Here is the state of play on health care:
- The House could just pass the Senate health care bill, and President Obama could sign it into law. Problem is, the House doesn't have 218 votes unless there is a promise to pass a cleanup fix to the Senate bill through the reconciliation process.
- The Senate doesn't have the votes to pass the cleanup fix through reconciliation:
Part of the negotiations center on whether Reid can provide an ironclad guarantee that the Senate will not leave the House in the lurch, aides said. If the House agrees to pass the Senate bill with a companion measure - or a "cleanup" bill - to make fixes, they want to know that the Senate will indeed pass it, too.
There was some talk among Senate leadership on Thursday of putting together a letter signed by 51 Democratic senators pledging to pass a cleanup bill if the House would pass the Senate bill. But that effort fizzled when support for it didn't materialize, insiders said.
"The Senate moderates' viewpoint is, 'We passed our bill. We're not going to spend three weeks on some other bill,'" said a Democratic lobbyist who represents clients pushing for reform.
- Large numbers of House think this response is unacceptable. They believe the Senate has acted on so few bills that the House has passed--jobs bill, climate bill, financial regulations, student loans, etc. As such, they feel it is very wrong for the Senate to demand that the House pass one of the few bills they did act on verbatim.
So, that is the current impasse on health care. The House might be able to pass the Senate bill with a promise of a reconciliation fix, but the Senate doesn't want to pass the reconciliation fix.
So, who are the Senators that oppose reconciliation at this point? Figuring that out, and making them change their minds, might be the best path forward on health care at this point.
One Senator, Russ Feingold, who has opposed reconciliation for health care in the past, seems to have changed his mind. From a well-placed reader over email:
I spoke to someone from Feingold's campaign about his position on reconciliation in light of the Massachusetts special election. She informed me that while Sen. Feingold is no fan of reconciliation, now that it's reconciliation or nothing (apparently), he would be willing to support reconciliation if that's what it took to get a good bill passed. It wasn't the slightest bit equivocal or hedgy; it was a straight "yes". So that's a bit of good news. Hopefully the House can get their act together.
If we achieve the reconciliation path, it would be possible to re-insert the Medicare buy-in during that process. There are no parliamentary issues about inserting a Medicare buy-in through reconciliation, and at least 56 Democratic Senators were supportive of such a buy-in back in December (only Conrad, Lieberman and Ben Nelson expressed worries about it).
It is remarkable and ironic how the defeat in Massachusetts could actually spur Democrats to move in a good direction for progressives. That defeat has revived the public option, made stopping Bernanke a real possibility, and opened up talks about reforming the filibuster. It also has prompted the Senate to throw in the towel on a climate change bill, which is good as long as EPA authority to regulate greenhouse gasses isn't stripped.
Could the Massachusetts special election actually make things better for progressives? That would be very surprising, but it isn't out of the question.
|
STATE BLOGS
