House to act first on health reform?

by: Chris Bowers

Tue Mar 02, 2010 at 12:22


A leaked Democratic memo burning up the Internets suggests the House may move first to pass the Senate bill, and the reconciliation bill happen after the Senate bill is already signed into law:

According to [a] Democratic memo, the timeline may be: Step one: The House passes the Senate's health reform bill by March 19. The bill then goes to the president for signature without going through conference....After the Senate bill becomes law, the House then amends the Senate bill through a reconciliation bill, to be passed by March 21. That bill would be the only opportunity to amend, add or strike provisions in the Senate bill. Step three: The Senate begins debate on the reconciliation bill by March 23. Debate is limited to 30 hours. Votes begin March 26, the first day of Easter recess...

In bullet point form:

  • By March 19th: The House passes the Senate health reform bill
  • By March 20th: President Obama signs the Senate health reform bill into law
  • By March 21st: House passes reconciliation bill to "fix" the Senate bill, and send it to the Senate
  • By March 23rd: Senate takes up reconciliation bill.
If true, this is a dramatic development.  The House has been demanding the Senate move first on the reconciliation fix, but in this scenario the House would act first.  This means it is possible the Senate bill would become law without any changes at all, since it is entirely possible that the reconciliation bill would be defeated in the Senate.

It also means that, in order for a public option to be passed, it must be included in the reconciliation bill that the House sends to the Senate.  Last night, Senator Tom Harkin said the Senate will not add one on their own:

"If we have a bill sent to us from the House that does not have the public option here, if we were to add it here, it would sink the whole bill," Harkin said.

So, if this memo accurately reflects the process that President Obama will present tomorrow, it appears that once again the House is expected to act first on everything.  The House first has to pass the Senate bill as is.  Second, the House must pass the reconciliation bill before the Senate acts.  Additionally, if there is going to be a public option, the House has to include that in their reconciliation bill.

If it does act first, the only reassurance the House would get is Harry Reid's personal vow:

As part of this step, there are reports that House leaders want to see a letter signed by at least 50 Senate Democrats committing to passing tweaks to the Senate bill worked out between the two chambers, but a Democratic policy consultant says such a letter is unlikely to transpire. More likely, the source said, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) would privately vow to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) that he has the votes.

That is pretty thin gruel for the House, given the bad faith action of Senators on health reform in the recent past.  We will find out more tomorrow when President Obama presents his vision for the procedural path to finish health reform.

Chris Bowers :: House to act first on health reform?

Tags: , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
House to act first on health reform? | 26 comments
Shouldn't we have some coordinated strategery (4.00 / 1)
right now to start pressuring House members to include a public option in the sidecar bill? How else are we going to get a public option?

miasmo.com
Strategery (0.00 / 0)
Your questions get to the crux of the problem.

On December 24, the Senate passed the best health care bill that it come up with.  The House has had almost 10 weeks to pass that bill and send it to the president. If House Democrats had any hope of passing the Senate bill, they would have passed it already.  (They don't have time to waste.  This is an election year and the economy is in the dump.)

The schedule outlined above is insane.  It assumes the House will somehow pass the Senate bill after having sat on it for 3 months...as if they've been waiting for a miracle all this time.

Cue up the left-wing Polyannas: "Oh...but the Senate and House are feverishly working behind the scenes on a 'sidecar bill.'  The sidecar bill will include the super-incredible public option and lots of other magically delicious stuff. If Obama dangles the sidecar bill in front of House Democrats like a carrot on a stick, Team Pelosi will step out in blind faith and pass Reid's abysmally unpopular bill."

If the solution were this easy, ObamaCare would have been signed into law by now.  Obviously, House Dems aren't gullible enough for that.  They know that if they pass the Senate bill, the Senate won't have much incentive to revisit this politically radioactive fiasco.  Moreover, we don't even know if Senate Dems have the votes for reconciliation.

If turns out that the Senate doesn't have the time, votes or inclination to return to its own vomit, House Dems would then be on the hook for all the flaws of the Senate bill, and there would be no guarantee that any of the flaws would ever  get fixed.

The Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, the individual mandate, new taxes on "Cadillac Plans"... There would be a lot of great material for some really sweet GOP campaign ads.

The House has good reasons not to trust the Senate, to wit Cap n' Trade, etc.

[ Parent ]
So your strategery is basically (4.00 / 1)
give up and do nothing? What's your health insurance situation? Mine sucks. Let's find the points of maximum lverage, coordinate our efforts, make a million phone calls and donate a few more million dollars to rain down vengeance on the sellouts in Congress.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Chris - Not sure (0.00 / 0)
why you say "it is entirely possible that the reconciliation bill would be defeated in the Senate"? That seems to me the easiest part of this whole thing.
... (4.00 / 2)
I think he is referring to the fact that the Senate does not have the albatross of passing HCR if their version is signed into law.    In other words, there is nothing to stop 10 Dems from screwing the house over.   Given some of the bad faith players in the Senate Dem caucus, it is a possibility.    I personally think the better strategy is to pass the Senate bill and then hold it until reconciliation passes and then send them both to Obama, but its possible that is not legal... I do not know.
[ Parent ]
Absolutely correct, Yitbos (4.00 / 3)
A substantial number of Senators have been bad faith actors: Ben Nelson, Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Joe Lieberman, Kent Conrad, Max Baucus, and Evan Bayh come quickly to mind.  Add a few quirky members who like provisions of the Senate bill and any change is dead in the water (Bill Nelson comes to mind, maybe Harry Reid).  They get a bill, just a bill that a majority of the House would reject.

If I were in Nancy Pelosi's shoes I'd wait instead of acting.  The House has taken many good faith steps and generally gets stiffed by the jerkiest of the Senators.

[ Parent ]
Relying on Harry Reid's good word? (4.00 / 1)
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
[ Parent ]
Why not push... (4.00 / 3)
For the Medicare buy-in to come back?  

We know it had 58 or 59 votes in the Senate, and it should be able to pass the house comfortably.  It would have the following pluses.

1.  Guaranteed to be cheaper than private insurance (house public option according to CBO wouldn't have been that different).  

2.  Expands the major single-payer insurance system in the U.S. to cover more people, shifting the Overton window in the right direction, and making it more likely in the future we may see Medicare for all.  

3.  Highly unlikely to end up unpopular, as Medicare (unlike the weak Public Option) has a winning track record.  

Balanced against this, only a fragment of the uninsured would be eligible of course.  However, people over 55 on the whole would have the largest premiums in the exchange, so those who needed to have their premiums dropped below "market" rate the most would get the maximum benefit.  

Honestly, it seems like a no-brainer.  

would anything prevent the subsidy given to a 50/55 year old, to be used on the medicare buy-in? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
I don't see why (0.00 / 0)
but you have to allow the medicare buy-in to begin with. It needs to be in the reconciliation bill.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
yes, what I thought (0.00 / 0)
thanks
[ Parent ]
Someone should ask Stupak to push for it (4.00 / 1)
Since he is on the record as saying:

Congress can provide health care by simply allowing all Americans access to voluntarily "buy in' to the Medicare, Medicaid, Children's Health Initiative and Federal Employees Health Benefit Package.


Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both
[ Parent ]
Excuse me, but having a public option for an individual mandate is a matter of morality (0.00 / 0)
Just put the Medicare buy-in on the insurance exchange.  Then anyone, regardless of what age they are, can access it.

If we really want to give the near-elderly something why don't we pass a Medicare buy-in AND lower Medicare eligibility (as in REAL Medicare, not a buy-in) to 50.  That's something I'll sign on to.

[ Parent ]
tom harkin on ed schultz (4.00 / 1)
big ed kept asking if he'd sign the public option letter and harkin kept saying 'I love the PO, but I won't vote for it if my yes vote brings down the entire hcr bill'

well, if the house passes the senate bill and obama signs it into law, then a yes vote on the PO in the reconciliation that will be next can't bring down the whole bill. the whole bill would already be law.

let's keep up the PO pressure. should we also include a medicare buy-in as plan B in the PO campaign?

