Why are Democrats seriously considering the reconciliation option?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

Curious what you think.  If it could cost them the election in November, are they doing it because they sincerely care, or is this a political hail marry to save them in November?

[Lunar]

Because the alternative, not passing a modifications bill through this process, is worse politically and practically as it means giving up on healthcare reform.

[MK]

At this point they will look like pussies for allowing the party out of power to win.  At least this way it shows they aren't backing down.   

IMO If unemployment was below 8% they would have the public support on this from the start.

[Franzl]

Because the alternative, not passing a modifications bill through this process, is worse politically and practically as it means giving up on healthcare reform.

[Frodo]

Option 2 -as far as I am concerned, Democrats are going to lose their majorities in Congress anyway, so we might as well make use of the majorities we have while we still have them.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     Option 6. They don't care about anybody but themselves. If they did, they wouldn't be politicians.

[Free Trade is managed by the invisible hand.]

Because it would be ing stupid to not pass health care reform.

[xavier110]

A mixture of both -- they've been wanting this forever, and they're likely not going to be able to pass anything of this nature after 2010, and it looks good to have passed something.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Well first of all, because it's actual majority rule. Second of all because it's political common sense, given that by all measures Democratic chances in the midterms improve with a passed healthcare bill.

Oh, and also, saving lives and all that silly stuff.

[Torie]

I would like to believe that the Dems are doing it, because they think it is a critical public policy fix. The status quo is not sustainable; everyone who is remotely sane agrees with that. And if I believed what they believe about the right mix of fixes, I would do the exact same thing, and F the politics. Now granted, since they are all on record as supporting this fix, they figure, and probably rightly, that doing something even via an aggressive use of reconciliation, is better than doing nothing as a political matter.

And an added bonus of injecting steroids into the reconciliation process, is that it will help kill off the filibuster, which I have come to believe is quite toxic to our political system, and tends to deflect responsibility for what happens from those in power, or for those in power to be blamed for something that was really due to the supra majority requirement in the Senate, which stopped the Republicans when they held sway from enacting tort reform. That is not good.

[nhmagic]

If democrats pass healthcare, they run out the private industry and establish a government controlled program.  Though they will face a short term defeat, democrats expect that the dependency created by the program will shore up their base and make yet others reliant upon the system.  They can then accuse the GOP of trying to end national healthcare and reap the rewards as the labor party did in Britain with the system never having been changed and electoral success.  The Tories in Britain are only a shadow of their former self, only promising to manage the socialist system more effectively.  They had some hope with Thatcher, but Thatcher did not end the system.  Once healthcare is passed the dems job is done and the US will finally be socialist and nothing will ever change that.  This is the goal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

If democrats pass healthcare, they run out the private industry and establish a government controlled program.

You know quite literally nothing about this issue, it seems.

[Torie]

If democrats pass healthcare, they run out the private industry and establish a government controlled program.

You know quite literally nothing about this issue, it seems.

Unfortunately, Marokai Blue, you can read but a snippet of this  article, but the rest of the story is that premiums for health insurance in Mass are zoming up at a rapid rate, and now price controls are on the near horizon, as Mass politicians go into a panic mode. I suspect private insurers in Mass will be decamping quite soon. I still believe that the end game of this structure is the end of private insurance. Mass is quite similar to the plan the Dems are pushing is my tentative perception. The road to rationing is a painful one, and I hope it does not end up with single payer, but in the end, that is what we might have.

[Small Business Owner of Any Repute]

There are a few lessons you can learn from our great experiment here in Massachusetts:
(1) Way more poor people will find coverage thanks to subsidies.
(2) If you can afford health care now at an obnoxious rate, you will not qualify for anything but the right to keep paying that rate.
(3) Wait times for doctors are up.
(4) Doctors do not want to accept state-paid patients and refuse them whenever possible.
(5) Middle-class premiums will continue to rise unabated.
(6) Poors still use the ER as their front line source of medical treatment.
(7) There's a marked proliferation of high-deductible "junk" plans that exist as the cheapest way to avoid a state-levied fine.
( Whatever they're telling you the cost to taxpayers is, they're way off.

