If you've been watching the news lately, you'll know that the House leadership in Washington is preparing to use a self-executing rule to pass the Senate Health Care bill and get it to President Obama for his signature.
That's nothing new; the Republican-led Congress used the procedure more than 35 times from 2005-2006. What's new is the level of hypocrisy being displayed by the stick-in-the-mud minority about the whole thing.
Via Political Wire, Norm Ornstein of the American Enterprise Institute had this to say:
Any veteran observer of Congress is used to the rampant hypocrisy over the use of parliamentary procedures that shifts totally from one side to the other as a majority moves to minority status, and vice versa. But I can't recall a level of feigned indignation nearly as great as what we are seeing now from congressional Republicans and their acolytes at the Wall Street Journal, and on blogs, talk radio, and cable news. It reached a ridiculous level of misinformation and disinformation over the use of reconciliation, and now threatens to top that level over the projected use of a self-executing rule by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
If the play against the self-executing rule were the GOP's first procedural play to kill a bill they hate, they might have a leg to stand on. But after reconciliation, and the filibuster, and not supporting a bill that was compromised half to death in their direction, their indignation is being shown for what it is: political tomfoolery.
I use the words "interesting" and "fascinating" with what could reasonably be characterized as reckless abandon when it comes to politics -- and with good reason, thank you very much.
This time it's the current state of the health insurance reform effort. Back from the brink of death is the public option, with more than half of the Democratic Senators necessary having already signed on to an effort to pass fixes to the Senate bill via reconciliation in conjunction with the House passing the existing Senate bill verbatim and then "ping-ponging" the fixes over to President Obama's desk.
Got all that?
Sen. Al Franken breaks it down thusly in an email blast sent last night:
This week President Obama asked Congress to stand strong and finish the job of fixing our busted health insurance system. I couldn't agree more, and now we've got a plan to get this done.
I'm calling this strategy "Pledge & Pass," and it's a simple, two-step plan for passing meaningful health insurance reform. I believe it's our job as public servants to actually serve the public, and ending the suffering of millions of Americans under our current system is exactly what our constituents expect and deserve.
Here's the plan.
Step 1. United States Senators pledge to fix elements of the bill that are not acceptable to many House members, and the House pass the Senate bill as is.
Step 2. We in the Senate fulfill our pledge to the House, fix the elements that need fixing, and pass this critical legislation through a filibuster-proof budget process known as reconciliation.
This effort breaks all the "rules" we learned about in Civics 101 back in Junior High -- with all these procedural tactics for getting the damned thing done, and the year of posturing and political ninjitsu, who knows how it even relates to all those legislative procedures we dutifully learned were handed down to us by the Founding Fathers?
The bigger point, however, is that it's happening. Finally, after all the recriminations and Tea Party nonsense and polls and media blitzes and everything else -- the effort is finally being undertaken by leaders who are beginning to realize that getting the job done is the best political move of all. And it's forcing Senators and Representatives to work together, even before a conference committee, to make the whole machine sputter, cough, squeal, and finally rumble to life.
Call me idealistic, but I really hope this diarist misheard what Sen. Amy Klobuchar said -- although she's apparently in favor of using reconciliation to pass the public option, she's not signing the Bennett letter and thus committing to doing so.
Sigh.
Do we need more proof that it's what big majorities of Minnesotans and Americans nationwide want from the health care reform effort? From the Research 2000/PCCC poll linked above:
QUESTION: Would you favor or oppose the national government offering everyone the choice of buying into a government administered health insurance plan -- something like the Medicare coverage that people 65 and older get -- that would compete with private health insurance plans?
FAVOR
OPPOSE
NOT SURE
ALL
62%
33%
5%
...
QUESTION: Would you be more or less likely to vote for Amy Klobuchar in the future if she led the charge in the U.S. Senate to add a public health insurance option that competes head-to-head with private insurance into law, or would it have no real effect on your vote?
MORE
LESS
NO EFFECT
ALL
39%
9%
52%
...
QUESTION: Which do you think should be a higher priority for congressional Democrats right now -- working in a bipartisan way with Republicans in Congress or fighting for policies that will benefit working families, even if those policies can only be passed with Democratic votes?
