Andrews, chairman of a health subcommittee of the Education and Labor Committee, is not a fan of the excise tax that's included in the Senate version of the bill and in President Obama's plan he outlined yesterday.
Information about the meeting, and the President's proposal, is at WhiteHouse.gov. The discussion might be interesting and I will try to watch it live Thursday 10AM. It will be streamed online.
As a practical matter, here are the possibilities Democrats face that don't involve completely craven surrender, and you should keep them in mind as the pundits and politicians talk:
A. Pass a comprehensive bill through the House (217 votes) and Senate (51 votes, but 60 to beat the filibuster first), whether starting over or by modifying the existing bills after conference committee.
B. The House passes last December's Senate bill with 217 votes. Not one word could be changed.
C. Pass health reforms that are budget-related through reconciliation, meaning 51 Senate votes (no filibuster) plus 217 House votes.
D. The House and Senate pass a series of smaller bills, each with 217 + 60/51 votes and lots of time used up in the Senate.
Option A seems highly unlikely, since 2009 was already wasted looking for Snowe's vote and a Democrat vote was lost, so we're into Options B+C. Pass the Senate bill (B), and "fix" it (excise tax, cough, cough) via reconciliation (C.) Some elements of Option D may also happen, for example, we're supposed to see a House vote on repealing the health insurance industry's anti-trust exemption.
The White House obviously has a loser mentality -- but America rallies around winners. Polls show that in state after state, voters hate the Senate bill and overwhelmingly want a public option, even if passed with zero Republican votes. More than 50 Senate Democrats and 218 House Democrats were willing to vote for the public option before, and the only way to lose in reconciliation is if losers are leading the fight. That's why Democrats in Congress should ignore the White House and follow those like Chuck Schumer and Robert Menendez who know that the public option is a political and policy winner.
Now that we know he is the one of the first two names that come to mind when you think "winner," I trust Senator Bob Menendez will never think he doesn't get praise from the left.
But I would warn them that if they think that building up the base's hopes on this again only to fail to even get 50 out of 58 Democrats it isn't going to work. If they are serious about rallying the base they need to deliver, period. No excuses. They have a majority. If they hold a vote that only requires 51, they need to win it.
I'm just praying they aren't going to have a spirited losing debate on the floor and then go the Evan Bayh route yesterday when he was on TV, righteously blaming the Republicans for being obstructionists (good) but also blaming Democrats for making the "perfect the enemy of the good". One more lecture about this and I'm going to put my foot through the TV. The truth of the matter is that liberals have been accommodating every damned step of the way, forced to eat dirt from backstabbers like Joe Lieberman and have been far more compromising than jackasses like Bart Stupak and Ben Nelson. It pays to remember that if liberals had their way we would be talking about a national, cradle to grave universal health care plan (Medicare for all) instead of this Rube Goldberg contraption that's been put together with toothpicks and ear wax. So lectures about demanding perfection really need to be aimed at the vaunted "centrists" and the conservatives, who made this mess a necessary requirement for passage....
But if they are running the same game they ran before I can't imagine how much worse they are making it for themselves. They need to be very, very serious about passing it. This Charlie Brown with the football routine is what's killing them with the base. They just can't afford to do it again.
I don't think it's hard for Blue Jersey readers to think of examples at the state level, but here there are really no excuses, because health care reform has been in the Democratic platform longer than most Americans have been alive. Pass a public option that covers anyone with a pre-existing condition, with subsidies for everyone without insurance and a tax on high incomes, and you are finished. And it's more popular than the current bill.
"You cannot dance with someone if they are not willing to dance with you," said Sen. Robert Menendez, D-NJ. He called GOP complaints that the Democrats wrote a partisan bill "pretty lame, when they have made a political calculation that their path to victory is to have the president fail."
Vote was 60-39. Both New Jersey senators Frank Lautenberg and Bob Menendez voted yes.
