If nothing else, we can take a little enjoyment in how all this crazy political junkie stuff brings entirely obscure words and procedures into the lexicon. The financial crisis brought us "tranche;" HCR has taught people more about Congressional proceedings than probably all of high school civics. It's kinda cool, in that nerdy way.
Anyhoo, regarding reconciliation, I've done some digging as to which Senators feel what way about using it for HCR reform. I will share that and some other thoughts below the fold.
From what I've read, we've got maybe, maybe 50 senators, by the hair of our chinny chin chins, if the moon is just right on the third Thursday, who seem open to using reconciliation for some elements of HCR. I have not counted Biden. All of the following Senators are on record as being none too keen on using reconciliation for HCR:
Lincoln
Byrd
Landrieu
Feingold
Pryor
Bayh
Nelson
That list brings us to down to 52. Begich has strong reservations and McCaskill is similarly iffy. Let's count them together as -1 and call it 51.
That 51 depends upon the likes of Lieberman., who is hard to pin down on this, but what did anyone expect. I did find this interesting tidbit, though: it seems he was quite delighted to pass elements of HCR through reconciliation in his own amendment back in 2005:
Senator Lieberman Floor Statement: FairCare Amendment to the Budget Reconciliation Bill
Mr. President, a very important provision is being passed in this year's reconciliation bill establishing Medicare Value-Based Purchasing Programs. Value-based purchasing brings a pay-for-performance provision to Medicare. Senator Grassley and Senator Baucus and the Finance Committee staff on both sides of the aisle have pushed forward an initiative that has been needed for a long time in American health care. I applaud them for their efforts.
I wish I could say it was encouraging, but this is Lieberman we're talking about here and 2005 was so long ago, like, oh say, when Joe was in campaign mode. After his performance on HCR so far in 2010, though, I really don't see how we or Reid should trust him as far as a flea could throw him.
But I'll be optimistic and only count him as 0.5 against, bringing the final tally to 50.5. That 50.5, again, is the totally optimistic best scenario on the Senate passing any HCR through reconciliation. It does not address opinions on using reconciliation for something like the Public Option or a Medicare expansion.
But many Senators on that list are on record as specifically opposing the use of reconciliation for anything but "narrow" and limited changes. Other Senators, like Carper, are on record saying they would not use it for the Public Option. Lieberman is categorically against the Public Option, no matter what. etc.
So, can we talk about reconciliation? We're the reality-based community and all that. People on both sides of the pass-fix/fix-pass debate are imploring the other side to "accept reality" and the like. So I hope we can take a moment here to get real and look at what's before us.
I'm no mathematician and neither am I a mindreader, but based on the above list and the cast of characters involved, this is how reality looks to me as of this posting:
We'll see Satan in ice skates and tutus before this Senate passes anything more desirable than the already agreed-upon fixes worked out in "conference," namely:
increase the threshold on the Cadillac tax, include more affordability credits, close the donut hole in the Medicare Part D drug benefit, and eliminate the Cornhusker Kickback.
Given the improbability of any new improvements being added at this stage of this process, it is my earnest opinion that pushing for items not already on the short list is not the best use of activist energies. Unified messaging works; a unified message is effective. 1/3 calling for this, 1/3 calling for that and 1/3 calling for the other thing is not as effective.
Given that the reconciliation fixes, while good, are hardly game-changers, I do not think it justifies holding up the Senate bill. In fact, I should love nothing more than for Congress to introduce closing the doughnut hole as stand-alone legislation. I'd pay money to watch Republicans squirming through their opposition to that.
Of course, I am guilty of wanting the Senate bill passed yesterday. If for no other reason than it's one gigantic first step that needs to be taken and the sooner the damn bill is passed, the sooner we can get to improving it.
It's also true that there are lots of ways to improve it that don't require reconciliation. This is especially salient if you take into consideration the political game the GOP is playing here, which is to thwart Obama at every turn. Waterloo and all that. No bill is a total win for them. But once a bill passes -- even a flawed bill like the Senate's, warts and all -- it's a completely different political landscape and the game totally changes. As it stands now, blocking the fixes is potentially a way of blocking the whole bill.
Passing the bill, even as is, provides momentum and strengthens our hand in making continued improvements. And as Femlaw pointed out, the senate HCR bill as is represents a budgetary authorization of $900 billion for health care. Try getting that through the Senate again anytime soon. If this bill dies, we will not see that kind of outlay in anything resembling the near future. It is there, sitting on the table, waiting for the Senate HCR bill to pass the House.
This community has, imo, made a lot of strides recently in coming together on HCR. The disagreements are less glaring now, it seems, and our purpose appears more common than in the past. I do think most people here want to see the bill pass with the proposed rec fixes. I hope most want the Senate bill to pass anyway.
But my biggest hope here is that we can all maybe agree to a consensus reality in the name of sending a unified message to Congress.
To me, that means letting go dreams of the Public Option and other 11th-hour additions for a reconciliation fix. I feel that insisting on those might imperil the reconciliation fix that is under consideration. I think it is critically important that we activists find a unified voice in this and coalesce around one unmistakable bottom line message: Congress needs to be told in no uncertain terms that passing nothing is not an option. Let them decide what that means internally, who's going first, who's wrestling whom in lime Jell-O. I don't care. I just want them to pass the damn bill.
And with that, I reckon I've blathered long enough. So, what's reality lookin' like from where you sit?