PROMISES
GOP
NOT SURE
ALL
51%
39%
10%
Call Sen. Klobuchar's Washington office right now and let her staff know -- respectfully, of course -- how you feel about it. Make sure to tell them Senator Klobuchar should be leading the charge, not waiting for others to lead and then following along, and should sign the Bennett Letter and fight hard for the public-option-through-reconciliation effort.
For the past several months, I've been having trouble with my back. I hurt it while gardening last July -- I bent over to pick up some scraps, stood up too quickly, and urk I couldn't move. I went through several weeks of physical therapy toward the end of the year and into January, but after a two-week break, I had to go back to my physician for a specialist referral because pain levels rose to unbearable levels.
I'm pretty lucky in this area -- I have very decent insurance, and I work for a company that generally takes pretty good care of its people as far as benefits are concerned. I also recognize that not all companies are as forward-thinking and conscientious as my employers, and that many in Minnesota and across America are either underemployed or have a job that pays for health insurance and little else.
So imagine my surprise when my physician started spouting off about how a government-run health care system would make me wait six months for an MRI.
Despite being snowed in, today Congress is taking up a jobs bill in Washington. Just in time for Rep. John Kline to promote his vision for pulling Minnesota, and the rest of the nation, out of the current economic stall and into something resembling actual economic growth. So what is this vision for rebuilding the American economy, and thus, the American middle class?
Why, it's to do nothing. Of course.
Despite the fact that health care expenditures threaten to eat up nearly two-thirds of our national budget, Kline advocates hitting the pause button on health care reform. Despite the fact that our nation's military is strained to dangerous levels, Kline advocates against repealing the odious Don't Ask Don't Tell policy that prevents thousands of Americans from enlisting and serving openly. And when it comes to creating a domestic policy that would create jobs and rebuild crumbling infrastructure like with the Stimulus package, Kline's response has been to, you guessed it, do nothing.
Now Kline has taken that do nothing approach one step further, parroting protectionist talking points as he gears up for reelection. His most recent mailer praises his efforts at protecting Minnesota's economy and jobs. If he was really interested in protecting the economy he would be advocating strongly for health care reform--and meaningful reform that actually provides expansive coverage and meaningful cost control and consumer protection guarantees since rising health care costs are the single greatest threat to long-term sustainable economic recovery facing this state and the nation.
Tackling health care reform is also a great way to build jobs. Health care compliance, administration, and servicing is one of the fastest growing employment sectors both locally and nationally and even groups like UnitedHealth and Mayo acknowledge that reform efforts will likely require them to recruit and hire new employees. If Kline were truly interested in protecting Minnesota's economy he would be working towards enabling growth in our strongest, and most dependable industries like health care.
This do nothing, wait and see approach serves only one interest and that is not the welfare of Minnesota. It is the obstructionist agenda of the Republican party. So in a sense, Minnesota does need some protection--protection from the likes of John Kline.
This one should be fairly easy, but I wanted to get the pulse of the community: what should Congress do on health care reform now that things are...shall we say, in flux?
You'll find the poll after the break -- hit it up, and discuss away. We'll keep the poll open through the weekend.
One of the remaining options for the health insurance reform effort is for the House of Representatives to pass the Senate version of the bill verbatim, thus avoiding having to send a modified bill back to the Senate for debate, where it would likely die thanks to 41 votes being stronger than 59.
Thus, we need to figure out where House members stand -- several have said various things about whether they would vote for the Senate bill, and TPM is making a list -- and Minnesota's Tim Walz looks like he falls into the "maybe" category.
I got the following statement from Walz's spokesperson:
Congressman Walz has not taken an official stand on whether he would vote for the Senate health care reform bill verbatim if it were put before the House. However, the pay-for-value Medicare reimbursement provisions that currently exist in both bills are an extremely important consideration.
So the absence of a public option in the Senate bill doesn't sound like a deal-breaker for Walz -- but unless it looks like there could be 218 votes for the Senate bill, members are likely to be very skittish about making public pronouncements one way or the other.
Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND) opened the door to passing health care reform through the budget reconciliation process, "a position he opposed prior to this week's special election in Massachusetts," according to The Hill.
"His comments lend weight to speculation that congressional Democratic leaders plan to have the House pass the Senate healthcare reform without changes, then pass a second bill with changes hashed out between the two chambers' leaders and the White House."
This is a big deal -- Conrad is the more conservative of the two Democratic senators currently representing North Dakota, and his support for such a move would be a great first step toward getting health care reform done right.
