Perhaps this is as it should be given Reid's ineffective tenure as Senate Majority Leader:

Senators emerging from the special Democratic caucus confirm that the Medicare buy-in proposal will have to be stripped from the Senate bill in order to achieve 60 votes.

I am not seeing how Reid survives next year's election if this is true. He needed to make Obama do the dirty work. Then again, maybe the "achieve 60 votes" part is the key. Maybe Reid will propose reconciliation now. (Reid says bill will pass next week - no reconciliation then.) I seriously doubt it. I think he just signed his own political death warrant. As did Chris Dodd and others.

Speaking for me only

Next up to capitulate on? Medicaid expansion. Watch. My gawd. The WORST political bargainers in the history of political bargaining.

I confidently predict that what will be left of the health bill is the "reforms" plus subsidies subject to the Stupak Amendment so people can buy crappy private insurance.

I will oppose that bill.

Speaking for me only

CREW announced the settlement today of its long-standing lawsuit over years of missing e-mails of the Bush Administration. The settlement agreement is here (pdf.)

Documents produced so far show the Bush White House was lying when officials claimed no emails were ever missing. The record now proves incontrovertibly that Bush administration officials deliberately ignored the problem and, in fact, knowingly allowed it to worsen. Some questions remain unanswered.

The AP reports 22 million e-mails have been recovered so far. [More...]

What should be the goal of a health bill this year? As Ezra Klein argues - to save lives. Getting people health insurance does that. Accordingly, the goal for a reconciliation bill should be to offer as much health insurance assistance as possible. There are 3 main components to the current proposal that does this. They are: (1) expansion of Medicaid eligibility; (2)expand Medicare eligibility to persons aged between 55-64 (exclusive of those who would not be eligible for the Exchange) and (3) subsidies for persons not eligible for Medicaid or Medicare to purchase private insurance. To do these things, tax increases on the wealthy have been proposed. Each of these provisions, including the revenue raisers, would not run afoul of the Byrd Rule, which requires that all provisions enacted under reconciliation be budget germane and budget neutral.

What do you risk? [More...]

On September 9, 2009, Senator Joseph Lieberman (I-CT), supported Medicare buy in for persons aged 55-64:

The Last Honest Man has been a bald faced liar forever.

Speaking for me only

"Anonymous sources!":

The White House is encouraging Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) to cut a deal with Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.), which would mean eliminating the proposed Medicare expansion in the health reform bill, according to an official close to the negotiations. But Reid is described as so frustrated with Lieberman that he is not ready to sacrifice a key element of the health care bill, and first wants to see the Congressional Budget Office cost analysis of the Medicare buy-in. The analysis is expected early this week.

I think what Reid is REALLY saying is 'you cut the deal with him. Out in the open. So everyone knows who to blame. I have a tough election next year. You don't. I saw what you did to Dodd. You ain't doing it to me.' At least, if I was Reid, that is what I would be saying.

Speaking for me only

Obama's self grade:

Here's how he answered when Oprah asked him to grade himself:

Obama: Good solid B-plus. I think that we have inherited the biggest set of challenges of any president since Frankiln Delano Roosevelt. We stabilized the economy, prevented the possibilities of a great depression, or a significant financial meltdown. The economy is growing again, we are on our way out of Iraq, I think we've got the best possible plan for Afghanistan, we have reset our image around the world, we have achieved an international consensus around the need for Iran and North Korea to disable their nuclear weapons, and I think that we're gonna pass the most significant piece of social legislation since social security and that's health insurance for every American.

Oprah: So B-plus--what could you have done better?

Obama: Well, B-plus because of the things that are undone. Health care is not yet signed. If I get health care passed, we tip into A-minus.

Allrighty then.

Ezra Klein unwittingly provides the argument for reconciliation on a health insurance premium assistance bill (predictably, Steve Benen jumps aboard the anti-reconciliation train):

I could imagine a cost-benefit analysis that judges the whole bill worth it, or the whole bill not worth it. But it is very, very hard to imagine a cost-benefit analysis in which small policies operating on the margins and promising to save small-but-measurable amounts of money are worth more, in either direction, than the hundreds of thousands of people who will be saved -- not to mention spared bankruptcy, and lifted from chronic pain or impairment -- by the rest of the bill. The areas of controversy have become very slight given the magnitude of the underlying bill.

(Emphasis supplied.) Ezra believes he is making an argument for capitulation to the Gang of "whatever the number is today." In fact, that Gang will never agree to a health bill. Ezra is right - no Exchange, no "regulation," no excise tax, no "small-but-measurable" saving is worth blocking the parts of the bill that will provide less well off people with health insurance paid for by wealthy people. That's why reconciliation must be employed. To save lives. It's the only way.

Speaking for me only

WaPo:

President Barack Obama said he expects the U.S. Senate to pass by the end of next week legislation to overhaul the U.S. healthcare system [. . .] "I think it's going to pass out of the Senate before Christmas (December 25)," Obama, who has made healthcare reform legislation his top domestic priority, said in an interview aired on CBS's "60 Minutes."

I guess Lieberman, Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln and Olympia Snowe will be putting the finishing touches on their bill in time to meet Obama's deadline. That will be fun to watch.

Speaking for me only

I'll reignite them right now:

It remains the most prescient statement of the primaries.

Speaking for me only

What now? As if "now" was different than 6 months ago. Here's the dirty little secret the Village Bloggers won't tell you - there were never 60 votes for "health care reform." This ridiculous dance that began when Max Baucus did not deliver his crappy proposal on time was just part of the process to try and kill any health insurance bill. The 11 Dimensional Chess players got played - by Ben Nelson, Joe Lieberman, Olympia Snowe, and the rest. Remember the absurd "Gang of Six?" We were always where we are "now." They pretended otherwise in order to run out the clock.

In the end, the question was always about reconciliation and what could pass under reconciliation. Or do you REALLY think if you capitulated on "everything," they would not dream up new objections?

And now we have the results of the Post-Partisan Unity Schtick. The Theory of Change. It lies smoldering in a rubble of ruins. The Village Wonks will tell you this means that "the country is ungovernable." What it REALLY means is that it is ungovernable by wimpy, timid, "post partisan" Democrats who will not exert their power. It's not just an Impotent President. It is an Impotent Democratic Party.

Speaking for me only

Via Jon Walker, the Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services reports:

The tax would be 40 pecent of the excess benefit value above these thresholds. We estimate that, in aggregate, affected employers would reduce their benefit packages in such a way as to eliminate about three-quarters of the current excess benefit value. The resulting higher cost-sharing requirements for employees would have an initial, significant impact on the overall level of health expenditures. Moreover, because health care costs would generally increase faster than the CPI plus 1 percent, we anticipate additional, incremental benefit coverage reductions in future years to prevent an increase in the share of employer coverage subject to the excise tax. These further adjustments would contribute to a small reduction in the growth in health care expenditures for affected employees through at least 2019.16 In 2019, these impacts would reduce total NHE by an estimated 0.3 percent.

(Emphasis supplied.) There's your "reform."

Speaking for me only