Huh? Hill says Dems may "circumvent Senate rules" by using Senate procedure
A September 1 Hill article reported that Sen. Judd Gregg "told The Hill in a recent interview that Republicans will wage a vicious fight if Democrats try to circumvent Senate rules and use a budget maneuver to pass a trillion-dollar healthcare plan with a simple majority." In fact, the budget maneuver, known as reconciliation, is a part of the current Senate rules and Republicans have previously used it to pass President Bush's agenda -- Gregg himself even introduced a reconciliation bill that, had it been enacted, would have opened up the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling, which the Hill article did not report.
From the September 1 Hill article:
Sen. Judd Gregg has hundreds of procedural objections ready for a healthcare plan Democrats want to speed through the Senate.
Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Budget Committee, told The Hill in a recent interview that Republicans will wage a vicious fight if Democrats try to circumvent Senate rules and use a budget maneuver to pass a trillion-dollar healthcare plan with a simple majority.
The death of Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass.) leaves Democrats with 59 Senate seats -- one shy of the 60 needed to overcome a filibuster. That, combined with the pushback from Republican negotiators, has prompted Democratic leaders to look more closely at using budget reconciliation to push a healthcare overhaul through.
The maneuver was originally intended to help reduce the federal deficit by allowing spending cuts and tax increases to pass by majority vote, but it has since been used to fast-track wider-scope legislation, such as former President George W. Bush's 2001 tax cuts.
Republicans, however, warn that if Democrats attempt the maneuver, their healthcare bill will end up looking like Swiss cheese.
Reconciliation is a part of current Senate rules -- not a circumvention of them
Reconciliation process is part of congressional budget process. The budget reconciliation process is defined by the U.S. House Committee on Rules as "part of the congressional budget process ... utilized when Congress issues directives to legislate policy changes in mandatory spending (entitlements) or revenue programs (tax laws) to achieve the goals in spending and revenue contemplated by the budget resolution." A "Glossary of Budget Terms" posted on the website of the Senate Budget Committee's Republicans defines "Reconciliation Process" as a "process by which Congress includes in a budget resolution 'reconciliation instructions' to specific committees, directing them to report legislation which changes existing laws, usually for the purpose of decreasing spending or increasing revenues by a specified amount by a certain date. The legislation may also contain an increase in the debt limit. The reported legislation is then considered as a single 'reconciliation bill under expedited procedures' " [emphasis in original].
Gregg and Republicans supported use of reconciliation during Bush administration
Republicans have repeatedly used reconciliation to pass President Bush's agenda. Republicans used the budget reconciliation process to pass President Bush's 2001 and 2003 tax cuts as well as the 2005 "Tax Increase Prevention and Reconciliation Act." The Senate also used the reconciliation procedure to pass a bill containing a provision that would permit oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. (The final version of that bill signed by President Bush did not contain the provision on drilling.)
Gregg supported reconciliation to help pass Bush's agenda. MSNBC.com's First Read blog responded to the September 1 Hill article by reporting that Gregg's "position on reconciliation is something of an evolution, considering he supported using reconciliation in the Bush years for ANWR and tax cuts."
Gregg introduced reconciliation bill that included a provision to open up ANWR to drilling. A March 31 Washington Post article reported that "while Gregg has sharply attacked Democrats for considering the use of reconciliation, which would allow them eventually to pass legislation to reform health care with 51 votes rather than the normal 60 that would be needed to avoid a filibuster, Gregg publicly favored such a provision as Budget Committee chairman in 2005 as part of an attempt to push through a GOP-backed proposal to allow oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge." Gregg was one of 51 senators who voted against striking language allowing the reconciliation process to be used to open up the refuge from the budget resolution and introduced a reconciliation bill that, as originally introduced in and passed by the Senate, included a provision to open up the refuge to drilling. (The bill as enacted did not contain such a provision.)
Congress previously has used reconciliation to pass health care measures
Congress used reconciliation to pass Medicare Advantage. As part of the Balanced Budget Act of 1997, enacted through the reconciliation process, Congress -- which was controlled by the Republicans at the time -- created the "Medicare+Choice Program," currently known as Medicare Advantage or Medicare Part C. The program allows seniors to enroll in HMO-type plans rather than the traditional Medicare fee-for-service plan.
Congress used reconciliation to give laid-off employees temporary access to employer's group insurance plan. As stated on the Department of Labor website, as part of the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA), Congress gave "workers and their families who lose their health benefits the right to choose to continue group health benefits provided by their group health plan for limited periods of time under certain circumstances."
Congress used reconciliation to pass Patient Self-Determination Act. As part of the Omnibus Reconciliation Act of 1990, Congress passed the Patient Self-Determination Act, which requires hospitals, nursing homes, HMOs, and other organizations that participate in Medicare or Medicaid to provide information about advance directives and patients' decision-making rights.