If I have been taught anything about politics during the recent federal debate on health care reform, it is to
Be Wary of Vague, Ambiguous Political Ideas.
Why do I say this? Well... first, let's look into the three prime directives offered by the Obama Administration when beginning the push for health care reform. First, reduce costs. Second, guarantee choice. Third, ensure affordable care for all Americans. On the surface, all three prime directives sound great but when you digg deeper into the nuts and bolts you soon realize that the vague terms create room for Corporate Democrats to sell out the American people.
For everyone who participated and watched intently as the legislation proceeded, first, through the House and, then, through the Senate, received a first hand look at how the political process works. And it was ugly and dirty.
I don't mean the comments by the other side of the aisle either because quite frankly, they were inconsequential. Sure they were able to get a bunch of wayward and misguided individuals angry and motivated to attend (or be paid to attend) rallies against health care reform. However, when it came time for voting the other side couldn't muster enough votes to stop the legislation.
Instead, the ugliness and dirtiness came from the Corporate Democrats who did everything and anything in their power to water down the bill. In fact, in the Senate, the Corporate Democrats had a former Wellpoint (health insurance company) executive write the bill. Hmmm..wonder which side Liz Fowler represents.
How ever much we hooted and hollered, called and cajoled there was never going to be the type of reform that would benefit us, We the People. Instead, we are soon set to receive health care reform that will benefit the health insurance companies.
Why do you ask? Well it all starts with the language that was used at the beginning. It was vague and ambiguous by design. As David Corn and Kevin Drum from Mother Jones pointed out on Bill Moyers' Friday January 8, 2010 show, the simpler the bill the sharper the teeth for regulation and reform. Now Mr. Corn and Mr. Drum were talking about financial reform but the same adage applies. In other words, keep it simple and I would add; keep it specific.
Lastly and most importantly, when you evaluate the candidates for the next Minnesota governor, be wary of the vague, ambiguous terms they use. The more concrete, the more specific the ideas; the better we know the direction the candidate wants to take Minnesota. In addition, the better we know how hard the candidate will fight for those particular ideas.
Enjoy all the snow we're getting across Minnesota right now, because out in Washington this morning, Christmas came a bit early for Congressional Democrats.
The U.S. Senate passed a huge health care reform bill. An imperfect bill, to be sure, but a huge bill that takes some giant steps toward the goal of truly universal health care in America. Those steps will be enhanced if Iowa's Tom Harkin follows through on his promise to revisit the public insurance option in the near future through standalone legislation that can be passed through reconciliation.
As Ezra Klein notes (and I'm inclined to agree):
Passing legislation, it turns out, is a long and ugly process. God, is it ugly. The compromises, both with powerful special interests and decisive senators. The trimming of ambitions and the budget gimmicks and the worship of Congressional Budget Office scores. By the end, you're passing a compromise of a deal of a negotiation of a concession... It's not pretty, and it doesn't necessarily feel like winning is supposed to feel...
It's been a long time since the legislative system did anything this big, and people have forgotten how awful the victories are. But these are the victories, and if they feel bad to many, they will do good for more. As that comes clearer and clearer, this bill will come to feel more and more like the historic advance it actually is.
Further down the Political Wire feed, this might be an appropriate time to remind the screeching, frothing, angry right wing that most Americans prefer Democratic policies
A new CNN/Opinion Research survey indicates that a majority of Americans believe that the Democratic party's policy proposals are good for the country, 51% to 46%.
In contrast, a majority of Americans think Republican policies will move the country in the wrong direction, 53% to 42%.
Now, if only we could convince Joe Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and Blanche Lincoln to go along with the majority of America, we'd be in pretty good shape.
The headline says it all: Nebraska's Ben Nelson extracted a few concessions from leadership, and committed to voting for cloture on the Senate Health Care reform bill.
The bill is not perfect -- far from it. It contains a few steps in the right direction, but must -- and I stress must be treated as the first big step toward a future in which every American has access to affordable, quality health coverage, and everything that goes along with it.
Despite all the shenanigans that have gone on around this bill -- with more to come as the conference committee sorts out the considerably better House bill and this Senate version -- there are a couple of fun things to consider. For example, the New York Times published this piece on the news of Nelson's cloture commitment:
The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office said the legislation would cost $871 billion over 10 years, with the expense more than offset by revenues from new taxes and fees and by reductions in government spending, particularly in slowing the growth of Medicare.
