Meet the New Democratic Health Care Plan, Same as the Old Democratic Health Care Plan

Peter Suderman | January 26, 2010

Determined not to waste nearly a year of effort spent crafting politically viable universal health insurance legislation, Democrats have settled on a strategy to pass the health care bill: Get House Democrats to pass the Senate bill, then use reconciliation to make the necessary changes.

If you've been paying attention, you may have noticed that this was the exact same option that Democrats had last week, and they didn't have the votes for it then. There's no indication that they have them now.

Part of the problem is that reconciliation, which allows Democrats to circumvent a Republican filibuster and pass the bill with 51 votes, is limited by what's known as the Byrd rule. That rules states that reconciliation may only be used on revenue-relevant provisions in the bill. There's considerable disagreement over whether the amendments that House Democrats hope to make—to the exchanges, the subsidies, and treatment of abortion—would be meet the Byrd rule's criteria.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Senate's Parliamentarian to make the call. Now, if he makes a call that Democrats don't like, there's always the option to fire him and replace him with someone else who makes the "right" call. But given the way the Nelson Medicaid deal has played with public support (ie: terribly), I highly doubt that Democrats would be interested in being seen to be effectively firing the refs in order to get calls in their favor.

Reason needs your support. Please donate today!

Try Reason's award-winning print edition today! Your first issue is FREE if you are not completely satisfied.

D.R.M.|1.26.10 @ 1:46PM|#

Idiots.

Any provision the Democrats change through reconciliation becomes a provision a future Republican majority can change through reconciliation.

Since the "benefits" of the bill don't come into play until 2014, there will be no stakeholders in the new system until after the 2012 election cycle. The Republicans will have plenty of time to win a majority (even the Presidency) and then gut the thing.

|1.26.10 @ 2:08PM|#

You can bet that if that comes to pass, and the Republicans repeal through reconciliation the very same thing the Dems pass through reconciliation, that the media will portray the Republican act as filthy cheating that stomps all over minority rights.

|1.26.10 @ 1:52PM|#

How many Dem congress-critters were on the phone to Ms. Pelosi the evening of 1/18?
I'm guessing that quite a few called, praised her leadership and told some other lies, and then (with a whole lot *more* circumlocution) pointed out that they *really* like their seat at the public trough and had no desire to have to look for a job in order to keep Ms. Pelosi's opinion of herself in such a high state.
It's possible, but it requires entirely too many sleaze bags to fall on their swords for principal; doubtful.

Johnny Longtorso|1.26.10 @ 11:37AM|#

All Praise The Holy Anonymity Bot! Peace Be Upon Him!

Holy, holy, holy..
Lord Bot Almighty..
God in Ever Changing Artificial Persons
Blessed Anonymity

http://www.online-piracy.int.tc/

Paco Nacho|1.26.10 @ 11:40AM|#

Dudes! Johnny lies! I am The One.

RT
http://www.online-piracy.int.tc/

Paco Nacho|1.26.10 @ 11:43AM|#

a year of effort spent crafting politically viable

Shouldn't that be unviable? Otherwise the snark falls flat as a flour tortilla.

RT
http://www.online-piracy.etc

|1.26.10 @ 11:57AM|#

No, I think they mean "politically laughable".

prolefeed|1.26.10 @ 2:07PM|#

I think he was being sarcastic with the "viable" bit.

Krusty the Clown|1.26.10 @ 11:52AM|#

By my pork products!! Uh-hu-heh-heh-heh!!

|1.26.10 @ 11:53AM|#

That rules states that reconciliation may only be used on revenue-relevant provisions in the bill.

Other than definitions, it's all revenue-relevant; they're spending money, aren't they?

|1.26.10 @ 11:55AM|#

I want to believe.

Paco Nacho|1.26.10 @ 12:02PM|#

All will be revealed in Mr. Thompson's speech!

RT
http://www.online-piracy.int.yada-yada

Rhywun|1.26.10 @ 12:15PM|#

I thought the Byrd Rule was something like "All spending bills must include the dedication of a large building, statue, or similarly high-falutin' structure in West Virginia."

LibertyBill|1.26.10 @ 1:39PM|#

Makes me wonder who has the bigger ego, Byrd or Pelosi?

ed|1.26.10 @ 2:30PM|#

More to the point, who has the bigger penis?

|1.26.10 @ 3:37PM|#

Pelosi obviously.

Citizen Nothing|1.26.10 @ 12:33PM|#

They should just cut to the chase and change the name of the state to Byrd Virginia.

|1.26.10 @ 8:00PM|#

I highly doubt that Democrats would be interested in being seen to be effectively firing the refs in order to get calls in their favor.

Why not? Aren't inspector-generals getting fired for exactly that reason?

|1.26.10 @ 10:11PM|#

I suspect they are just playing this BS up so Obama will be able to talk about health care in the state of the union.

Reason.com