My writing partner, Bill Dupray, 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. Here is the full audio
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.
Comments