The budget office said the bill would reduce future deficits by $132 billion over that period. Republicans have accused Democrats of using accounting tricks to hide the true cost of the measure, which they predicted would be huge, particularly if Congress did not follow through on proposed reductions in Medicare.
Did you catch the interesting part? "Republicans have accused Democrats..."....of tricking the CBO?
Seriously?
Last I checked, the CBO is pretty darned good at its job. The GOP seems to be saying either that the CBO is in league with Democrats on this one (something something reality-based community something...) or the CBO doesn't know how to do its job. Which would fit right in with the reigning view in today's GOP that the only good government is a corrupt, incompetent one that depresses citizens and the rate at which they vote.
The other thing that's interesting is this: again, despite all the trouble this bill has seen, it's essentially been Democrats governing the country without an iota of help from the Republican Party. From top to bottom, this health care debate has boiled down to Democrats arguing with one another about how best to reform a broken system. It's a shame, because there might be some conservative-ish ideas worth incorporating if a few GOP Senators were willing to work with the Dems to craft a bill worth passing.
Instead, as the Party of No, they continue to make themselves irrelevant, going so far as to admit that yes, they are simply stonewalling the health care bill as long as they possibly can. As angry as voters on the right and the left are with Dems right now about this health care bill (for very different reasons, I should note), come next year's election, Congressional Dems will be able to point to their records and say "See? We've been governing the country through a tumultuous time. What have the other folks been doing?"
The Republicans eschewed a halfway compromise and put all their chips on an all or nothing campaign to defeat health care and Obama's presidency. It was an audacious gamble. They lost. In the end, they'll walk away with nothing. The Republicans may gain some more seats in 2010 by their total obstruction, but the substantive policy defeat they've been dealt will last for decades.
So this is it: The House of Representatives passed a bill that included a medium-strength public option, and the Senate has submitted to Joe Lieberman's crass, flip-flopping choke-hold, jettisoning both the public option and the Medicare buy-in. All signs point to a final bill that won't include a new government option or an age-based expansion of Medicare.
I'm conflicted, as it seems most of the economic Left is.
On one hand, the entire thing is BS. The blatant disregard for the well-being of American citizens on the part of four or five ostensibly Democratic Senators (Blanche Lincoln, Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, and the aforementioned Lieberman) in favor of preserving an oligarchical profit extraction system is abominable.
On the other hand, look what we are getting:
--No more denial of coverage for pre-existing conditions
--No more recission
--Big subsidies for low-income families
--Significant deficit reduction as we all pay less to cover ER visits when those who now don't have coverage can get routine checkups to prevent emergencies in the future.
I'm truly on the fence as to whether it's worth it to kill the bill, or worth it to pass it -- and those options aren't mutually exclusive. It's an imperfect bill, which will be heralded by the White House as REFORM WE CAN BELIEVE IN, but at best it's going to be a step on the path toward true reform in the future. That won't belittle the accomplishment, but it does call into question how much political capital (and PR skill) it takes to get progressive policies enacted in a 24-7-365 media cycle -- one at which status-quo-philic organizations can sling money and manipulate pretty effectively.
Going forward, what do we do electorally? In Minnesota, perhaps not much federally. Kick out Michele Bachmann, obviously, but that goes without saying. Amy Klobuchar didn't gamble any political capital in this debate, and Al Franken was a pretty solid supporter of the public option as well, but in truth it never really got beyond 53 or so votes for cloture so there wasn't much he could do. This is all a really good argument for keeping progressive leaders like Franken around for a couple of terms so he can rise to a chairmanship on an important committee and really influence the course of important legislation like this.
The real game will, for now, be in other states, where voters will have opportunities to primary their corporate lapdog Senators and replace them with individuals who actually represent the people's needs. We should stand ready to assist in those efforts -- and elect a DFL governor who will work with the legislature to go above and beyond the results of this federal legislation, and ensure quality, accessible, affordable health coverage for every single person in Minnesota.
Have progressive proposals lost several battles in the health care reform debate? You bet. But has the war been lost?
Not by a long shot.