Update: We now know who the missing Republican was, that led to a 60-39 vote instead of 60-40. It was Senator Jim Bunning of Kentucky, who was entitled to vote today, but is not running for re-election after heavy pressure from fellow Republicans to drop out.
Senators Russ Feingold and Bernie Sanders, both lobbied heavily to vote no on deeply imperfect legislation, both voted yes.
Senator Robert Byrd, whose death or injury was wished for by some Republicans this holiday season, was wheeled in and cast his yes vote, adding, This is for my friend Ted Kennedy.
Senator Harry Reid brought the funny, but not on purpose. When the rollcall got to him, he voted loud and clear: No!
The clerk paused, as the room tensed up a little, to let an exhausted Senate Majority Leader catch up with what he just did, and change his vote. Which he did, as everybody in the room cracked up.
I only saw the last minute of the vote. There's more to say, so consider this an Open Thread.
"It's sort of like which devil do you fear the most?" asked Gary Pearce, a longtime Democratic operative in North Carolina. "Are you more afraid of the party base or are you more afraid of the health-care reform opponents?"
Kissell picked the latter, and it may have been the wrong bet. Conservatives who oppose the reform effort are unlikely to vote for a Democrat regardless of how he votes, Pearce said, yet Kissell cannot win reelection without the support of his base.
"That's why they call them freshmen -- because they make freshmen mistakes," he said. "That's why a lot of them don't become sophomores."
You can figure out what this has to do with New Jersey.
Senator Bob Menendez shines as he joins Frank Lautenberg and other senators in opposing and defeating Ben Nelson's abortion amendment to the health care reform bill.
"This amendment would roll back the clock on a woman's right to choose," said Menendez. "It unfairly singles women out and takes away benefits they already have. It singles out our daughters and legislates limits on their reproductive health - their reproductive rights. If we were to do the same to men - if we were to single out men's reproductive health in this legislation - imagine the outcry. Imagine if men were denied access to procedures. Imagine if they were denied access to prescription drugs. But that is exactly what we are doing to our daughters with this amendment - rolling back the hands of time. I personally find that offensive, as do women across this country. The language of this bill has been carefully negotiated to ensure that we are preserving a woman's right to choose, but doing so without federal funding. To claim otherwise is hypocritical and misleading."
The roll call is here. Yea was effectively a vote to kill the amendment.
By a 60-39 vote, the Senate agreed to proceed with the debate on the health care reform bill. Senator Bob Menendez spoke earlier today:
I like the part about "socialism" and all the Republican "no's" in the past. Menendez also issued a statement following the vote:
"Each step we take toward health insurance reform brings families closer to the type of health insurance security and relief from ballooning costs that will prolong lives, protect paychecks and cut the budget deficit. Tonight was a major one of those steps, though there are a number that still lie ahead. With dozens of my colleagues not even willing to work on this bill constructively through our democratic process, this vote laid bare who is for change and who is for more of the same at any cost. The American people can look at this vote and the forthcoming debate and tell clearly who stands on the side of American families counting on their insurance to be there when they need it the most and who wants to protect the insurance companies no matter what. Some of my colleagues will seek to address their concerns about this bill with constructive ideas, but others who have no new ideas and merely want to defend the status quo will instead try to wreak havoc with the tired, old fabrication and fear tactics used for generations to protect special interests. In the end, the American people will understand who takes their struggles with insurance companies seriously and who is only serious about protecting insurance company profits. I believe the voices of families who just want for a fighting chance against insurance company bureaucrats will prevail and we will finally have health insurance reform."
There's an interesting post by Tom Jensen of Public Policy Polling (PPP) on how health care reform will affect turnout in 2010. PPP did a good job with the New Jersey governor's race and I think we have to take his analysis seriously, though as he notes, this is all based on polls of the 2009 likely voters, so it's missing anyone who sat home for Corzine but would turn out next year. (Remember that PPP had Christie leading 47-41 in this poll; the actual result was 49-45.) They asked in both Virginia and New Jersey whether the voter would vote Republican or Democratic for Congress in 2010, which found they'd go Republican over Democratic 46-41 here, and then...
