Real and Fake Sticking Points
I think Mickey Kaus makes an excellent point here about alleged “sticking points” in health care. The crux of the matter is that in any negotiation you need to distinguish between a dispute that could wreck a deal between two parties who genuinely want a deal, and a dispute that provides a convenient pretext for parties who on some level don’t want a deal. So specifically on health care it seems extremely unlikely that if there are 218 House Democrats and 60 Senate Democrats who honest-to-God want a universal health care bill passed that disagreements about abortion could prevent that from happening.
But insofar as there are members who don’t want to take the political risk of voting “yes” on a comprehensive health care reform bill, but also don’t want to be seen as spiking the initiative, then developing a hard line position on abortion can be convenient. Like say Ben Nelson and Bob Casey say they can’t vote for health care unless it contains Stupak language, and then Joe Lieberman (Freedom of Choice Act cosponsor!) and Olympia Snowe say they can’t vote for health care unless it doesn’t contain Stupak language. Well, then health care dies. And yet nobody has to take the blame for having killed it if a constituent gets mad.
28 Responses to “Real and Fake Sticking Points”
Register
RSSLogin
Topic Cloud
ArchivesBlog RollAbout Matt YglesiasContact Me
Donate
November 10th, 2009 at 1:04 pm
You wrote “does” instead of “doesn’t“.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:08 pm
It seems to me this still only causes a problem if we allow BLOCKING A VOTE to count as “voting against” the bill.
And if we refuse to fall back on reconciliation, and a simple majority vote (50+Biden) for passage.
Because if Reid, Obama, etc, can twist the arms of Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, Casey, et al to simply not join a Republican filibuster of the bill but allow them to actually vote no on final passage if they feel that way, this is no problem at all (there are almost certainly 50 votes for the bill in the Senate, with or without the Stupak language).
November 10th, 2009 at 1:14 pm
There is no “60 vote requirement” in the Senate.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:18 pm
Because if Reid, Obama, etc, can twist the arms of Nelson, Lincoln, Landrieu, Lieberman, Casey, et al to simply not join a Republican filibuster of the bill but allow them to actually vote no on final passage if they feel that way, this is no problem at all (there are almost certainly 50 votes for the bill in the Senate, with or without the Stupak language).
Well, of course. But the obstructionist senators aren’t stupid enough not to know that either. They’ll at least make noises about threatening to filibuster. Lieberman has already said that if he doesn’t support the bill, i.e. if it has a public option, he will not vote to bring it to a final vote.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:20 pm
haha, one of Matt’s typos finally came back to bite him.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
And given that the thing underfunds itself, has dubious cost-saving potential, mandates coverage without proper subsidies, and will likely be paid for on the backs of covered middle-class workers, I’m increasingly fine with that outcome, even as happy as it would make Megan McArdle. There is no way pro-choice people can vote for Stupak in good faith. The bill’s passage is rightly in jeopardy if it is not removed. I think Pelosi knows this (and if she weren’t Speaker, would be one of those threatening to blow it up), and so I actually find myself optimistic that she actually believes she can strip Stupak in conference.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:21 pm
There is no “60 vote requirement” in the Senate.
Practically speaking there is, at least in this case. If enough democrats all already afraid to vote for a bill without republican support, then there certainly wouldn’t be a majority ready to jam it down their throats through reconciliation. “Respect for the traditions of the Senate” would be the easiest excuse imaginable. It would take balls to use reconciliation and they obviously don’t have them.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:25 pm
Maybe I’m misunderstanding how the Senate works here, but why are the only two options a 60-vote majority to cut off debate or the use of reconciliation? Why can’t the Democrats just pack some meals and a good book and stay in the Senate for several days while Republicans filibuster themselves tired, and then pass it when the Republicans run out of things to say? It seems like the Republicans are mainly blocking things by threatening filibusters rather than engaging in full-length ones – why not call their bluff?
November 10th, 2009 at 1:29 pm
Also, I think preventing funding for abortion is a real sticking point, and there are people who genuinely agree with the aims of health insurance reform but are pro-life and won’t pass it if it includes abortion funding.
I honestly don’t see liberal Democrats voting against comprehensive health insurance with a public option because it doesn’t fund abortion. They’d be out of office in a second in the next election, and they couldn’t even blame the Republicans for the bill’s failure: it would be squarely their own fault.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:34 pm
“mad” s/b “dead”
November 10th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
That’s not how a filibuster works. The party trying to end the filibuster has to have enough Senators present to pass a quorum call. The party filibustering needs only to have one or two Senators present at any given time to keep the filibuster going. That being the case, it’s the party opposing the filibuster that is likely to drop from exhaustion first.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:36 pm
Lieberman used to be left wing on social issues. He supported pro-gay rights legislation in the late seventies and marched for civil rights. It was actually unfair to target Lieberman in 2006 when Dianne Feinstein had a far worse voting record. Yet Lieberman has done a fine job of proving his critics right.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:37 pm
Also, I think preventing funding for abortion is a real sticking point, and there are people who genuinely agree with the aims of health insurance reform but are pro-life and won’t pass it if it includes abortion funding.
Then there shouldn’t be federal funding for abortion, but that’s no reason to ban private funding for abortion, which is what the Stupak amendment does. I agree with Kaus that there ought to be some sort of compromise possible, but if the pro-lifers really do insist on banning private insurers on the exchange from covering abortion, that would be like denying abortions to any woman receiving food stamps or student loans–it’s absolutely beyond the pale, and any decent believer in human dignity would have to vote against any government program that came with such restrictions.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:38 pm
Katherine #9: It would be squarely their own fault? Really? It would be their own fault because they didn’t want to support a health care bill that segregates Americans by gender and women by class?
