Posted on 02/22/2010 8:00:36 AM PST by opentalk
The game of chicken commenceth — right now.
In the course of unveiling Obama’s new health reform proposal on a conference call with reporters this morning, White House advisers made it clearer than ever before: If the GOP filibusters health reform, Dems will move forward on their own and pass it via reconciliation.
The assertion, which is likely to spark an angry response from GOP leaders, ups the stakes in advance of the summit by essentially daring Republicans to try to block reform.
“The President expects and believes the American people deserve an up or down vote on health reform,” White House communications director Dan Pfeiffer said on the call.
Pfeiffer said no decision had been made how to proceed, pending the outcome of the summit. But he added that Obama’s proposal is designed to have “maximum flexibility to ensure that we can get an up or down vote if the opposition decides to take the extraordinary step of filibustering health reform.”
Translation: If the GOP doesn’t cooperate with us in any meaningful sense, we’re moving forward on our own.
Also on the call, White House advisers detailed Obama’s new proposal, which was just posted on the White House web site, and discussed the ways it seeks a compromise between the Senate and House proposals. Among the details:
* As expected, the plan has no public option — but this does not preclude a reconciliation vote on the public option later.
* The proposal boosts the threshold for the “Cadillac” tax on the most expensive health plans from $23,000 for a family plan to $27,500. That’s actually a better deal than some labor officials were expecting, though some House Dems will still be angry that the tax is being included at all.
* The proposal also preserves the Senate bill’s state-based exchanges, and does not have a national exchange, as the House bill did.
* However, House Dems will be cheered by the fact that Obama’s compromise closes the Medicare prescription drug “donut hole” coverage gap.
* Also, the bill nixes Ben Nelson’s Nebraska deal and boosts Federal financing for Medicaid expansion in all states.
* And finally, as expected, Obama’s proposal creates a Federal panel to monitor and block exorbitant rate hikes and other unfair practices by the insurance industry.
One final note: On the call, Pfeiffer was careful to note that the proposal is not the product of an agreement between the House and Senate, but rather is “the President’s bill.” This is meant to preclude GOP efforts to cast the proposal as the product of a backroom deal. The lines are drawn.
**************************************
Update: Eric Cantor spokesman Brad Dayspring emails a response:
The Obama plan costs a trillion dollars, puts government in control of personal health decisions, and allows the government to set prices in the private market. That mirrors the Pelosi/Reid plans that have already been soundly rejected by the bipartisan majority of Americans.
It may very well pass in the House but can’t see the Senate passing this again.
No. Budget Reconciliation (as detailed in the 1974 Congressional Budget Act), is entirely different than the so-called "nuclear option". The nuclear option is a parliamentary maneuver with roots back to the early 1800s that essentially eliminates the filibuster with a simple majority vote.
Secondly, the media didn't coin the name, "nuclear option", Trent Lott did, FWIW.
with the vacancies, Pelosi now needs 217. It’s gonna be close, and the GOP must make a huge splash about Medicare Advantage being dessimated.
They should also have Coburn a key point man on Thursday b/c he knows every minutae of health care, he’s a doctor, and he won’t be intimidated by Obama.
I don’t agree. If they go reconciliation, who are the ten Senate RATS who will vote NO?
The panel that rations care on what treatment you can have is already passed in the stimulus bill. They need the second, part to activate it.
They would be the “death panels” that Sarah Palin spoke of and you are right, they are already in place.
If they could pass it with reconciliation, why haven’t they done this before? Besides, what I’ve heard about reconciliation, any bill passed using it has to be renewed every two years, or something like that. It has pitfalls that Harry Reid may not want to venture into.
Yes, you're right. My math was faulty.
Right now, most political scientists believe that 30-40 seats are in play in the House. If this passes, there could conceivably 60, or more seats in play. I just don't think she's going to find the votes.
this=his
I hope you are correct that Pelosi will not be able to secure the votes. It will largely depend on where Stupak lands, assuming he carries a few votes with him. I do know that the Catholic Church is not going to accept the Senate language, now reflected in the BO bill.
They'd BETTER filibuster!
I haven't read the bill, nor have I seen this mentioned, but do you know if the so-called "Cadillac Tax" is in Barry's version of the bill? That would be a tough sell to the House, but without it, how are they going to offset the cost? It would have to be much less "budget neutral" (I know, stop laughing) when its scored by CBO.
A PRESIDENT vetoes passed legislation, not Congress. Are you trying to say that Congress doesn't have enough votes to override an 0bama veto??
Once a president signs legislation, it becomes law, in order to change it, Congress must write and pass new legislation again requiring a president's signature. Is this the veto you are purporting forthcoming from 0bama?
The language was posted in a thread several weeks ago, I'm not able to pull it up, my apologies for not being able to provide the specific words. It amounts to no federal subsidy to pay for insurance if a woman wants abortion coverage, however, it does not prohibit federal funding of abortion whatsoever It was some kind of accounting language, typical legislative monkeyshines. It is not the long-standing Hyde language that Stupak claimed had to be a part of any health care reform bill or he and his pro-life Dem colleagues would not vote for final passage -- he is on record later as saying that even if the Hyde language is not included, he would vote for final passage, he used the "Well, we tried" whine. At this point, I would not put any faith or trust in Stupak, work on some other pro-life Dem.
And it appears it would also require repeal of so many other pieces of legislation, it wouldn't be just re-writing this one bill either. That's the sneakiest part of this whole situation, they've already got so many pieces in the already in the works ... oy.
No, I'm sorry. I created a poorly constructed sentence. I'm completely aware of the differences in the Senate bill, and what Bart Stupak and others agreed to in the House bill - provisions that would prevent public monies for abortion.
I meant that I hadn't seen anything written about Barry's bill with respect to the Cadillac tax; Does he include it or eliminate it in his proposal?
Make sure your muskets are cleaned. Its almost time to topple the WH and Capitol Building and watch the vermin flee for their lives.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.