ABC News.com
Political Punch
President Obama to Say Democrats Will Use Reconciliation to Pass Senate Health Care Reform Fix, If Not Given Up or Down Vote
March 02, 2010 6:27 PM
White House officials tell ABC News that in his remarks tomorrow President Obama will indicate a willingness to work with Republicans on some issue to get a health care reform bill passed but will suggest that if it is necessary, Democrats will use the controversial "reconciliation" rules requiring only 51 Senate votes to pass the "fix" to the Senate bill, as opposed to the 60 votes to stop a filibuster and proceed to a vote on a bill.
Lawmakers on Capitol Hill have been awaiting the president’s remarks direction on how health care reform will proceed.
In his remarks, scheduled to be at the White House, the president will paint a picture of what he will say will happen without a health care reform bill – skyrocketing premiums, everyone at the mercy of the insurance industry as recently seen with the 39% premium increases proposed by Anthem Blue Cross in California.
He will note that the “fixed” bill will include the proposal for a new "Health Insurance Rate Authority" to set guidelines for reasonable rate increases. If proposed premium increases are not justifiable per those Health Insurance Rate Authority guidelines, the Health and Human Services Secretary or state regulators could block them.
The plan to pass the bill includes having the House of Representatives pass the Democratic Senate health care reform legislation as well as a second bill containing various “fixes.”
The president will call for an up or down vote on health care reform, as has happened in the past, and though he won't use the word "reconciliation," he'll make it clear that if they're not given an up or down vote, Democrats will use the reconciliation rules as Republicans have done in the past.
White House officials will make the argument these rules are perfectly appropriate because the procedure is not being used for the whole bill, just for some fixes; because reconciliation rules are traditionally used for deficit reduction and health care reform will reduce the deficit; and because the reconciliation process has been used many times by Republicans for larger legislation such as the tax cuts pushed by President George W. Bush.
A White House official says the president will "reiterate why reform is so crucial and what it will mean for American families and businesses: they’ll have more control over their own health care, they’ll see lower costs , and they’ll see an end to insurance company abuses. He’ll note that his proposal includes the best ideas from both parties, and he’ll restate his preference for a comprehensive bill that will reduce premiums and end discrimination against people with pre-existing conditions."
The president will also extend a hand to work with Republicans on measures they have pushed, including $50 million for state grants for demonstration projects to explore alternatives to medical malpractice cases, and a crackdown on Medicaid and Medicare fraud as proposed by Sen. Tom Coburn, R-Okla.
He will also herald the removal of extraneous provisions in the bill such as the so-called “Cornhusker Kickback,” a deal to secure the support of Sen. Ben Nelson, D-Neb., in which the federal government would pay for Nebraska’s Medicaid expansion; and “Gator-aid,” the provision to shield Florida seniors from cuts to the Medicare Advantage program, secured by Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla.
Mr. Obama will say that he will be working on exact legislative language in the next few days. Republicans can join him and Democratic congressional leaders of the House and Senate to makes these changes and to pass the bill, but either way the bill will be moving forward.
-Jake Tapper
*This post has been updated.
Comments on ABC NEWS.COM
Posted by: Jonnney | Mar 3, 2010 10:45:54 AM
I'm wondering to what extent there are fixed, binding rules governing the use of reconciliation; and who would enforce those rules. Where are these reconciliation rules defined--a federal statute or what? How could I read a layman's summary of these rules?
If the use of reconciliation to pass this health care bill were actually against the rules, wouldn't some person or body step forward and stop the proceedings? Who would that be and how would it happen?
Or are those who oppose the use of reconciliation here saying that it's not actually against the rules; it's just against the spirit and intent of the provision?
Posted by: 4civility | Mar 3, 2010 10:45:53 AM
The Democrats are doomed to oblivion if they are successful at pulling this off. The American people may not have long memories, but they remember enough to know when they're being screwed and who's doing it to'em. Obama, Pelosi, and Reid are willing to have their fellow Democrats fall on their swords so this democratic "Axis of Evil" can look good on the 6 o'clock news. That's not leadership, that's dictatorship. So, go ahead, Dems, ram this piece of crapola down the American voter's throats. See what happens in November.
Posted by: PTParks | Mar 3, 2010 10:44:46 AM
==============================
President Obama is interested in the will of Obama and not in the will of the people. He wants to write himself into the history books as the president who bankrupt America.
==============================
Posted by: N Waff | Mar 3, 2010 10:43:25 AM
Why do we keep calling this health care? It isn't health care because if it was it would take immediate effect. Instead we would have to wait for it for several years. When we hear it is a "crisis that needs immediate attention" but the plans don't provide immediate relief, it is obvious something else is going on. This is nothing more than just another way the government can control its citizens and a disaster. But, we live in a country that has several myopic citizens that vote in pop culture fashion and we as uninformed masses are suffering at the hand of ignorance.
Posted by: voiceofreason | Mar 3, 2010 10:43:01 AM
Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe that any part of this bill that contains mandates regarding pre-existing conditions will be thrown out if they use the reconciliation process because it is not aimed at reducing costs (budget), which is what the reconciliation is all about
---
the insurance reforms were already passed by a supermajority. The house will pass that bill-- not via reconciliation. Reconciliation is only being used for small budgetary concerns that the House had about the Senate bill. They actually improve the bill. Reconciliation will also be used to strip the bill of the special deals that nobody liked -- the cornhusker kickback and so on.
----
No it does not. It does not make insurance portable and still puts it on the backs of employers. It does not address giving the smaller insurance companies a chance to compete with the larger ones (purchasing across state lines)
---
Actually, not directly-- or as directly as I would have liked but the exchanges will make increasing portability ever more possible, particularly if Wyden works to get more support for his free choice amendment in the future. In addition, the pressures price conrols will put on insurers will press innovation, and allow smaller insurers with lower overheads an opportunity to be innovative and entrepreneurial-- at least there's potential for that. And the pilot programs could open up further opportunities.
I don't think anyone would say they think this bill is exactly what they would have put out there on their own, right? I would've started with Wyden-Bennet. But I don't think it will get done if we let special interests force the scrapping of it yet again. If we go there, special interests and widespread misinformation campaigns win.
To me, that's not freedom. That's continuing to be bought and sold.
Anyway, gotta roll. The so-called "troll" does actually have a life (though I'm rehabbing an injury and find commenting an amusing pass time. I'm kinda over it for today!)
Posted by: progressive mama | Mar 3, 2010 10:41:31 AM
Why would anyone ever pay for health insurance if you could simply buy it once you get sick?
If you can force an insurance company to pay all of your medical bills for your pre-existing condition, who would ever pay for it in advance?
Posted by: John | Mar 3, 2010 10:40:27 AM
I can't wait 'til it passes. I plan to stage sick-ins at every abortion, AIDS, you-name-your-cause-I've-got-it clinic across our great nation. My tummy hurts - am I at the wrong place? Again?
Posted by: regressive mama | Mar 3, 2010 10:37:11 AM
Soon middle/upper middle class people in blue state cities will pay 50% or more of their income in taxes -that's before all the hidden taxes are added.
85% of Americans are happy with their coverage now. If they want us to pay for the uncoveed they should at laest ask somewhat nicely rather than force this through.
Posted by: Jack NYC | Mar 3, 2010 10:37:03 AM
The republicans did NOT use reconciliation to appoint judges or many other non-budgetary things. IF they pass the health care bill this way they will be giving permission for republicans to use reconciliation the same way: whimsically. With 51 votes the Republicans can then kill this bill retroactively next december when they get majorities back.
Be careful what you wish for democrats.
