Patterico's Pontifications

1/20/2010

ObamaCare: The “What Next?” post

Filed under: General — Karl @ 10:08 am



[Posted by Karl]

Patterico and others have asked me to do the “What Next” post, now that Scott Brown is the Senator-Elect from Massachusetts.  Rather than re-invent the wheel, I will borrow heavily from Keith Hennessey, who gamed much of this out before the election.

First, the general backdrop:

The Massachusetts Senate race has three potential effects on health care reform:

  1. Procedural;
  2. Vote counting; and
  3. Potential blowback to the procedural response.

*** [T]he direct procedural effects are the least important.  A 41st vote would give Senate Republicans the power to obstruct but not kill a bill.  Even if Brown were to be seated Wednesday, the President would still have procedural options that allow him to enact a law with only Democratic votes.  The increased power of Republicans would be indirect:  they could make the process path more difficult, requiring the President, Speaker Pelosi and Leader Reid to work harder to hold Democratic votes.  If health care dies because of the Massachusetts election, it will be because nervous Democratic members refuse to support their Leaders’ response, not because Republicans have the votes to prevent a bill from becoming a law.

Second, the procedural options open to the Democrats: (1) Ram it through; (2) the House passes the Senate bill (“ping pong”); (3) reconciliation; and (4) grovel to Olympia Snowe.  There is also the “two-bill strategy,” or “ping pong plus,” in which the House passes the Senate bill, with “fixes” in budget reconciliation — though Hennessey sees too many potential failure points with that strategy, and there has not been much reported support for it among Congresssional Dems (yet).

Accordingly, Hennessey made the following estimates, assuming a Brown victory:

  • Ram it through: was 25% –> now 10%
  • House folds:  was 25% –> now 30%
  • Reconciliation:  was 3% –> now 1%
  • Deal with Snowe:  steady at 2%
  • Two-bill strategy:  2%
  • Collapse:  was 45% –> now 55%

Hennessey adds:

You can see that I’m increasing the chance that the bill collapses if Brown wins.  I’m also shifting the balance between the first two options heavily toward the House folding.  That’s not because I think it’s a good option or I can imagine it working.  It’s simply because the intensity at the top for an accomplishment is enormous, and all other options look worse.  The leaders would face vote counting challenges with pro-labor members, pro-life members, the Hispanic caucus on illegal immigrants, and many, many others.  [Note: In budget reconciliation, Dems can fix items related to taxes and spending, like the excise tax on high-end insurance policies, but probably could not adjust provisions relating to abortion and illegal immigrants. — Karl]

***

I find it fascinating that a Senate election could shift the main locus of decision-making on this issue to the House.  For months the focus has been on how Leader Reid holds 60 votes.  If Mr. Brown wins, this becomes principally a House game, not a Senate one.  And while I have learned never to underestimate Speaker Pelosi’s ability to get the votes she needs and hold her caucus together, a Brown victory could make that extremely difficult.

I will be watching Speaker Pelosi for signals about how the process will move forward.  She’s got the health care process ball if Brown wins in Massachusetts today.

Of course, watching Pelosi for signals is a bit tricky, as she is prone to put out propagandistic talking points (e.g., her claim to have the votes for ObamaCare last summer, when events showed she clearly did not).  Accordingly, when Pelosi says:

“I think everyone [involved in the health-care negotiations] agrees that there are certain things in the Senate bill that must be changed,” she said. “We do have our differences, and our members want to resolve those differences.”

We should not assume that “ping pong” is off the table, especially “ping pong plus.”  On the other hand, we should not discount the possibility that Rep. Barney Frank (who is both smarter than Pelosi and not required to put on a defiant face) has correctly assessed that there will no longer be the collective will to march off a cliff for ObamaCare in an exercise of the sunk cost fallacy.  And just for fun, I throw out a very unlikely scenario: The Dems continue to negotiate a bill that can pass the House (one that pleases the Progressive Caucus would be even better), expecting it to die in the Senate, and then try to blame the GOP for their failure.  On a serious note, whatever Dems decide to do, they had better do it quickly — one of the key lessons here has been that the longer ObamaCare sits in the sunlight, the worse it stinks in public opnion.

–Karl

34 Responses to “ObamaCare: The “What Next?” post”

  1. I think the current bill is dead. They will probably come back with small moves toward the same goal by introducing bills to ban pre-existing conditions or require community ratings. A lot of incremental changes can move the ball toward their goal. Like what they did when they increased the income limits for S-Chip.

    There is no way the Democrats will give up this issue entirely. When the economy turns around they will once again claim the richest country in the world should not allow its citizens to die in the street because they didn’t have the Public Option.

