What would be eligible? Well, Medicare buy-in, for one thing. Medicaid expansions. The public option. Anything, in short, that relies on a public program, rather than a new regulation in the private market. That means we'd probably lose the regulations on insurers, many of the delivery-side reforms, the health insurance exchanges, the individual mandate and much else.The market reforms really are as important, if not more important, than the public option or the Medicare buy-in. What I don't understand is why can't they do both? Why can't they get the 60 votes on the reform measures and then use reconciliation for the rest? Why are we limited to one or the other?
Reconciliation, in other words, tips the bill towards an expansion of the public sector rather than a restructuring of the private sector.
Why hasn't the prospect of reconciliation been enough to drive the conservative side to the table? Being the Party of No makes sense if you think a bill will fail. But if they can push reconciliation with only 50 votes, why not step in and try to get the better deal out of 60. One reason is that the reconciliation has not been pushed harshly enough and has remained largely off the table.
It just seems like more of the conservative "politics of NO" to me. It's pathetic and passe at this point. They've had plenty of chances to actually put forth plans that work AND don't screw the general public, and they've refused to do so. Lieberman's bad behavior is unsurprising. I think he suffers from some childhood drive for attention-whoring.
ReplyDelete