Second we asked how they would vote for Congress next year if no health care bill passed. In Virginia that increased the GOP lead to 49-35 and in New Jersey it expanded it to 45-38. In other words the failure to pass health care did not put any dent into the percentage of people saying they'll vote Republican next year. They're voting for the GOP whether health care passes or not. But it did create a small decline in Democratic support from voters who seem to be saying that if a Democratic Congress can't create meaningful health care reform what's the point in going out to vote Democratic anyway.
Third we asked how people would vote if Congress passed a health care bill with a public option. In Virginia the GOP led 51-39 under that scenario and in New Jersey it was a 47-40 advantage. So in Virginia Democrats poll slightly better with a comprehensive health care bill than without one and in New Jersey there's no difference.
All disputes over the quality of the health care reform bill aside, this is an illustration of why many of us also think a Democratic (Adler) vote against health care is political malpractice. While it makes little difference to most people, it seems there's evidence that failure will keep a bit of the base home, when what Democrats need is to increase turnout. The best you can hope, I suppose, is that the effect is small enough that perhaps it won't really pan out that way if health care reforms fails.
In promoting the House health bill, New Jersey Democrat Frank Pallone made reference to discrimination by insurance companies, citing their reluctance to insure people with preexisting conditions and differences in costs based on gender. "But that's not against the law," Texas Republican Pete Sessions said.
Pallone replied, "No, but we would make it against the law. Why do you have a problem with that?" he asked. "Why should a woman pay more than a man?"
"Well, we're all different," Sessions explained. "Why should a smoker pay more," he said before getting interrupted by a burst of chatter throughout the room.
We're seen this view crop up in the Senate too, where Claire McCaskill has to remind Jon Kyl of the importance of mothers. I'm genuinely curious how the so-called "conservatives" justify this kind of thinking when they are supposed to be pro-family, pro-personal responsibility, and so forth and so one. Anyone have a good link? I honestly think it's all BS, the Republicans seem to me to be dominated by a toxic mix of greed and belief in their own superiority. Good for Pallone, for standing up to them. Maybe next time Pallone can ask Sessions to exclude football injuries, that might get a Texan's attention. Still, I can't help but wonder when we'll have a New Jersey woman in Congress again. These are situations where we can see diversity really matters.
While every one of the state's five Republicans marched in lockstep with John Boehner and Eric Cantor by opposing health care reform, seven of eight New Jersey Democrats voted for the historic health care reform bill. Among Democrats, only 3rd District Congressman John Adler voted no.
Of the 39 Democrats who voted against H.R.3962, only four come from more Democratic districts than NJ-03. Some 30 Democrats who represent redder districts than Adler's voted yes. Adler's vote was nothing but cowardly.
Adler's vote may not have been a surprise, given the series of negative statements he has about the bill since the summer, but it certainly is a disappointment. Adler has moved hard to the right ever since being elected to represent NJ-03 last November. Where is the John Adler New Jersey progressives fought to elect?
What happened to the John Adler who pushed the death penalty repeal through the State Senate Judiciary Committee in 2007? What happened to the John Adler who expressed support for marriage equality in the Senate civil union hearings in 2006? The courageous progressive who served in the state Senate for more than a decade has exited the political stage to make way for a cowardly freshman Representative who caves in to the teabaggers on the big votes.
What happened to the John Adler who knows from personal experience what a lack of health insurance can do to a family? What happened to the "outspoken advocate for providing health insurance to all families"? The Congressman seems to have forgotten about the uninsured, for all he talks about these days is cutting costs.
It seems Adler has forgotten what got him elected to Congress in the first place. He won the support of rank-and-file Democrats and thus an easy path to the nomination by maintaining a progressive voting record in the State Senate. He rode Barack Obama's coattails into office in the general election (remember that Obama outperformed him in the district in 2008). But for his first Congressional re-election campaign, Congressman Adler is casting his lot with the big-money donors looking to influence his votes on the Financial Services Committee, and with teabaggers like William Green.