[Beet]

Yeah, but Massachusetts isnt' the only state where health insurance premiums are increasing rapidly. 11 states will see double digit insurance rate increases for 2010. Nationally they will be more than double next year over 2000, so to argue that the status quo is working is becoming increasingly untenable.

No one is saying that the Massachusetts reform solved all problems, or that it was going to solve the biggest problem, which is the rate of increase in costs, which are driven by the cost of technology as well as incentives built into the system. The whole argument about the "cost to the taxpayers" really misses the point, because successful reform should be a net benefit to society, period. Obviously it would be great if it were a benefit to government finances, but the more important thing is that there is a more sustainable health care system with better cost incentives. Over the long run that is also what will benefit government finances.

The two main problems are that providers are paid more for giving more services, and patients see no cost for using more services. If patients were forced to pay more for a more expensive treatment, then they would themselves more carefully consider whether they wanted to use that treatment. And providers would perhaps not recommend so many more extra treatments if they bore some of the cost themselves rather than just passing it off. Incentivization is at the heart of ER utilizations, premiums rises, and doctors' acceptances.

To some extent, the increased number of people covered, while very important, is a sideshow to the systemic cost issue. The main benefit would be through a mandate that would lower insurance costs overall. It is also fair prima facie, because since everyone has access to ER, everyone should share some of the costs. However it is not the crux of the cost problem.

None of this touches on what the real problem is, however-- which is political paralysis. The reason why no one has touched costs is not that no one has any good ideas to control costs-- it's that doing so would be politically too difficult-- too many special interests involved. Even Obama's miniscule attempt failed. This is a political problem with our system of government, not a policy problem.

Since the GOP and the conservative movement tends to be much more cohesive, fanatical, and in control of the media than the Democrats, I think the best hope for real health care reform right now, ironically, is a big Republican win 2012. Unlike the past, the GOP will be forced to recognize that the status quo is untenable, and hopefully the GOP will be convinced that big reform is needed. With their conservative legions standing behind a popular GOP President, I think many conservatives would support things that they claim to oppose to the death under Obama. With their lockstep thinking, massive propaganda outlets, and especially if their reform throws some bones to liberals (like expanded coverage), a health care reform push by the GOP might very well be the best chance at reform. The key difference between them and Democrats is spine.

[Bo]

Because they have less than 60 seats and because the GOP isn't willing to be bipartisan.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

They really might as well use their majority for something. It's pathetic how little they've done with their majority. Let's say that they lose 7 Senate seats in November. Then they'll have 52, barely enough to do anything even with reconciliation. That's 50 without Lieberman or Ben Nelson. If they were to lose 8 or more, they would be effectively the minority party. Not that getting some of the other conservadem votes for anything reasonable is by any means an easy thing.

Going further with the loss of 7 scenario, the 2012 Senate elections will have only 10 Republicans up out of 33. Only 9 Republicans were elected in 2006, plus there is Scott Brown. Ben Nelson is probably a goner, while Lieberman should be replaced by a Democrat. Anyways, not a lot of room for pickups in 2012. Ensign, Kyl, and Snowe are theoretically vulnerable, while the remaining Republicans look pretty safe. Meanwhile, the Democrats have a lot of seats to defend there.

Again in 2014, a similar picture, the Democrats are mostly on defense. although there are somewhat more Republicans 13 + probably Castle. There's some possibility for gains, but if Obama is re-elected, the President's party tends to lose a number of seats after 6 years.

So basically right now is by far the strongest Democratic majority since 1994, and they won't have any sort of decent majority again any time soon, and the Democrats haven't done a damn thing. It's time for them to show some leadership and not totally waste this time in power. Of course showing the voters that the Democrats aren't completely useless should help them politically, too. Obama needs to be smacked on the head for being such a useless President. The Democrats are unlikely to have a Senate majority this solid again until 2017 at the earliest.

[RRB]

I recently saw the poll that said that some 52% or so of Americans oppose reconciliation.  Come on....how many people out there have ever heard of this.   This is America folks, people really do get into fights over which is best....Chevy or Ford......you know, important stuff like that.  Who ever heard of recon sill e a tion.  I have actually been around people who have long conversations about the roadkill they saw.  Acadamia is sooooooo out of touch.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

I recently saw the poll that said that some 52% or so of Americans oppose reconciliation.  Come on....how many people out there have ever heard of this.   This is America folks, people really do get into fights over which is best....Chevy or Ford......you know, important stuff like that.  Who ever heard of recon sill e a tion.  I have actually been around people who have long conversations about the roadkill they saw.  Acadamia is sooooooo out of touch.

