McConnell: Dems are prepared to throw Public Option overboard
Image via Wikipedia
Clyde Middleton and I just got off a blogger conference call with Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to discuss the state of the health care debate. The conversation covered the issues of the Administration’s heavy-handed attempts to suppress political free speech by barring Humana from telling its insureds the truth about ObamaCare, the status of the legislation in the Senate, and the potential use of reconciliation by the Democrats to ram it through with 51 votes. Senator McConnell dismissed the President’s substantive involvement in the debate, dryly noting the president “would sign anything the Congress sent him, provided it had ‘Health Care Reform’ written at the top of the page.
The call ran just over 16 minutes. The full audio is here.
Here are a few of our questions.
Bill asked a question about the potential fate of the public option.
My question is about the public option. Nancy Pelosi has been adamant that there will be a public option in the House bill. The New York Times reports today that when Harry Reid merges the two Senate Committee bills, the final bill likely will not contain a public option. And yet we learn today that Senators Schumer and Rockefeller will be offering an amendment to add a public option to the Finance Committee bill.
With all this apparent disarray on the left in both the House and the Senate, can you tell us what you think the Democrats’ end game on the public option? If it fails, what do you think their fallback position will be?
Sen. McConnell responded that he thought the Democrats were “prepared to throw it overboard.” Several times during the call he was at pains to emphasize that even without the public option or benefits for illegals, which some House members explicitly raised again today, the core bill remains ‘fundamentally flawed,” and would still result in $500 billion in Medicare cuts, and massive tax increases. He quipped that in Congress “we do not do 1000 page bills very well.”
Bill:
The president has essentially been uninvolved in the drafting the health care legislation. He offered no plan himself and has chosen to serve as salesman-in-chief for the Congressional Democrats’ proposals. With a poll out today showing opposition to the health care overhaul at an all-time high, it seems that failure is becoming increasingly possible, if not likely. Do you anticipate that the President will show any leadership on his signature domestic policy? If so, when and what might that be?
McConnell responded that Obama is largely speaking to Democrats, that failure is not an option for them and that the president “would sign anything the Congress sent him, provided it had ‘Health Care Reform’ written at the top of the page.
Clyde asked about the potential use of reconciliation, also known as the Byrd Rule, to get around the fact that the Democrats likely do not have the 60 votes to invoke cloture and move the bill forward.
Sen. McConnell, there’s been a lot of telegraphing that perhaps the democratic majority will seek to employ the Byrd Rule, thus limiting debate and allowing for a simple majority to pass the legislation.
The Byrd Rule has been used successfully just 17 times since 1980. Further, the spirit and oftentimes letter of the Byrd Rule can arguably be viewed as anathema to legislation of this type.
First, do you have a feel for whether or not invoking the Byrd Rule is likely. Second, what types of opportunities do you see within the text the bill to call Points of Order based upon the Exceptions listed in the Rule. And, lastly, do you envision whomever may be presiding over the Senate during debate adhering to the conclusions of the Senate Parliamentarian concerning Points of Order if those conclusions would serve to eviscerate large portions on the bill?
Sen. McConnell stated that the democrats we’re “fully prepared” to use the Byrd Rule. That shows, he continued, the depth of the desperation of the Democrats in getting this legislation passed that will change one-sixth of the economy with only 20 hours of debate. He went on to say that using this legislative loophole, which has bipartisan opposition, is not the way to convince a skeptical public.
Clyde:
With a 60-member caucus, including members who are either not present through illness or are more respectful of the history and sanctity of the Greatest Deliberative Body in the world, do you see a path where a filibuster could be defeated?
McConnell deferred on making predictions, but did state that “they have 60 members in their caucus – they should be able to do anything they want to.”
Clyde:
The discussion on illegals and the public option – and many aspects of the bill – seem to be ‘red herrings.’ For example, do you see that removal of the coverage of illegals will simply be overtaken by immigration reform legislation down the road?
Sen. McConnell stayed on point – removing coverage for illegals and the public option is not enough. “We do not do thousand-page bills well around here.” We need instead, he continuted, to implement incremental fixes in the system: lawsuit liability limits for doctors and hospitals, equal tax code treatment of individuals and corporations for deduction of health-care insurance costs, incentivize wellness programs, and introduce interstate competition in insurance markets.
Noel Sheppard of NewBusters and a reporter from CNS News, were among others who were on the call. We will link as soon as their posts are up.
More on True/Slant Right Now
-
-
Related streams
Post Your Comment
You must be logged in to post a comment
T/S Members
Log in with your True/Slant account.