Republicans repeatedly attempted to use reconciliation to pass increase in Medicare eligibility age. The version of the Balanced Budget Act of 1995 introduced by then-Senate Budget Committee Chairman Pete Domenici (R-NM) using the reconciliation procedure contained a section providing for raising the Medicare eligibility age. As the Congressional Research Service reported, the provision was stricken from the bill during floor consideration on the basis of a point of order that the provision was "extraneous" to matters appropriate to reconciliation.
The Balanced Budget Act of 1997 -- also introduced through the reconciliation procedure -- also included a provision to raise the eligibility age. Fifty Republicans voted in favor of waiving a point of order against the provision that it was extraneous, allowing the provision to remain in the bill. The final version of the bill signed by Clinton did not contain this provision.















"All... being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes." --Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809.
Seems this whole process has been REALLY GUMMED UP!
They want to filibuster this, then actually MAKE them do it. Instead of just rolling over, and saying, "OK, we need 60 votes..." because, as mentioned before, the republicans have tagged almost everything with cloture since the dems took back over.
I doubt that the democrats have the guts to buck the prevailing winds and try to ram legislation through with the nuclear option. Particularly when the president has now abandoned the the public option.
I dont really have strong thoughts on the public option one way or another. Do you really think the dems will go the distance to include it, or drop it to make a fast deal and declare a vistory?
...i find it truly amazing how any of what was reported is supposed to be new (apart from the fact that he is now - FINALLY - going to start busting some heads and taking names, by sending his specific demands/requirements), the president has been singing the same tune for months now (if nothing, can you give him some props for consistency? (i somehow doubt it)
I find it totally amazing how you can say the republicans have the "wind at their back" (you must think so because your source of news comes from one or two sources - and i def do not presume it is FOX, there are other ways to get limited information), the way i see it, there is a lot more support for this reform than their are opponents of it and it is a Democracy in the US, isn't it? Then that makes it more than imperative the government acts, doesn't it?
Lets forget about the volume of support or opposition for a second, using a rational un-fazed, paranoid/scared mind, who do you think makes a more rational/logical argument for the issue at hand?, i leave that answer for you to come to terms with)
Take an hour or two out of your day, it is amazing how certain people would like to pedal one chain of thought as long as it is theirs, but they ignore all the others around them...
...i just visited the white house site and saw over 50 videos of people responding to Vice President's Biden's request for comments from the people (THIS IS SUPPOSED TO BE A TOTALITARIAN GOVERNMENT, RIGHT?!) and over 80/90% of them are in support of the president and attempts to do something about this epidemic that is the health care system in the US. This is obviously no measure of the total amount of supporters/those opposed in the country; to that i say, i challenge you to pool your sources of information together and see what you come up with (in the support or opposed columns); YES, IT IS HARD WORK, but for an ISSUE like THIS, you think maybe it is necessary?
I would encourage you to not take my word for it, besides doing searches for "opponents to health care/Obama", try looking for info on support as well, everyone with an intellectual mind, ALWAYS takes into consideration two sides of an argument (sometimes MORE), to come to a decent, informed conclusion.
As for the procedural side, isn't it funny how they rules they used when they were in power to pass Bush/Cheney legislation is suddenly a 'nuclear option'? And by funny, I mean totally predictable and hypocritical.
'Ram through' changes that we've needed for seventy years now? Hardly. Abandoned the public option? No.
No, my dear, it isn't the public wind at their back, it is the Republicans caught downwind of the ole Conservative hog farm, the stench so overpowering as to diminish their powers of reason and common sense!
Statements like this really show the dishonesty of your posts. The Republican popularity is a low as ever, though I can concede your point that the Repubs have gained some momentum with health care. However, the second part of your post in which you claim that the Repubs have actually won the "substance debates" is laughable. Polls show that a large percentage of the public wrongly believe in death panels and that the final bill will allow for public health care to provide for abortions. The Repubs have been pushing these points, no matter that they are false.
The Repubs have won by pushing propaganda, which you seem comfortable with.
Support for the public option in the democrat party has fallen by the wayside...except for the far left. Those far left supporters are now marooned on an island by themselves.
Health insurance is in need of reform...but another govt. solution with massive govt. intervention like a govt.run public option appears to be dead before arrival.
You have any idea why his polling might be tanking? maybe he isn't playing the "political game" as well as republicans, but i sure am glad that he is sticking to the truth.