Medicare buy-in should be plan A. (4.00 / 2)
It's an easier sell and just as good or better, policy-wise. But I would prefer it also be available to the self-employed and others who have no employer coverage, rather than only to those over 55.

miasmo.com
[ Parent ]
Medicare buy-in for EVERYONE (4.00 / 4)
and then a compromise to the 50 and up people.  
[ Parent ]
Medicare buy-in for everyone AND lowering the age for "real" Medicare to 50 (4.00 / 1)
and compromise to pass-this-and-the-liberal-base-won't-totally-kick-your-ass-in-the-next-election.
[ Parent ]
I thought Pelosi could set on a passed bill... (4.00 / 1)
Before sending it to Obama... Then wait for the reconciliation fix and send both to Obama at the same time. At least, I thought I'd read that she could do that a long time ago...
I think I posted that as a QH from a david waldman article (0.00 / 0)
http://www.congressmatters.com...

seems the house fears the reconciliation chants of the republicrats more than the possibility the senate will hand them to dry

[ Parent ]
hang (0.00 / 0)
correction
[ Parent ]
Can a reconciliation bill even be introduced in the Senate, anyway? (4.00 / 2)
Since it is restricted to one bill a (year or session, I forget which), and since that bill is inherently a budgetary bill, is it possible to even introduce it in the Senate?  It seems like the first part cuts off the trick of just amending away all of the text of some random appropriations bill that the House approved.
No one's addressing this issue (0.00 / 0)
It's a very long road for a reconciliation bill (as described in this CRS report).

For a start, there needs to be a budget resolution (I think there can be more than one per session): I can't see how the 2010 resolution can apply to the sidecar bill - but perhaps it can.

Then there's the committee work: submissions from the subject committees to the Budget Committees, each house producing its bill, etc.

Because these rules are laid down by law (the Congressional Budget Act), I don't think they could even be waived by unanimous consent.

The House producing a sidecar bill in a day or two is a complete fantasy, so far as I can see.

And no one suggesting a quick sidecar bill (however that was achieved) have shown how this could happen.

[ Parent ]
Unfounded rumor? (0.00 / 0)
In the link provided, there is certainly not much to support the report of this supposedly internal memo. If true, it at least indicates that the votes are there to pass this thing, which is good.

However, it doesn't make much sense to me that 50+ Senate Democrats will not supply a letter assuring the House of what it will fight for via reconciliation. That makes me suspicious of the accuracy of this report.

That being said, I think that if the House did pass the Senate Bill, the Senate would in fact try to pass a House initiated reconciliation package. But it would probably take a lot longer than the reported Easter deadline, and possibly not all elements would survive the "Byrd Rule".

StarCraft: Brood War fans should understand this reference (0.00 / 0)
"I give you my word that I'll... allow her to return to you."
I would support (4.00 / 1)
single payer medicare for all in a flash.  But the boondoggle they are trying to pass deserves to fail in my book.    

Expanded medicaid for the unemployed/underemployed working/middle class, paid for by the employed working/middle class, is a divide and conquer strategy if I ever saw one.  I can predict the remake of "welfare queens" as I type.  Nothing pisses Americans off more than thinking someone got something for free that they had to pay for or earn.  That is what the Senate and House bills both do, which is why Democrats will still lose if they pass this charade of a health care reform bill.  

If they are going to expand any program, medicare is the one.  Medicaid is welfare and comes from DHS.  Medicare is a part of the Social Security system.  One gov't program administers health care and retirement benefits to those who deserve/earned them.  The other limits benefits to six years because their customers are "a bunch of losers milking the system".  You tell me which philosphy you would rather have to deal with to get your health care benefits?  

http://goodsoapcompany.com/ (0.00 / 1)
House to act first on health reform? | 26 comments
USER MENU

Open Left Campaigns

SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

QUICK HITS
STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox

Powered by: SoapBlox