"New plan might allow Dems to slip public option through Senate"

[Clio the Leo]

I dont believe this has been posted before, forgive me if it has...

New plan might allow Dems to slip public option through Senate
By: Susan Ferrechio
Chief Congressional Correspondent
October 7, 2009 Senate Democrats desperate to find a way to pass a health care bill that includes a federal insurance plan may have come up with a way to do it without putting moderate members who oppose it in political jeopardy.

Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., is weighing a plan to bring the final health care bill to the floor without a public option -- making it much easier to get the 60 votes needed to prevent a Republican filibuster -- and then adding the provision later as an amendment.

The public option amendment would be there waiting, but the 60-vote test would technically be on a bill without the government plan. Then moderate Democrats could drop out for the vote on the public option, which requires just 51 votes for passage.

"It's brilliant," said a top Senate Republican aide. "It gets you your votes on cloture for a package that does not include a public option."

<snip>

Senate aides suggest that after passage in the upper chamber, the Senate bill -- public option included -- could then be sent to the House, allowing the lower chamber to simply pass Reid's legislation instead of taking up its own bill. That route would avoid a protracted and contentious battle to meld two different bills and might allow President Obama and Democrats to achieve their goal of passing health care reform by year's end.

http://www.washingtonexaminer.com/politics/New-plan-might-allow-Dems-to-slip-public-option-through-Senate-8351547-63634887.html

The general thought among those in the Senate in favor of the PO is that moderate Dems will ultimately choose loyalty to the party over opposition to the PO. ..... or rather, not so much party loyalty but NOT being seen as siding with the GOP.

Also, here is a VERY VERY VERY important article that explains how the whole thing gets done ..... it's a MUST read but it's so long and involved that I'm having a hard time making it into an OP. JUST READ IT!!!!! ........ NOW!!! It answers EVERY frustrated complaint we see posted here at DU on a daily basis re: this whole process.
http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55081

[valerief]

1. Of course, the insurance companies shouldn't own ANY member of Congress. nt

[DrToast]

2. Confused

Couldn't they still filibuster the final vote after the ammendment passes?

[DrToast]

3. Okay, I think I understand. Pretty interesting stuff. (nt)

[Clio the Leo]

4. That might be where the reconciliation thing comes in...

.... but I confess my ignorance as well.

DEFINITELY read the second article .... it prob. addresses the question, but the article is so long and involved, I'm all cross eyed after reading it. lol

I'm def. going to bookmark it for reference later.

This just explains how COMPLICATED this whole process is and how deferring to knowledge of the men and women actually crafting the legislation on this might be wise. lol
(which I'm writing in response to posts 4 and 8 here: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=132x8688428 )

Too often we tend to mistrust these Senators when, in reality, the process is not as simple as we might presume.

[Mass]

5. Except that you can filibuster an amendment. It is hard for me to get why corporate Dems would find

it harder to filibuster the amendment than the bill itself.

It is not the first time I hear this plan, but I do not get how it makes it harder to filibuster, not easier. They can say they voted for reform, but against the public option.

I am wondering how many of these articles about how to pass the plan are based on something solid, and not just golden dust to distract people.

[Clio the Leo]

7. Here is the section from the long article that addresses that...

However, a senator could filibuster the final vote, requiring another 60-vote majority to move forward. But if Reid decides to allow any amendments, each amendment could be filibustered, requiring a 60-vote majority to move to a final vote on each of them. An amendment that has the support of more than 50 but less than 60 senators could end up stopping the bill if neither side backs down. But if Reid is able to structure the debate so that all 60 senators who caucus with the Democrats stick with the party on cloture votes, he can pass the bill and send it to back to the House--where it originated as an entirely different bill in substance.

http://www.cnsnews.com/news/article/55081

So it comes down to "if Reid is able to structure the debate so that all 60 Senators who caucus with the Dems stick with the party on cloture votes....."

Which I think is either the "we dont think the moderates will want to be viewed as aiding the GOP in filibustering" notion or the "Reid may strip chairmanship/leadership for supporting a GOP filibuster" notion.

[DrToast]

16. If that's the "news," it's not really news

Something else must be going on. They make it sound like they're doing something sneaky by sending the House the final bill and not having to re-vote on it. If it's as simple as keeping 60 votes for cloture, then they don't have to be sneaky about it. They would just pass it normally.

[Better Believe It]

6. Here's a much easier procedure that everyone can understand.

Bring a final bill with a strong public option out of a House/Senate conference to the Senate floor for an up and down vote.

If a Republican filibusters against the bill, require them to remain on the Senate floor under Senate rule 22.

Keep the legislation alive on the Senate floor until the Republican filibuster ends or until 60 votes are obtained to end debate, whichever happens first.

Now that wasn't so hard, was it?

In current practice, Senate Rule 22 permits filibusters in which actual continuous floor speeches are not required, although the Senate Majority Leader may require an actual traditional filibuster if he or she so chooses.

A filibuster can be defeated by the governing party if they leave the debated issue on the agenda indefinitely, without adding anything else. Indeed, James Strom Thurmond's own attempt to filibuster the Civil Rights Act was defeated when Senate Majority Leader Mike Mansfield refused to refer any further business to the Senate, which required the filibuster to be kept up indefinitely. Instead, the opponents were all given a chance to speak, and the matter eventually was forced to a vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Filibuster

[Clio the Leo]

8. But isn't having it in the original bill that's the problem?

.... and by not having it in the original it gives the moderate Dems an "out"? What am I missing here?