One thing i ask you to chek out Wesley, is how somehow calculated it seems his actions have been, i believe that looking back at this whole thing, we will come to say how much of a political genius he is (if he passes a worth while bill after all the hoopla), he has not rushed to make decisions, he seems to be waiting to hear from EVERYONE before he makes his statements/decisions.
The US is a victim of years in which you have a portion of the public screaming loud enough and having the government doing what they feel like, it is REFRESHING to have someone who is willing to take all those screams and combine them with intelligent analysis an discussions to make a decision.
I pose this question to you, if you are the leader of your community, do you do everything people tell you, just because they said so, or do you take their comments and weigh them against facts/the rule of law/expert opinion and an agreement of ideas/flaws from all those involved?
To your comment about "another govt solution with massive govt...", who do you propose in the US can take on the health care industry more effectively than the government? If you can point that out, please let the world know, we should simultaneously be barking down that person/those peoples' trees.
I for one do not think the "public option" is the be it and end all of this debate, it sure helps to keep the companies in check, but it also poses the same beauracratic problems as everything government related.
Presuming/suggesting that there is a way to pass any kind of legislature without some measure of beaurocracy is just plain NAIVE, it occurs EVERYWHERE in the world and has done FOREVER.
You know why beaurocracies exist? because the government has the NEAR IMPOSSIBLE TASK OF SATISFYING EVRYBODY ALL THE TIME, as you can obviously tell, the is NEXT TO IMPOSSIBLE.
It is how well it is done that should be a measure of the successes/failures of government, not the fact that it is done at all.
Another challenge, look up the various meanings and history of bureaucracy and bureaucracy in the world.
Again, i implore everyone, Seek your own conclusions based on facts with your IDEALS AS GUIDLINES, NOT THE DECIDING FACTORS.
In the meantime, a public option will help prevent 18,000 unnecessary deaths each year and tens of thousands of bankruptcies.
Ask the next few old people you come across: Would you like the government to get rid of Medicare so we can enrich the private insurance vampires?
Or, answer me this (courtesy of Rep. Weiner): What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
There's a new [url=he writes, "there would not be much change in the number of deaths in the United States as a result of universal coverage]study[/url], "published online in April in HSR: Health Services Research, is by Richard Kronick of the Department of Family and Preventive Medicine at the University of California (San Diego) School of Medicine."...
he writes, "there would not be much change in the number of deaths in the United States as a result of universal coverage"...
Kronick was a senior healthcare advisor for the Clinton administration and admitted it was not the answer he had hoped for.
Medicare? Now there's a huge govt.program that needs reformed. Before we tackle another big govt. boondoggle we need to fix the $200 billion a year in fraud and waste in medicare...not to mention that it will be bankrupt in a few years. That's the kind of reform that I support.
"LET 'EM DIE"
Medicare is underfunded. But in case you missed it, Medicare doesn't have to make a profit. Could be some savings there, don't ya think?
Are you for repealing Medicare Part D? That's a $100 million a year gift to the insurance companies. Are you for repealing Medicare? After all, its socialized government run health care.
And...why didn't you answer Rep. Weinger's question? Is it because you can't?
No thanks. I don't need a massive new govt.program to provide a solution for a non-existent problem.
Medicare has overspent...wasted money...and allowed huge fraud abuses. It needs to be reformed first of all.
Ask anyone if they want to leave any of those programs.
And read today's Wall Street Journal. Looks like the huge government program known as the stimulus package is working.
Since you won't you answer Rep. Weiner's question, how about this one:
Why do you love HMO profits and CEO salaries so much?
People being satisfied with Medicare has nothing to do with the need for fiscal reform of the program.
It's a huge financial mess...caused by a feckless congress and inept management of the program. I support healthcare reform...and it should start with overhauling the huge financial abominations of govt. run healthcare...before adding another abomination like govt. run public insurance.
Polls show that most of the public support the public option. The article you linked to shows that Obama's poll numbers are as low as Clinton's, but Clinton became a very popular president.
It is time that the US, which has only ranks 37th in the world but pays double what the rest of the world pays, has government involved in health care like those countries that have superior health care systems. We can't afford to keep paying double (in some cases triple) what other countries pay.
"We have been saying all along that the most important part of this debate is not the public option, but rather ensuring choice and competition," an aide said. "There are lots of different ways to get there." -- Politico
That is clearly a white flag being waved by Pres.Obama on the public option...as well as a ringing dope slap to his far left base.
This will require a real high-wire act by the president to escape this situation. Conservatives oppose the public option...independents are jumping off the Obama bandwagon...and the democrats are involved in a bitter intramural struggle within their own party.
But the House passing the bill is still a long way from adopting it into law. The real fight will be waged in the Senate...make a note of it.
What do insurance companies bring to the table in regards to health care?
And the Poltico is often wrong.