two parts.

Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias‘ (who had mentioned the split bill prospect in a different post on Tuesday) explanation “One a filibusterable, regulation-focused bill to create health insurance exchanges and set up a skeleton of reform and the other a non-filibusterable bill focused on raising taxes and disbursing funds on subsidies, public program expansions, and setting up a new public plan with up-front costs but long-run savings. Pass the moderate bill one week, let everyone go home to their constituents for a weekend and brag about how bipartisan they are, then come back next week and pass the more progressive bill with fewer votes.”

Heritage’s Conn Carroll’s assessment: “Democrats in Congress are undeterred by history, precedent, and public opinion.”

On the reconcilation idea, Critical Condition’s James Capretta thinks the reconcilation approach would have been the plan in the first place were it been feasible. He writes, “The bottom-line question is this:  can Congressional Democrats pass a sweeping and controversial takeover of American health-care on their own?  Here’s a clue to the likely answer:  if they could, that would have been plan A.  Why bother talking with political opponents if you could pass the next New Deal without them?”

Ed Morrissey of Hot Air concludes, “Not even Harry Reid is this foolish,” and predicts the Senate will grind to a halt:

However, if they do manage to get past that obstacle, the Republicans can shut down the Senate for the next  year.  Those unfamiliar with the parliamentary procedure may not realize that a great many steps get skipped by unanimous consent.  Bill-reading is just one example.  One Senator can force each and every bill to be read aloud at every appearance it makes on the Senate floor, including when they are sent to committee.  For ObamaCare and cap-and-trade, one bill reading could take a week, keeping the Senate floor locked off from any other business.

Bob Laszewski thinks Democrats should review recent public opinion polls along with the “Byrd Rule” before proceeding with reconciliation. He writes, “The notion that Democrats can ram something so big as health care reform through with the 41% approval rating the President now has on health care is just nuts. Politically, they would be asking for an even bigger polarization on this issue than we already have.”

In a separate post, Laszewski calls the ’splitting the bills’ idea “the most bizarre of all” and adds, “The Democratic leadership and the White House staff really need a vacation.”

But some liberals are unphased.  The New Republic’s Jonathan Cohn says:

Well, well, well. Maybe the Democrats are ready to get tough after all… But even the theoretical possibility of Democrats passing reform on their own would change the dynamics in Congress, by giving Republicans new incentives to negotiate in good faith–and giving Democrats a way to enact legislation in case the GOP remains as obstructionist as it is now.

And the Washington Post’s Ezra Klein thinks the strategy might not be about Republicans at all.  According to Klein, “The one potential answer is that reconciliation isn’t about bypassing the GOP at all. It’s about bypassing a handful of centrist Democrats.”

Thursday, August 20th, 2009

Tags:
Posted in Blog Watch | No Comments »

Contact Us

Facebook

RSS

twitter

Recent Posts

Archives

kff.org

© 2013 Henry J. Kaiser Family Foundation. All rights reserved.