    MU789 (514c52)

  2. As of this moment, Reid has 59 votes for cloture, since Paul Kirk is no longer a senator. So, there is no hope of returning a changed bill to the Senate even before Brown is sworn in, unless there is a Republican defector.

    Kevin Murphy (805c5b)

  3. And just for fun, I throw out a very unlikely scenario: The Dems continue to negotiate a bill that can pass the House (one that pleases the Progressive Caucus would be even better), expecting it to die in the Senate, and then try to blame the GOP for their failure.

    I think that’s a more likely outcome than “collapse.” It saves face for the House, and punts the issue to Reid. It also makes the failure point appear to be the Senate, with recently-elected Brown.

    cboldt (60ea4a)

  4. Always bet on Barney Frank doing the smart thing, politically. He is one of the top 5 most intelligent persons in the House on either side of the aisle.

    Cyrus Sanai (311cd8)

  5. I wouldn’t put it past some lame-duck Republican or two in the house to try to get some stuff for their district in exchange for a vote.

    This is the time to be vigilant. I still don’t think they all get it.

    This was a victory, but the war is far from over.

    Corwin (ea9428)

  6. An incumbent succeeding in the House is not a sign of genius. Frank is not a very smart politician, he’s not a very clever debater, and it only takes 5 minutes watching him argue with someone who disagrees to see that, though Frank very rarely has the backbone to do it.

    Frank is a crook who serves very, very rich masters in banking, and thus, will never have problems funding a campaign in a gerrymandered Dartmouth that went 2:1 for Obama. He’ll never ascend, and not because he won’t, but because he can’t.

    Geniuses don’t get caught with brothels in their house and pretend they don’t know what marijuana looks like. Comic relief on his best day.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  7. Now, if Cyrus is being sarcastic, then I missed it. But on second thought, he had to be sarcastic.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  8. Obama says the Senate can’t go forward with health care without Brown.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  9. MU789,

    Though I agree the Dems don’t want to totally punt, coming up with “small moves toward the same goal by introducing bills to ban pre-existing conditions or require community ratings” is actually trickier than most think. Banning pre-existing conditions — without more — would immediately destroy the insurance industry, which means it’s not politically doable. That’s why these bills always end up including mandates to buy insurance. That’s the tradeoff Big Insurance was willing to accept — taking sick customers in return for forcing the young and healthy to become customers. I’ve previously written about the failed attempts at that sort of basic bill in 1994. Maybe they could cobble it together now, if the current negotiations collapse — but it is trickier than people think.

    Karl (f07e38)

  10. I think they will try to salvage what they can from the current bill. If the GOP is smart they will return their good suggestions to the light of day and post them on every frickin website possible – tort reform, why that’s important; purchasing across state lines, why that’s important; separating insurance from employment, why that’s important.

    They should get it out there – they can do it. Hell, we all knew about Brown’s money bomb, certainly we can learn about and forward information on the GOP’s suggestions. They have GOT to use the internets.

    Bloody hell, why don’t we pay someone to strategize…oh, Michael Steele.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  11. BTW, I didn’t get into the the Webb (and now Obama) thing about waiting for Brown because it’s sort of a red herring. Dems are figuring out that the process has been a bad look for them, making this the wrong time for the “ram it through” option (and the wrong time for reconciliation, if they were consistent about it). As Hennessey notes, the real action now is on the House side.

    Karl (f07e38)

  12. I agree with Vivian Louise. This the perfect time for the GOP leaders in Congress to re-introduce health care solutions they are willing to vote for — things like tort reform, pre-existing coverage fixes, and selling policies across state lines. It shouldn’t be wholesale health care reform, but it should be solutions Republicans are serious about and will stand behind.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  13. Karl,

    So you think Obama’s statement about waiting for Brown has an expiration date? Imagine that!

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  14. 9. Obama says the Senate can’t go forward with health care without Brown.

    Comment by DRJ —

    I disagree. I think Obama is saying to democrats in Congress who covered for Obama and are starting to pay the price for Obama playing hardball on the health care debate: SCREW YOU, I WON.

    Obama’s admin was one of the primary sources of the ‘we don’t have to seat him and can ram this through in various ways’. The late night meetings last week were in the White House, specifically to avoid the will of the people or their Senator.

    Now that the people clearly are aware of this game of not seating Brown and scoring this health care ‘reform’ against democracy, Obama makes a complete 180 and acts like it’s Congress who was at fault for this ‘we won’t seat him’, and it’s Obama who is going to protect us from democrats in Congress.

    I know DRJ is right strictly in what Obama said today, but what he’s really saying is that he will screw anyone over for political expediency, even if they carried significant water for Obama. Coakley didn’t lose because of her campaign… even absent from the trail altogether, she was 20+ points ahead until the Nelson scam.