McConnell, like the rest of his party is irrelevant to the process of health care reform, by their own choice
You know what is hilarious about all of this…it takes a thousand page bill to give us heath care reform and everyone is fighting over it and no one will read it but the Paulson bank rescue was six pages long, no one read it and it cost trillions and passed with bipartisan support. Perhaps we should just wait for the insurance companies to collapse under their own weight and then buy them all in a six page rescue bill.
True that. Where’s your “conservative” outrage over that, Bill?
That said, for me the funniest thing about this pops up right in the first paragraph: “…the Administration’s heavy-handed attempts to suppress political free speech by barring Humana from telling its insureds the truth about ObamaCare…”
It’s difficult to satire that which has already satirized itself…
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
Who are these “the democrats” of whom you speak? Do they had a common position on anything much less the public option. The last I heard was that at least some of the various drafts circulating do but others do not have the public option. So which Democrats are going to drop the public option from which version of which bill? I don’t see how the Republican leadership can know what the Democrats are going to do since it is entirely clear that the Democrats are entirely unclear on what they are going to do.
The
New York TimesDNC Newsletter reported that Reid would likely dump the public option. I am just reading what they reported.You’ll be surprised to learn that we in the vast right-wing conspiracy sometimes read publications from the vast left-wing conspiracy.
In response to another comment. See in context »Mr. Dupray,
Ah, Senator Reid, the man with an iron grip on the Democratic majority in the Senate. His word is law in the Senate. If someone reports that some else said that Senator Reid said that the public option was probably going to be dropped, then that is what is going to happen for sure. Wait, if that is just information that you read in NYT, what does Clyde Middleton have to do with any of it? Why did you not just say “The NYTs said…”, I got the impression that this was inside information from Clyde Middleton.
In response to another comment. See in context »Clyde and I both blog at Patriot Room. The source for the post was McConnell, but the Times reported what I indicated. Look, you can’t discount every single thing a conservative says, just because you philosophically disagree on policy. I don’t do that for the Dems (hell, I’m citing the New York Times as a credible source).
Reid is the Majority Leader. A lot of Dems don’t like the public option. Is it so inconceivable that the Times and McConnell are wrong?
In response to another comment. See in context »Is there any news here?
Why is anyone asking Dupray a serious question in these comments? He’s a clown, he knows he’s a clown and he’s here to post nonsense.
If you want serious writing go check out Matt Taibbi. If you want to laugh keep reading Dupray. That’s why I read his junk, it’s pure comic relief.
Frankly I expected more from True/Slant. Seriously Bill other than bashing Dems and liberal do you have anything of substance to add to the conversation of how to fix the serious problems this nation is facing right now?
In response to another comment. See in context »Sure, I’ve got lots of great solutions, but as Obama reminded us, he won, and the Dems are in charge. I am just getting out of the way and letting the Democrats self-destruct. You would hear a lot of good conservative solutions if the Dems worked in the bipartisan way they said they wanted to. But our ideas lost and nobody on the left wants to hear them.
In response to another comment. See in context »Not true that people don’t want to hear them … what are they? Tort reform? Vouchers? Employer tax credits? Seriously, people are dying and going blind with the current system … other than the party of no what do you suggest. By getting out of the way you are not letting Dems self-destruct, you’re hurting people. So step up and suggest something useful. I mean it, not kidding, not provoking. I really want to hear one of you great solutions.
In response to another comment. See in context »So far I’ve heard stuff about tort reform (which has its usefulness, but is very limited) and letting insurance companies compete across state lines (which is basically a way to get out of regulation, and has no real proven merits).
In response to another comment. See in context »There are a lot of solutions that would allow the 85% of people who are satisfied with their health insurance keep it intact, which will not be the case under the Democrats’ proposals. There are GOP bills out there, many of which contain significant, but targeted fixes focused on harnessing the free market to drive costs down. Among some of the provisions are:
Allow purchases of health insurance across state lines. This opens up huge new markets and competition.
Give people ownership of their Health Savings Accounts, so that they can be passed on to their heirs.
Level the playing field for all Americans by making all health care expenses tax deductible, instead of just allowing deductions for employer-provided plans.
Offer doctors incentive credits to provide free or reduced costs health care to those who need it.
Medical malpractice reform (which has recently worked wonders in Mississippi) to reduce wasteful defensive medicine.
Make health insurance portable, not tied to a job. This will allow people to search for their preferred job to maximize their happiness and productivity without staying in a job solely because they can’t afford to lose their coverage. This ties in with the universal deductibility of premiums and expenses.
All of these will increase competition and choice, lower the costs of insurance and medical care, and allow people to keep what they have if they like it.