This evening, the US House of Representatives may finally vote on a health care reform bill. None of the 177 House Republicans is expected to vote for the bill, so Democrats must find the 218 votes required to pass the bill from within their own caucus. At the moment, it is not at all clear whether or not the bill is going to pass, as several dozen Democrats are on record opposing the bill and a number of others are on the fence.
One of the Democrats refusing to support the bill is New Jersey Congressman John Adler. Adler concedes that the house bill is "a step in the right direction," but plans to vote against it because it doesn't control costs enough.
Late last month, Adler had a chance to support a bill with a public option that would reimburse health care providers at Medicare rates plus 5 percent. This plan would have saved a substantial amount of money over the current version, which will force the government to negotiate rates with providers just as private plans do. Had Adler and other Democratic opponents of the current bill had supported that plan, it may well have passed the House.
If today's vote fails, or doesn't happen at all, it is likely that the bill will be further weakened. There will be almost no chance of either house passing a public option that can credibly compete with private insurers, and health care costs will continute to rise at alarming rates.
Americans have been waiting for generations for universal healthcare, and tonight, the House of Representatives has a chance to make history. AFSCME is asking progressive voters around the country to call their Representative to express support for health care reform. Call John Adlertoday and tell him to support the Affordable Health Care for America Act.
The Press of Atlantic City says John Adler will oppose the health care bill. I'm not in the district, and I guess he'll get a lot more money from insurance companies than I'd ever have given, but it's unforgivable as far as I am concerned.
There's no doubt that in such a major bill, with millions of people and billions of dollars at stake, that man compromises have been made. This reform bill fundamentally preserves the existing system for better or worse. Many of the left are quite sincerely disappointed in choices that have made, and in turn many from other perspectives are also disappointed with parts of the bill. But at the end of the day, this is a reform that bill that will improve health care for millions that already have health care, and will help millions with health care insurance, without protection against medical, without access to routine care. It will literally save tens of thousands of lives every year.
If Democrats stand for anything, it must be to help the working class. This bill will help millions of people, and whatever complaints our New Jersey Democrats have about this aspect or that aspect, they must unite to vote for reform now.
"This is history in the making for health care in America," said Congressman Frank Pallone, Jr., a key author. "Once these reforms are enacted, every American will be able to take comfort in the knowledge they will have access to affordable health care and that insurance coverage won't be denied or taken away. Good health care is a basic need shared by all Americans, this will make it a basic right for everyone."
I had the chance to join Pallone's conference call for the media this afternoon. The messages I took away were:
Pallone is happy with this bill, says it refects for the most part the bil passed by his Energy and Commerce committee. When asked what disappoints him, he says "nothing."
He emphasizes that many aspects of reform will take effect immediately. In particular, rescissions, denial of pre-existing coonditions, and lifetime limits on coverage will be banned. He raised the point that some (certainly not all) of the protections exist in New Jersey state law already, but insurers will find it harder to evade federal law as they now do state law.
This is a very welcome development from Saturday's NJ3 town hall: Representative John Adler now supports a public option.
Adler said he supported providing some type of public option in a reform bill, arguing that it would increase competition among private health insurance companies.
"A public option would be a real hammer in some areas without competition," he said, adding that he also favors permitting insurance companies to write policies to out-of-state residents.
This is great news. I do think, though, that last bit is odd. Out-of-state insurance policies without New Jersey regulation is exactly what cost Chris Christie his lead over the last month. Why would Adler trumpet his support for a right-wing political loser of a proposal? Now, if Adler is just talking about letting in other insurance companies that obey our local laws, I have no problem, but I find it pretty shocking anyone would deliberately seek to recreate the "South Dakota/Delaware" credit card "race to the bottom." If you enjoyed 25% interest rates and late fees, you'll love your new insurance policy. Still, he was facing a pretty hostile audience and I have to congratulate him for standing up for health care reform, a public option, cap-and-trade, and the stimulus.