    It’s a true sign that Obama is no leader that he has to blame someone any time he plots a course. He has to point to a bad guy, and the only people to pin anything on, until November, are democrats.

    It’s going to be a hell of a year.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  15. DRJ – EVERYTHING Obama says has an expiration date.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  16. I think it would still be easier to pass a health care bill in the Senate than in the House. The House was flaky at its best. Every single one of those suckers will have to answer for their vote in a few months, unlike the Senate.

    If the real action is in the House that’s because there’s no real action.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  17. Steele and Romney were supposedly very helpful behind the scenes on Brown’s behalf. If they are smart they will use Brown as the change agent to propose incremental improvements that DRJ mentioned.
    He has the notoriety and still fresh name recognition to help pull it off.

    voiceofreason2 (8e6b90)

  18. Snowe is saying no, at least for now.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  19. Dustin,

    I have a hard enough time trying to understand what Obama says to worry about what he really means.

    DRJ (84a0c3)

  20. VoR2 – That is what I hope for, same reason that it was really good for Palin to stay in Alaska for that race.

    Want want want the GOP to use the technology Algore gave them.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  21. VOR2, it would be awesome if Romney and Brown helped the democrats get a much better reform through.

    I think it would be good for Obama, too. Bush needed Ted Kennedy and many other democrats to succeed at various things, and I hope his OTJ training makes clear the value of crossing the aisle on controversial matters.

    If Romney can manage to make a difference in this climate, this Palin fan will seriously reconsider.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  22. DRJ @ 20, touche

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  23. Obama said he realizes Americans are angry that the GOP has stood in the way of the Dems passing their socialist agenda. He means “realize” the same way Olbermann meant “apologize” last night – which is not at all the way we mean it.

    Vivian Louise (eeeb3a)

  24. DRJ,

    I don’t think Obama’s comment about waiting for Brown has an expiration date. I think he, like Webb, has sussed out that the Dems’ process of railroading and payoffs has made them look bad. Indeed, I think they may even over-believe this, bc it allows them to downplay how much the substance hurts them. So they may want to avoid looking like they are continuing to ram this through, and that logic also has ramifications for trying reconciliation. If Obama is being insincere, it would be in the direction of having the House pass the Senate bill as pure ping pong, but I’m not sure that dems are confident they can do that, let alone get away with it from an image perspective.

    Karl (f07e38)

  25. Who thinks Webb will be a Republican by the time he runs for reelection? Even Rush Limbaugh was laudatory of Webb.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  26. Either Webb switches before the next election or he might be toast. However, he’ll have more than a few mea culpas to make before he considers it – he ran a nasty campaign, and his snubbing of Bush still rankles many, as it should.

    Dmac (539341)

  27. He is one of the top 5 most intelligent persons in the House on either side of the aisle.

    And you’ve actually heard him speak, yes? With his expectorate flying and his Mr. Magoo mannerisms? You’ve seen how he “debated” some of his constituents last Summer, many who didn’t care all that much for his performance in office? Intelligent is not the word that comes to mind – party hack, ignorant and arrogant douchebag come up quite frequently, though.

    Dmac (539341)

  28. Webb would make a better Republican than he makes a democrat, but it’s so easy and cheap to bash Bush and I found it to be a shitty thing to do, too.

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  29. Dmac – you don’t think that “He is one of the top 5 most intelligent persons in the House on either side of the aisle.” was sincere, do you ?

    It was a comment that has to be taken Cyriously, meaning with the proverbial Yucca Mine of salt …

    I’m not sure that Representative Barney Frank even has what in Scotland is known as “low native cunning” …

    Alasdair (e7cb73)

  30. I think it would be awesome to adopt a symbol as the sarcasm indicator. I know someone just came up with one, but my sarcasm has always been free to all comers and I’d hate to have to charge for it.

    Vivian Louise (643333)

  31. Just googled Sanai. Hot Damn. I’m sure the commenter is pretending to be him, and isn’t really the dude who was sanctioned for wiretapping his own father in some family squabble.

    Vivian, it wouldn’t be as much fun if you had a sarcasm symbol!

    Dustin (b54cdc)

  32. What next? Here’s a hypothetical (h/t Greta): if you were Scott Brown and you had to vote to raise the national debt another $1.5 trillion how would you vote? If you vote yes, what concessions would you demand; if no, what would you do when government closed down?

    Patricia (b05e7f)

  33. Scott Brown is a very savvy guy and Gregg today made a great comment. He was asked by Greta if he had any advice for Brown. He said, “I hope he has some advice for us. He did something we didn’t think possible.” I would love to see Gregg reconsider his decision to retire. He has been a very good Senator.

    MIke K (2cf494)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0780 secs.