If you try these approaches first and you don’t like the results in 2-3 years, you can tweak it some more.
A government takeover is never the best choice. Just look at Medicare, which is so full of waste and abuse that Congress feels justified in paying for a new, bigger government program with the waste from the other one that itself is going broke.
Doesn’t make much sense to me.
In response to another comment. See in context »Keep the insightful comments coming.
In response to another comment. See in context »Matt, is that you?
In response to another comment. See in context »Please share with us your solutions to fix this dreadful mess our health care system has become. I’m really curious to hear your point of view on how we can these problems, 14,000 people a day are losing the coverage, medical bills are the number one cause of bankruptcy, and 40 millions Americans have no coverage all. I’ll even cede a GOP point to you, something should be done about frivolous medical lawsuits, but as I’m sure you know that is really a very small fraction of the problem.
Seriously Bill I don’t think it’s not a question of the Dems not willing to listen. There are many amendments that have been added to all the committee bills that have been put up by Republicans. And how seriously do you suggest we take the arguments being offered from your side of the aisle when we hear things like the following:
“If we’re able to stop Obama on this, it will be his Waterloo. It will break him.”
You don’t find something a tad distasteful about that? American’s are dieing left and right due to a lack of health care, 45,000 a year according to the recently released Harvard study. Is this really an issue to be playing “get the president” on?
It is federal law that anybody that shows up at an emergency room gets treated on the taxpayers’ dime. If you are talking about health insurance versus health care, then fine, but there is a difference.
In response to another comment. See in context »In other words you can’t answer, the emperor has no cloths.
In response to another comment. See in context »Check my other comment for suggestions on how to fix the problem. The clothes are hanging over there wise-guy.
In response to another comment. See in context »“The conversation covered the issues of the Administration’s heavy-handed attempts to suppress political free speech by barring Humana from telling its insureds the truth about ObamaCare”
The interesting thing about this newest pet complaint from the right is that it’s being waged against MAX BAUCUS of all people, probably big insurance’s single greatest ally on the Democratic side of the aisle.
What next, whining that Joe Lieberman is a secret anti-semite plotting Israel’s destruction?
Bill,
Your solutions you listed were….interesting. Some of them have merit, and some are very similar to those given by various Dems, but what really strikes me is the lack of free-marketness in some of those ideas. “Incentives” Aren’t those like subsidies, just given by conservatives? I would really be interested in you actually breaking some of this down, instead of doing the typical bluff and bluster. Hope you do so.
I could write a book with solutions and you would still tell me I was full of it. There was no ‘typical bluff and bluster’ whatsoever in the comment. All of the suggestions are free market based, and on the incentives to doctors, a tiny proposal, you can call it a subsidy or a tax deduction, but it will get people with no health insurance treated by a doctor of their choice and not force them into some government clinic where any doctor worth a damn wouldn’t show his face. After all, I thought Democrats wanted everyone to be able to get good, quality health care?
In response to another comment. See in context »Why are all the questions in quotes and all the answers paraphrased? Is this the new journalism?
More nonsense, I love it.
We just had 8 years of Bush and Company, 6 years of those with a majority of Rethuglicans in the house.
Why were no reforms put in place during that time? Why was nothing done about the insane cost of medical care during that period?
At least be honest about the fact that rethuglicans care nothing about reforming the current system and all it’s ills. This idiocy about good ideas coming from the Conservatives is fantasy land.
8 years and they didn’t care, now all of a sudden they care.
Go back to scaring morons into believing Obama telling school children to study hard and stay in school is akin to Hitler or my favorite, the Khmer Rouge. At least then you’re in your element.
Hey, did you all know that Obama is turning our beloved USA into Russia and or Nazi Germany?
OMG, did you know Obama’s use of Czar’s is proof that he is Stalin?
No, never mind that Czar’s were employed by both Reagan and Bush. That doesn’t matter.
Also, never mind that Mrs. Bush led school children in song praising her husband.
I could go on and on and on and on and on with the insane nonsense spouted by Conservatives and their faux news outlet Fixed News. Oops, I mean Fox News.
I won’t because I think you all get the picture. Well, all except the resident comic relief Dupray.
First, I’m going to take issue with whomever called Dupray a ‘clown’. Not fair. I’ve some of his pieces at “Partriot Room” and, while I tend to disagree, he’s got a good mind and he writes well.
As for the solutions suggested, I do, not entirely surprisingly, have a few comments:
“There are a lot of solutions that would allow the 85% of people who are satisfied with their health insurance keep it intact, which will not be the case under the Democrats’ proposals.”
