Setting up the health care conference cave?

by David Waldman

Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:30:10 AM PDT

Nancy Pelosi, 8/20:

[T]here’s no way I can pass a bill in the House of Representatives without a public option.

Steny Hoyer, 8/21:

I’m for a public option but I’m also for passing a bill. We believe the public option is a necessary useful and very important aspect of this, but we’ll have to see because there are many other important aspects of the bill as well.

What are they saying?

They may very well be saying that the public option will have its day on the floor during House consideration of the bill, but when the Senate whines that it can't pass it, everyone who went out on a limb for it in the House will be forced to eat shit and vote for the public option-less version so that Senators can vote comfortably.

Members of the House who have "pledged" to support only a bill including a strong public option should understand that we understand process well enough to know that that means supporting it all the way through conference, thank you very much.

Anything else is just so much steak sauce.

  • ::

Tags: Steny Hoyer, Nancy Pelosi, health care, public option, steak sauce (all tags) :: Previous Tag Versions

Permalink | 14 comments

  •  Hoyer got his Blue Doggie bag today! (0+ / 0-)

    TWD @ Twitter

    by sluggahjells on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 10:48:44 AM PDT

  •  Does Hoyer really think we won't notice (0+ / 0-)

    if the House votes for the public option but it doesn't end up happening?

    “If I can't dance to it, it's not my revolution.” — Emma Goldman

    by Jyrinx on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 11:54:44 AM PDT

  •  Don't ya just love dueling sound bites? (0+ / 0-)

    Steny Hoyer was quoted by Politico based on a conference call.  Unfortunately, we only have the brief quote used by the reporter to suggest that the public option was off the table after having just been put on it by Speaker Pelosi.

    Hmm...

    I am getting a little tired of being played by the press and may just refuse the bait this time.

    by Susan from 29 on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:03:26 PM PDT

  •  in this instance as with all others (2+ / 0-)

    Recommended by:
    Casual Wednesday, FistJab

    the speaker has been clear that her bill will have the (a) public option. i believe her.

    i also know that since she has been public about this -- and quite supportive of health reform measures for forever and a day -- i seriously doubt that she would name conferees who would sell short the public option or roll so easily for the intransigent senate.

    as for hoyer...    harrrumph.

    _

    There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

    by dadanation on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:13:43 PM PDT

  •  someone more informed than I? (0+ / 0-)

    How did the Democrats come to look so foolish in this debate? An entire campaign knowing this would be on the table and their pants are down.

    I'm betting that many of our elected officials were failed business persons or ambulance chasing lawyers? Effectively useless?

    "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave." - Thucydides

    by JasperJohns on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:53:56 PM PDT

    •  on rachel maddow's show the other day (0+ / 0-)

      she did a fairly compelling analysis regarding hearth care reform of the difference between democrats and republicans in what they know, who they get their info from and how reliable that info is (i.e. "do you believe health care reform is a trojan horse to help kill grandma.")  

      in a nutshell, democrats get their facts from real news sources while republicans get their talking points and memes from fox news.

      in addition, democrats argue on the face of the facts while the same republicans argue on the face of feelings.

      it is not so much that the dems look foolish as it is that the republicans are being given permission to look credible.

      sadly, the media has been granting to the wing-nuts and deathers and birthers and screamers a tacit nod of validation in being so willing to accept their claims at face value with little to no investigative or follow-up or verification.

      my own gigantic caveat -- the democrats in the senate.  
      i.just.don't.get.what.is.wrong.with.them.
      not.one.bit.

      _

      There is a certain charm in the purity of irrelevance. But the more relevant you get, the more real you have to get. (Barney Frank)

      by dadanation on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:52:55 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  David, What would happen if (0+ / 0-)

    Rockefeller, Kerry, Schumer, and Cantwell voted no on the Baucus bill in committee?

    DK Greenroots has an ActBlue page

    by 2laneIA on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 12:57:28 PM PDT

  •  note too on the other side.. (0+ / 0-)

    Olympia Snowe is, once again, calling the shots.

    "We have not had the public option on the table," Snowe told MSNBC's Andrea Mitchell. "It's been co-ops, and addressing the availability and affordability of plans through the exchange."

    TPM

    "Be convinced that to be happy means to be free and that to be free means to be brave." - Thucydides

    by JasperJohns on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 01:03:49 PM PDT

  •  Budget Reconciliation Process (0+ / 0-)

    David, I'm really starting to delve into how the budget reconciliation process can be used to get a "public option" through the Senate with only 51 votes (50 votes if the VP is needed to break a tie).  

    The latest rumors are that the health care legislation might be split into two bills, one that would require the 60 Senate votes for cloture to end debate which would contain all the stuff that would likely not meet the muster of the budget reconciliation process and would get jetisoned by the parlimentarian via the "Byrd" rule if they tried to make it fit the process, and the other bill that would contain the stuff that could pass the "byrd" rule test and therefore would only require 51 votes (50 votes + VP), with the latter including the public option marked up to make it pass budget reconciliation restrictions.  As I understand it, the public option would be shown to reduce the cost of the overall legislation based on the CBO's figures and therefore would be portrayed as having a positive effect on the budget deficit, allowing it to survive a challenge under the Byrd rule (if I'm wrong in any part of my understanding, I stand ready and eager to be corrected).

    Now this is where I loose it!  How would this work?  

    1. Would the split happen as a result of the House/Senate Conference to reconcile (not budget reconcile) a House bill with a PO and a Senate bill without a PO?  This sounds like the best way to go.
    1.  Would the split happen in the Senate before the Senate-House Conference, and if so how do you deal with 3 separate bills, 2 from the Senate and 1 from the House?
    1.  How certain are we that the PO can survive under the Byrd rule?  I don't see Reid firing the parlimentarian over this, nor do I see the Senate doing a Cheney and bringing in Biden to overrule the parlimentarian, so I guess I am looking for some warm and fuzzy comfort that based on your best understanding of the rule, the PO will survive a non-partisan parlimentarian's judgement.

    Any  other enlightenment on this topic would be greatly appreciated!

    "Some men see things as they are and ask, 'Why?' I dream of things that never were and ask, 'Why not?"

    by Doctor Who on Fri Aug 21, 2009 at 06:22:28 PM PDT

Permalink | 14 comments