If health care reform fails because of language on abortion, it will be the fault of the forced pregnancy lobby and anyone else who hates women, and that’s all.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
The party filibustering needs only to have one or two Senators present at any given time to keep the filibuster going.
Not only that, but those one or two Senators don’t have to give the Mr. Smith/Strom Thurmond type speeches. They can just continually suggest the absence of a quorum and we’d just see an endless series of roll calls on CSPAN. Pretty much the only way to break a filibuster is to shame them into allowing a vote, or have 50 Senators willing to change the rules. I would imagine there are maybe 35, and the current Republican party is pretty clearly immune to shame.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Katherine, I doubt it. I can’t think of one “pro-choice” legislator who would be in danger for voting down healthcare. Most of the people who are going to vote soley on healthcare don’t like this bill and will be inclined to blame Conservatives for it failing regardless of who actually sinks it.
Both groups that vote soley on abortion will (those who oppose it and those who favor it) will want to reward their legislators for standing up for that belief, so there’s no fear of electoral backlash, either.
Partisan Democrats who are not ideologues and who are not single-issue voters will vote for Democrats no matter what. Politics is like a sport to them, and they won’t vote against their team the way ideologues will if you piss them off.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:41 pm
Katherine: see here; I’m not sure how definitive it is, but I don’t know of anyone who’s corrected it. Basically, the Democrats can’t make the Republicans talk their way through a filibuster without having all their members on board for a quorum call, which would be much harder on them than on the one Repub filibustering.
November 10th, 2009 at 1:48 pm
Basically, the Democrats can’t make the Republicans talk their way through a filibuster without having all their members on board for a quorum call, which would be much harder on them than on the one Repub filibustering.
Not quite. They can’t make them talk their way through it period. If they don’t have 50 there for the quorum call then the Senate shuts down. If they do, then the debate stays active, but you can do quorum calls all day long even if all 100 are there. That’s the reason why holds work and why bills simply fail if they don’t pass cloture. If you could make them speak endlessly you’d at least get PR out of it, but nobody wants to cover endless roll calls.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:08 pm
218 House Democrats and 60 Senate Democrats who honest-to-God want a universal health care bill passe
It’s the Green Lantern Theory of health care! If only we had more will!
November 10th, 2009 at 2:14 pm
That’s inexplicable even for you Al. Notice the word “if” before that phrase. I’m glad to see that Matthew’s Green Lantern dig still stings.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:17 pm
Then I suppose it’s a measure of how serious they are.
After, given the time they would therefore have to spend on Capitol Hill, they could not be fund raising, attending Georgetown social events, – much less passing earmarked legislation for important contributors.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:26 pm
The idea that Congressional Democrats will boldly fight any legislation because of concerns over class segregation are comical. In the case of health care reform the idea is absurd.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:48 pm
That’s inexplicable even for you Al.
Nah, there are no depths of dishonest hackdom too low for Al to sink to. He takes pride in debasing himself.
November 10th, 2009 at 2:57 pm
That’s inexplicable even for you Al. Notice the word “if” before that phrase.
That “if” is exactly the point. Matthew is asserting that if Congress had more will (if “there are 218 House Democrats and 60 Senate Democrats who honest-to-God want a universal health care bill passed”), health care would pass.
As if the only two options are (i) want health care to pass or (ii) don’t want health care to pass. But, obviously, that’s a false choice. The third option – want health care to pass so long as X, Y or Z – is perfectly valid. Matthew thinks it is a lack of will, but it’s just an alternate policy position.
November 10th, 2009 at 3:18 pm
That “if” is exactly the point.
As I said: no depth of hackdom too low for Al to sink to. In some ways it’s kind of fascinating to watch.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:34 pm
Katherine #9: It would be squarely their own fault? Really? It would be their own fault because they didn’t want to support a health care bill that segregates Americans by gender and women by class?
It doesn’t “segregate” anybody. It excludes funding for a procedure, abortion, that many people, both male and female, have powerful ethical objections to and that don’t want to see their taxes going towards.
People who are truly poor are already on Medicaid, which also doesn’t cover abortion, so this isn’t nearly as much of a class issue as you’re making it out to be.
November 10th, 2009 at 5:56 pm
Katherine, you’re misinformed.
The Capps compromise, which was present in the House bill on Friday and both Senate committees, says that all abortions for people in the exchange must be paid for by funds derived from individual premiums; the structure will be that of California (et al)’s Medicaid system, wherein abortions are funded by the 10% provided at the state level.
Furthermore, the subsidies are going to be reimbursed to the citizenry through tax credits. They can’t be said to “pay” for any medical procedures whatsoever; they’re intended to offset the the added monthly cost of premiums.
Furthermore, every exchange will be required to offer at least one plan that doesn’t offer abortion coverage, and at least one that does.
The Capps compromise is the status quo codified. It was reached in the House Energy and Commerce, to move the bill out of committee.
Anybody who has trouble with the fungibility of federal money in this instance must spend all of his or her days tied up in an abandoned basement for fear that any expenditure of money will eventually pay for the rape of a 7-year old Thai boy afflicted with Downs syndrome. It’s pure paranoia.
Stupak, on the other hand, removes abortion coverage–which saves money for the insurer, subsidy bank, and welfare roll–from 86% of private plans. Benefits will remain in employer coverage, though the goal is to get exchange coverage more economical than employer coverage.
That means that, around 2017, wealthy people with specialized coverage from their employer will get free abortions. Middle-class and lower people will need to pay $500 for their abortions. Then again, that’s the goal, right? Abortions only for the wealthy?
As a teacher I was talking to said today, his wife gets abortion coverage with his insurance, which is paid for by a public school. The public school gets federal funding. Is that federal funding for abortions?
November 11th, 2009 at 12:03 am
If Mickey Kaus made an excellent point, my dog is quoting Shakespeare.