The 85% figure is a fair representation of the polls – but I really do believe it is in response to the wrong question. 60% of Americans receive their health care benefit through employment and are pretty pleased with it — until they get seriously ill. Should the question not be geared more to those who have actually had to call upon their health insurance? I like my house insurance, but then I’ve never had to put in a claim. Hard to say how I might feel about them if an event required me to ask them to pay up.
“Allow purchases of health insurance across state lines. This opens up huge new markets and competition.”
I’m open to this possibility- however nobody has ever been able to tell me why this will make things better. Most of the health insurance in this country is under the control of five or so major players. They organize in each state, per the requirements of the law, but each of these organizations is owned by these limited number of parents. Maybe Bill can explain why and how allowing companies to compete across state lines will make a difference? Just saying that it will help doesn’t make it so. It also does not make it so. It does seem that nobody is ever prepared to provide the details of how this will be useful.
“Give people ownership of their Health Savings Accounts, so that they can be passed on to their heirs”
While HSA programs have some very good aspects, they tend to be of value to the younger members of society who have time to build their account until they reach the age where they are going to have to call upon the money. HSA’s allow them to accumulate these dollars with some valuable tax advantages. I think that’s great. But doesn’t answer the problem of those who are too far along to take advantage. Also, I’ve never heard the argument from the perspective of passing the HSA’s along to their heirs. Again, I don’t mind it, but do you really think that once one gets older, there is going to be a lot of money left to pass along? There are some good arguments for HSA’s – not sure you’ve really hit on one of the important ones.
“Level the playing field for all Americans by making all health care expenses tax deductible, instead of just allowing deductions for employer-provided plans.”
Agreed!
“Offer doctors incentive credits to provide free or reduced costs health care to those who need it.”
This is, in essence, precisely what is being proposed in most of the bills in Congress -switching away from a system based on quantity towards one based on quality. From what we know, this is best accomplished through the “medical homes” and Mayo Clinic approaches. Sounds like you agree with the Democrats on this one.
“Medical malpractice reform (which has recently worked wonders in Mississippi) to reduce wasteful defensive medicine.”
33 states have already placed caps on pain & suffering damages greatly reducing the impact of medical malpractice. The subject deserves more attention designed to weed out the silly law suits while not taking away the rights of those truly injured. As someone noted earlier, this is important but still only represents .5% to 2% of the health care dollar, depending upon who you ask.
“Make health insurance portable, not tied to a job. This will allow people to search for their preferred job to maximize their happiness and productivity without staying in a job solely because they can’t afford to lose their coverage. This ties in with the universal deductibility of premiums and expenses.”
Agreed – also a part of, I believe, all the bills under consideration in Congress.
Sounds to me like Bill is pretty much on board with much of what the Democrats are suggesting.
“A government takeover is never the best choice. Just look at Medicare, which is so full of waste and abuse that Congress feels justified in paying for a new, bigger government program with the waste from the other one that itself is going broke.”
true and not true. The fact is that Medicare recipients are the most satisfied with their health care coverage. That’s a good thing as we owe that to seniors.
Also true that there is enormous waste and abuse. But that can be fixed if we want to fix it. It is also true to point out that government often is a poor policeman when in comes to wringing out the excesses and waste.
But here’s the problem – while government has been guilty of not being as efficient as they should be with Medicare dollars, private health insurance companies have been guilty of some awfully serious crimes of their own. They create inefficiency by taking overhead costs in the system up to 30% of every medical dollar we spend in the effort to hold onto money a few months longer so as to keep it invested. No need to go over their behavior in denying paid for coverage when it is most needed and denying insurance to those who most need it.
So, government is wasteful and private insurers behave badly on an essential service. At the end of the day, it kind of becomes “pick’em”, doesn’t it —- except for one thing. Medicare operates at a 7% overhead while providing insurance to everyone who is of age. Privates operate at 30% while denying coverage to everyone but those who need it the least.
At the end of the day, isn’t that what this fight is all about?
Bill,
If you wrote a book with solutions, I would love it. I don’t have to agree with everything, but I really appreciate hearing some kind of solution. So many conservatives I talk with, all they give me is negativity. I bring up some idea, and they shoot it down. I ask for their ideas, and they tell me there is no problem. I’m sorry if it seemed like I was implying that your comments were full of bluff and bluster. I was generalizing about what I usually get, and saying I hope you have something better. Unlike some commenters, I don’t consider you a clown, or joking. Thanks!
It’s all good bro.
In response to another comment. See in context »[...] any event, as our Bill Dupray noted yesterday, Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the Republican minority leader, appears to expect some kind [...]