Here is what is happening on the health care fight:
The Senate voted to end debate on the health care bill today, by a vote of 60-39. The Senator who did not vote was Jim Bunning of Kentucky. If you are confused by the roll call vote I link, that is because the health care bill was attached to a piece of legislation on homeowners.
The final vote will be Thursday (tomorrow) morning at 7 a.m. eastern, one hour earlier than previously expected. While all 60 members of the Democratic Senate caucus voted for cloture (to end debate), expect at least Roland Burris to vote against final passage, which only requires 51 votes. Burris will probably be joined by a couple of right-wing Democrats, too.
Representative Louise Slaughter says "kill the bill." Or does she? (emphasis mine):
Now don't get me wrong; the current House and Senate bills are a significant improvement over the status quo. Given the hard path to reform and the political realities of next year, there is a sizable group within Congress that wants to simply cut any deal that works and call it a success. Many previous efforts have failed, and the path to reform is littered with unsuccessful efforts championed by Franklin Delano Roosevelt, Harry Truman and Bill Clinton.
Supporters of the weak Senate bill say "just pass it -- any bill is better than no bill."
I strongly disagree -- a conference report is unlikely to sufficiently bridge the gap between these two very different bills.
This part of Slaughter's op-ed is confusing--first she says the Senate bill would be better than the status quo, and then she says that no bill is better than the Senate bill. Is she calling for defeating the bill, or not? To clear up the confusion, Greg Sargent called a spokesperson for Representative Slaughter:
But a spokesperson for Slaughter, Vince Morris, confirms she's not ruling out a vote for the final bill, even if it lacks a public option or other concessions sought by progressives.
"She's not ruling anything in or out at this point," Morris tells me. "She is hopeful that we can make the bill better in conference."
Confusing indeed, and the original op-ed could have been better written. I agree with TomP, who thinks that Slaughter is making noise like this to try and improve the bill in conference. This is an effort which I wholeheartedly endorse.
In addition to the areas of dispute between the House and Senate bills I listed yesterday, another major area of dispute that has opened up in advance of the conference committee is when to start the exchanges: 2013 (as per the House bill, and progressive wishes) or 2014 (as per the Senate bill). Ben Nelson today said he was skeptical of the exchanges starting in 2013, stating "we'll just have to look at the numbers." A statement about waiting for the CVO score from conservative Democratic Senators has usually been followed with a demand to strip the provision from the bill or else a filibuster will follow. And those demands from conservative Senators are usually met with Rahm Emanuel showing up on Capitol Hill and telling Harry Reid to cave.
Some White House sources are tired of Democrats debating the merits of the health care bill in the press:
There's no hard evidence they'll be denied that victory and TPMDC sources have been saying all week they are tired of Democrats litigating the merits of health care in the press.
So much for the desire to have a great debate about the health care in this country. Also, so much for congratulating progressives on accomplishing something almost unheard of in recent American political media: making the public debate over a major piece of legislation between the left-wing and the center, rather than between the center-right and the extreme right-wing.
Just in case you were wondering, even with tomorrow morning's vote, the health care fight will continue for at least another three weeks, and possibly as long as six weeks. David Waldman breaks down the possibilities in detail.
This is an open thread on the ongoing health care fight, and for the Senate vote in the morning.
STATE BLOGS