I bet you could find a poll where 40% of those people on COBRA (Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act) firmly oppose using reconciliation ever. The right-wing noise machine can do a good job of drowning out the facts for a lot of people.

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

I recently saw the poll that said that some 52% or so of Americans oppose reconciliation.  Come on....how many people out there have ever heard of this.   This is America folks, people really do get into fights over which is best....Chevy or Ford......you know, important stuff like that.  Who ever heard of recon sill e a tion.  I have actually been around people who have long conversations about the roadkill they saw.  Acadamia is sooooooo out of touch.

Who did the poll?

[opebo]

There are a few lessons you can learn from our great experiment here in Massachusetts:
(1) Way more poor people will find coverage thanks to subsidies.
(2) If you can afford health care now at an obnoxious rate, you will not qualify for anything but the right to keep paying that rate.
(3) Wait times for doctors are up.
(4) Doctors do not want to accept state-paid patients and refuse them whenever possible.
(5) Middle-class premiums will continue to rise unabated.
(6) Poors still use the ER as their front line source of medical treatment.
(7) There's a marked proliferation of high-deductible "junk" plans that exist as the cheapest way to avoid a state-levied fine.
( Whatever they're telling you the cost to taxpayers is, they're way off.

Number one makes all the others well worth it, though obviously as you point out, the MA plan is crap compared to a full Government Health Service.

[Sbane]

There are a few lessons you can learn from our great experiment here in Massachusetts:
(1) Way more poor people will find coverage thanks to subsidies.
(2) If you can afford health care now at an obnoxious rate, you will not qualify for anything but the right to keep paying that rate.
(3) Wait times for doctors are up.
(4) Doctors do not want to accept state-paid patients and refuse them whenever possible.
(5) Middle-class premiums will continue to rise unabated.
(6) Poors still use the ER as their front line source of medical treatment.
(7) There's a marked proliferation of high-deductible "junk" plans that exist as the cheapest way to avoid a state-levied fine.
( Whatever they're telling you the cost to taxpayers is, they're way off.

What do you think is the most efficient way to extend healthcare to all?

Edit: Which is of course assuming you would want that end result. And I don't see how anyone, unless they are a millionaire, would oppose healthcare for all. I am from an upper middle class background but I know perfectly well I am one "restructuring" or "productivity increase" away from using the ER as my major source of health care. And the rest of you upper middle class folks and those who have good jobs with healthcare benefits are in the same boat with me. Hell, if your job provides healthcare benefits, you are more likely to be laid off.

[opebo]

...I don't see how anyone, unless they are a millionaire, would oppose healthcare for all. I am from an upper middle class background but I know perfectly well I am one "restructuring" or "productivity increase" away from using the ER as my major source of health care. And the rest of you upper middle class folks and those who have good jobs with healthcare benefits are in the same boat with me. Hell, if your job provides healthcare benefits, you are more likely to be laid off.

They really don't understand this, sbane.  Their hubris is that strong that they are totally in denial of reality.

[Padfoot]

Democrats genuinely want to pass health care reform as a policy.  Its been a major party goal for years.  Also, passing reform makes them appear stronger, more cohesive, and able to govern.  Not passing reform confirms all the GOP propaganda about Democrats' inability to govern.  So really the answer is both; they want to pass reform because they believe in the cause, and they need to pass reform to have any hope this November.

[Smash255]

Its a mix of both.  They know healthcare reform needs to get passed, that we have an immense problem on our hands and we need to fix this now instead of just kicking this down the curb.  They also realize part of the reason they were elected in the 1st place was healthcare reform, and they must deliver on it.   While most probably realized that the GOP would try to block healthcare reform, I don't think anyone knew the extreme level of obstruction the GOP would resort to, but the Dems need to do something.  Unless they go through with Reconciliation and actually fight the GOP they look like a bunch of pussies.