Yes, Congressional Democrats have spent plenty of time negotiating with themselves and compromising on compromises, but look at what's been accomplished: a national public insurance option passed the United States House of Representatives. Both houses' versions of the legislation will include measures to prevent insurers from withholding coverage due to preexisting conditions and prevent them from engaging in recission (withdrawing coverage once a policyholder gets sick). Both houses' bills will include subsidies to ensure that low-income individuals can afford coverage, and the argument in conference committee looks like it could come down to two major options: a medium-strength public option (House version) or an expansion of Medicare eligibility down to age 55 (Senate deal reported last week).
If it can pass the Senate (Blanche Lincoln, Joe Lieberman, we're looking at you), that might actually be better than a weak public option, because it A.) removes a Republican talking point that Medicare was going to be cut (hint: it wasn't) and B.) points the way toward a true national insurance system that covers everyone equally.
So let's all be really clear on where things stand: the legislation that hits President Obama's desk early next year will not be "mission accomplished" on health care. Rather, it will be a positive first step on the journey toward affordable, accessible, quality health coverage for everyone in America.
A refreshingly honest and straightforward opinion piece from CNN's Gloria Borger -- surprising that an opinion piece actually gets closer to the heart, facts, and truth of the death panel tempest than most of the actual reporting done on the topic.
But then, that's one of Borger's points:
Besides, it's also an idea that, in the recent past, has been considered quite acceptable, even by those who would rail against it now.
Palin, for instance. In April, 2008, the then-Alaska governor issued a state proclamation declaring "Healthcare Decisions Day," designed to "raise public awareness about the need to plan ahead for healthcare decisions related to end of life care and medical decision making whenever patients are unable to speak for themselves and encourage the specific use of advance directives to communicate these important healthcare decisions."
Seems like Palin went rogue -- on herself.
...
But Gingrich may want to be president, and that's where we -- the media -- come in. As Blumenauer points out in his piece, we're the echo chamber here -- and when Palin posts a comment about a "death panel," we headline it (as she knows we will) and the idea moves though the media chain with mach speed. As much as some of us try to debunk the myth, velocity often trumps veracity. "When stuff gets out of hand," Blumenauer says, "it's often hard for even the mainstream media to put a damper on it."
*Even* the mainstream media, Congressman? Such a statement assumes that the majority of the mainstream media has a vested interest in doing so. Experience says quite the opposite may be true.
2. The five toughest votes, politically, against the bill: Reps. Mike Castle (R-Del.), Larry Kissell (D-N.C.), Leonard Lance (R-N.J.), Erik Paulsen (R-Minn.) and Dave Reichert (R-Wash.). Castle is seeking a Senate seat in 2010 in a state where President Obama won 62 percent of the vote in 2008. Lance and Paulsen were elected last November in districts carried narrowly by Obama while Reichert's district continues to move further and further from his party (a 15 point win for Obama in 2008) and Democrats continue to run well-funded challengers at him. As for Kissell, his "no" vote is close to inexplicable given the heavy black population in his district (28 percent) and the fact that the president carried it by five points last November.
Close votes really tell you where your representatives stand -- and on this one, Paulsen stood with his party against both the President of the United States and the people in Paulsen's district who favored that President last year. What Cillizza's note doesn't say is that while the Third was carried only narrowly by President Obama, it's been trending toward Democrats for several election cycles in a row, and that trend shows no signs of abating next year or in 2012.
I thought more about the "people-President-party" analysis last night in relation to Collin Peterson's and Erik Paulsen's votes on the bill. As a member of the opposition party, I figured that Paulsen should get a mulligan on the "President" item -- as a member of the opposition, it's a pretty safe bet he's going to oppose most of the President's agenda (if not every last item), especially as a junior member looking to curry favor with his party's leadership. In addition, by virtue of being in the opposition, voting against the President's agenda is likely going to mean he's voting with his own party, so that might be another mulligan.
But people in the Third district supported for President Obama despite the muckraking campaign for Congress between Paulsen and Ash Madia. Voters in the Third wanted this bill to pass, and Paulsen ignored their will so he could run stunts -- only marginally less offensive than Michele Bachmann's -- like setting up photo ops of him delivering the health care bill -- in person! -- to community libraries to demonstrate how many sheets of paper it included.
Who knew Erik Paulsen was an environmentalist! Darn those tree-killing Democrats and their pernicious commitment to high-quality, affordable health care!
Closed circuit to candidates looking to take on Paulsen next year: here's your cudgel. Use it.