[lumberjack_jeff]

25. I don't understand why they don't use HR3200 as a template. n/t

[tomm2thumbs]

9. my opinion - a red herring to try to get public option stripped from bill entirely

and then they'll lose the battle to get the public option but argue - 'we tried, we tried'

if you have to use tricks and games to get through legislation, you are only showing that change we thought we'd see in our government has not come

[Clio the Leo]

11. And you're basing this on what exactly?

I'm open to ideas ..... if there's something to back those ideas up ...... what I DO know is that the mighty Karl Rove is spinning reconciliation as tool created by Satan ...... and he'd only do that if he knows the Dems can actually use it to get something accomplished.

http://mediamatters.org/research/200909030028

[tomm2thumbs]

14. uh, based on 'my opinion' - hence the words 'my opinion'

guess I should put more disclaimers into these posts, just like contracts

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

28. Uhh, opinions are usually based on something.

Unless you enjoy pulling things out of your rear.

[gkhouston]

19. It relies on Reid and others having the spine to bring the PO back in during reconciliation.

For Reid, that's a big if. He's in a deep electoral hole in Nevada, and I don't know how/if that's going to affect his behavior on this issue.

[dionysus]

20. obama has to fail at all costs to satisfy these people. if he succeeds it clashes with their

worldview.

[DavidDvorkin]

10. And then, somehow, the amendment will never show up

Or it will be voted down quickly and quietly, and that will be the end of it.

[Clio the Leo]

12. Which is why Senators who have been pushing for a PO........

.... are saying the final bill will include it.

http://wonkroom.thinkprogress.org/2009/09/24/schumer-and-rockefeller-call/

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/62063-harkin-says-obama-will-sign-bill-with-public-option-by-christmas

Are they in on the ruse too? ;)

[DavidDvorkin]

13. I assume they're fighting this ploy.

[Egnever]

15. What a load of hooey!

There are no vulnerable senators. Unless they are putting forth a crap bill. The public overwhelmingly wants health reform. If its a good bill the only people that will pay are those that vote against it.

[Clio the Leo]

17. Oh yeah, the people of Arkansas are beating Blanche Lincoln's door down...

.... in support of health care reform!

Or not........



http://www.thearkansasproject.com/poll-health-care-reform-support-shaky-in-arkansas/

And here's another good one, "More Arkansans Trust Limbaugh than Obama"
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/08/poll-arkansas-anything-but-obama-country.php

Support for health care may be growing on a national level, but no one in Congress RUNS on the national level.

There-in lies the problem.

[jsamuel]

21. nonsense

I am an Arkansan and we are very upset with her opposition to a public option in committee. I have many friends who might have volunteered for her campaign, but now are considering volunteering for a primary challenger instead. Arkansans support a public option 55% to 39% based on a Research 2000 poll of the state. Her phones were tied up the day she voted against it in committee.

Also, I would be in the 61% who think the bill won't help me, but that is because I already have good insurance. Which most people do. Which is why that number in that graph shows that. It is ridiculous to use that question as a basis for support for the bill when the bill is aimed mostly at the 15% of people who are uninsured or under-insured.

It is like asking 18-25 year olds if Medicare is helping them.

[Clio the Leo]

22. And the difference in the two polls......

.... demonstrates the problem.

My poll asks "Do you believe your family would benefit from Obama's health care plan?" and yours asks the better question, "Do you favor or oppose creating a government-administered health insurance option that anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans?"

With any poll, those conducting it are prone to phrase the questions in a way that will get the outcome they want. If *I* were conducting a poll, *I* would phrase the question as the second one does because it will cause health care support to get a higher ranking. If I were an evil Republican who wanted to see Obama fail, :) I'd phrase my question like the first poll does.

My point in my post you're referring to .... and I was probably too vague in trying to make my point .... was that if you take a poll that basically says "do you support what Obama is doing" and the results are 60% OPPOSED ... then there is a large number of folks in Arkansas who are NOT pleased with the President and therefore not supportive of their Senator supporting him (which ultimately translate to support of health care reform.)

The fact that a question which CLEARLY demonstrates that health care reform will benefit families ("anyone can purchase to compete with private insurance plans") only gets 55% approval further demonstrates the problem. That 55% is lower than other polls conducted on a national level....

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/06/public-support-for-public-option.html#

Compare that to the fact that the President has only a 40% approval rating in the state....
http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/PPP_Release_AR_825.pdf
.... and the President's approval and support for the public option tend to go hand in hand.

Trust me, I WANT Arkansans to be beating Blanche's door down, I WANT her to champion the cause of the public option, I just don't see it. (I live in Tennessee and know just as many of MY compatriots who are just as passionate about it as you and I are.) But I know a LOT more "average Tennessee voters" .... older, whiter, more likely to contact their Sens and Reps ... who are STRONGLY against it.

My point is, if we act like Blanche has as much support for the public option as oh ..... say .... Chuck Shumer, we're kidding ourselves.

[joeycola]

18. REID--YOU FORGET DEMS ARE IN CHARGE. STOP PLAYING GAMES WITH PEOPLES LIVES!!

[Marsala]

23. Reid's found a way to get the public option through the Senate? STILL NOT GOOD ENOUGH FOR DU!

Why can't he push through single-payer? Doesn't he know we control Congress?!!

[Clio the Leo]

26. lol, exactly. NT

[Better Believe It]

29. We'll have to review the details of any "public option" that survives.

If it's weak and doesn't offer everyone a better and cheaper alternative than private insurance why would anyone want it?

[lumberjack_jeff]

24. CNS news is a lackluster source.

I would be surprised if the way they described is the way it plays out.

[Nicholas D Wolfwood]

27. ...and this is why Reid's majority leader.

I haven't liked his leadership for a while now, but there is no doubt he's a master of things like this. That's why he's really there.