Imagine how dumb these Republicans are Adler had to deal with. (They do seem to be self-described conservatives.) They supported Reagan and Bush's massive deficits. They supported another Bush's deficits. They borrowed the entire costs of their wars. But today, with a worldwide recession, they want to follow Herbert Hoover's policies and complain about debt. If we didn't live here we wouldn't believe it.
I found Bill Bradley's New York Times Op-Ed through dday's marvelous take-down. It's difficult to believe a Senator could write something so foolish, until you realize that we have about a dozen Democratic senators that think like him. So maybe it's valuable after all to read the piece, and add to dday's comments.
Senator Bradley's idea is that a grand compromise is possible on health care -- after all, he says it worked for President Reagan's tax reforms. He shares his touching story of how he joked around with Reagan. Then he reveals, without noticing the irony, that Bradley and Rostenkowski made the deal because "it might serve as a model for passage of other significant legislation, like deficit reduction and health care reform."
Do you remember the 1988 balanced budget that resulted? The universal health care bill of 1987? In short, the poor man still boasts of his great deal, when he was scammed.
Dday points out that the Republicans have no reason to make the proposed deal in exchange for medical malpractice tort reform because they've already got it in most states, and because it is really a minor issue. Bradley is just reinforcing conservative propaganda in his piece. But, I'd like to be a bit simpler: What does Bradley think has been going on for the last six months? Has he read the papers? For better or for worse, no one can deny that Max Baucus has been bending over backwards to make a deal. It's only earned attacks from Republicans. That Bradley has not noticed suggests he doesn't read the newspaper he is published in.
Is too much to ask that Bradley pay attention to what has happened this year and when he was Senator before he shares his "wisdom" in the New York Times?
Here are some ideas from the congressman on how health care reform can impact economy. We're going to be asking you - in a few days - to help us find out from Rep. Pallone just how strong his commitment to the public option is. Stay tuned - - promoted by Rosi Efthim
I hope everyone at Blue Jersey is enjoying the Summer now that the rain has calmed down a bit. In Congress, we're working hard to craft real, meaningful health care reform legislation. I just wanted to assure my friends here in New Jersey that we're fighting to make sure any new law includes a public option. We need to expand the access and affordability of health insurance, and I want to make sure our legislation reflects these principles. A public option will help lower costs, give consumers more choice and create more competition in the marketplace.
Additionally, I wanted to bring your attention to an op-ed I penned last week for newjerseynewsroom.com concerning how health care will play a role in helping America move out of the current economic recession and the types of reforms we need:
We have to do more than spend money on healthcare; we need to invest in reforms that will improve the quality, expand the accessibility and lower the long-term costs of healthcare. One of the best areas for investments is biomedical research and development. By investing in biomedical innovation and research we are strengthening an industry that already leads the world in progress and influence, while at the same time ensuring the next generation of medical treatments and therapies.
By investing in biomedical research and development, we strengthen an industry in New Jersey that creates high-paying jobs and produces new medical techniques to improve our lives. Biotech is very important to our state's economy in so many different ways, and we must continue our investment in this important industry.
Promoted by Jason Springer: There has been a good deal of talk about healthcare. What do you want to see included?
Last week marked 6 months on the job for President Obama and the 111th Congress. Together, we've already accomplished a lot when it comes to health care reform. Though we've taken the first major steps to reform our broken health care system, there are still many steps left until we finish the job.
This week President Obama addressed the American Medical Association and stressed the important role doctors will play in overhauling our health care system. As the New York Times opined just this past weekend, doctors largely decide what procedures or treatments are performed on patients. Everyone should know that the reforms will preserve the doctor-patient relationship. Those who want to keep the insurance they have and the doctors they have can do so. Nothing in the reforms will allow anyone or anything to come between doctors and patients in making health care decisions.
.gif)
