51 Vote Rules May Force a Public Option "Too Liberal" for Some Dems

[babylonsister]

51 Vote Rules May Force a Public Option Too Liberal for Some Dems
Brian Beutler | September 1, 2009, 12:15PM


As Senate leaders begin work on a Democrat-only health care bill, they're finding themselves confronted with an unexpected irony: Though the caucus has reached an uneasy consensus around a public option that's modeled in many ways after a private insurer, it may be necessary to make the public option more liberal, and thus, more politically radioactive, if it's to overcome a number of unique procedural hurdles.

This is the needle Democrats may have to thread if they want a public option, and at the same time, want to bypass a Republican filibuster. And the key for them will be keeping conservative Democrats on board.

"A very robust public option that scores significant savings would presumably be easy to justify doing through reconciliation," says a Senate Democratic aide. "But it is still being studied whether other, more moderate versions of a public option could pass parliamentary muster."

According to Martin Paone, a legislative expert who's helping Democrats map out legislative strategy, a more robust public option--one that sets low prices, and provides cheap, subsidized insurance to low- and middle-class consumers--would have an easier time surviving the procedural demands of the so-called reconciliation process. However, he cautions that the cost of subsidies "will have to be offset and if loses money beyond 2014...it will have to be sunsetted."

And there the irony continues: Some experts, including on Capitol Hill, believe that a more robust public option will generate crucial savings needed to keep health care reform in the black--and thus prevent it from expiring. But though that may solve the procedural problems, conservative Democrats have balked at the idea creating such a momentous government program, and if they defected in great numbers, they could imperil the entire reform package

It's a very technical conundrum with huge policy ramifications. So it's not surprising that Republicans are on to it, and preparing for war.

more...

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/going-it-alone-on-health-care-dems-face-tug-of-war-over-public-option.php

[gratuitous]

1. What's "technical" about majority rules?

We seem to have operated under that rubric for more than 200 years, passing legislation both good and bad. Folks from the Supreme Court down to the littlest church committee operate on that principle. Elections have consequences, and the people of the United States didn't fill Congress with huge Democratic majorities and put a Democrat in the White House to watch them morph into Republicans. Get some sand, Democrats!

[WeDidIt]

6. Reconciliation rules regarding budget items are fairly strict

thus, in order to achieve the requirements for all aspects of a public plan option, the coverage application must be more broad than is currently in existing legislation and the wait period before it begins will be shorter. In addition to that, it cannot eb administered by the insurance companies if it is to meet the requirements for reconciliation.

In other words, it'll be far closer to single payer than exists in any current bill and will produce a higher degree of competition for the for profit insurance companies. Such a public plan option will almost certainly result in a single payer solution within five to ten years because private insurers will be incapable of fully competing.

[aquart]

2. Too fucking bad.

[EFerrari]

3. Oh, no! Not better health care! We're doomed!

:)

[JVS]

4. doomed and screwn!

[WeDidIt]

5. And the irony is....

It'll probably work one helluva lot better than a more moderate version passed with full cloture.