There's talk of cutting out the entire conference processin order for the Senate to finish their bill by Christmas. This is highly likely given the tight timeframe, and the need to get this "health insurance reform" bill done before the 2010 midterm elections. This is known as "ping-ponging" process:
There is increased chatter on Capitol Hill about a possible "ping-ponging" of the Senate health care bill: that chamber would pass its health care bill, send it to the House and the House would be asked to pass it with no changes and send it directly to the president.
That limits the options of congressional critics -- under the usual procedure, lawmakers dissatisfied with the bill pushed through their chamber can win changes through adroit political maneuvering in conference committee negotiations.
"It's the only scenario by which we could actually get this whole thing done before the New Year. The House has indicated they'd consider it, depending on what the final bill looks like over here after we finish with the sausage-making," said a senate Democratic aide involved in the health care fight.
It also means that if the Senate removes the public option from its legislative package, the House would be asked to accept it, and to pass it straight to the President's desk. It's why the manager's amendment by Senator Reid is so crucial, because if that manager's amendment includes a provision that cuts out the public option in exchange for that toothless FEHBP private insurance exchange and a very limited Medicare buy-in for those 55 and up who are uninsured and are in small businesses, we'd have no real way to lower the premiums of private insurance, or to keep them honest.
Basically progressives in the House would be asked to swallow the so-called compromises on the Senate side if the White House and the Senate Democratic leadership don't want to go through the conference process. And progressives also wouldn't be able to leverage for better changes to the bill such as earlier implementation of reforms, which are more extensive in the House bill than in the Senate, and they wouldn't be able to put in their more stringent medical loss ratio, and other protections that are far better to consumers in the House bill than are in the Senate bill.
Progressives like Rep. Grijalva wouldn't even be able to advocate for us in the conference process, and he's spoken out about the ineffective compromises on the Senate side:
Grijalva said reports that the Senate is now moving toward the creation of a non-profit board to provide insurance, instead of an authentic public option, should "worry the millions of Americans who are counting on this bill to create affordable insurance and help them enjoy a fair marketplace." He emphasized that the House has already rejected such an approach, which essentially mirrors the health co-ops dismissed by most analysts as ineffective.
"A non-public option without government support will not bring down prices, expand coverage or provide competition for private companies," Grijalva said. "Voters will instantly recognize it as a whitewash of the problem we have spent the better part of this year trying to fix. They would be right to criticize any plan that fails to address their concerns, and they will be doubly right to reject this one."
...
Grijalva added that modeling a plan on the Federal Employees Health Benefits Program that exclusively offers private insurance plans, as the Senate is reportedly considering, is not equivalent to a public option. Similarly, lowering the age of Medicare eligibility by five or 10 years "does not create enough private sector competition, which we desperately need to benefit working families," he said.
"We need a public option, period," Grijalva said. "I cannot support a system that forces Americans to buy private insurance and then allows those companies to collect government subsidies without competition. Our final health care bill should be based on policy outcomes and the needs of consumers, and the direction the Senate is taking does not give me confidence."
Indeed, Rep. Grijalva. If the Senate and the WH does want to cut out the entire conference process, what they'll be doing is depriving one body such as the House of directly influencing the process and ensuring a better legislative outcome. That would be running straight over the progressives and moderate Democrats in the House who prefer their bill over the Senate bill. And it'd be the wrong thing for the Senate leadership and the White House to do. Also, how about instead of allowing conservadems to hijack the entire process and water down bills, which they'd likely do on other legislative issues, that they entertain the idea of reconciliation and actually use it to preserve the public option?
Click To Sign This Petition And Tell Senator Reid To Go The Reconciliation Route!
Here are some news from the House side today, including their reactions to the so-called compromises on the public option and the possibility of being cut out of the conference process:
"It would be a mistake to think that the House leadership will go into any kind of conference committee with the expectation that we’re just gonna sign on to the Senate bill," Schakowsky told me. "The House intends to negotiate with the Senate. We expect those deliberations to be vigorous. The House is not simply going to sign on the dotted line."
The tough talk throws yet another hurdle in the path of reform. There’s some talk right now about the possibility of bypassing House-Senate conference negotiations altogether, which would in effect compel the House to accept the Senate version. But these Democrats vow that it isn’t going to happen.
"The House is not going to be dictated to," Nadler told me. Both Dems expressed skepticism about the current public option compromise emerging in the Senate, which would create a national plan along the lines of the Federal Employee Health Benefits Plan and would be administered by the Office of Personnel Management.
"It’s important to understand that [the proposal] would be a completely private plan," Schakowsky said. "Right now, I don’t see it as a good deal."