The current step in the health reform sausage factory involves finding enough votes for the House to pass the Senate health reform bill and then, a few days later, a budget reconciliation "fix" to that health reform bill (see my post from earlier today for a more detailed overview of the process, and where the public option fits into that process).
Rounding up the votes in the House is proving difficult, with few public successes. Here are the recent developments (more in the extended entry):
Massa cancels out Deal, 216 needed for passage. Two days ago, Democrats only needed 216 votes to pass the House, and 217 members of the House had voted for health reform in November:
Since November, three members who voted for health reform have left the House: Neil Abercrombie, Jack Murtha (RIP), and Robert Wexler. Additionally, one member, who voted against health reform, Nathan Deal, will leave the House next week.
However, Deal has now reversed course, and will stay in the House until after the health reform vote.
But, just this afternoon, it was announced that Eric Massa, an opponent of the health reform bill, will resign on Monday. So, Massa cancels out Deal, and only 216 votes are needed for passage after all.
This means 216 votes are needed for passage, with the November composition being 217 in favor, 214 opposed.
Bart Gordon becomes a "yes," cancelling out Mike Arcuri. Representative Bart Gordon, who voted against the health reform bill in November, seems like a "yes" vote now. However, all this does is cancel out Representative Mike Arcuri, who was a yes in November but seems like a "no" now. So, we are still at 217-214.
Progressives shoring up. The only two members of the Congressional Progressive Caucus to vote against the health reform bill in November were Dennis Kucinich and Eric Massa. Kucinich is steadfast in his opposition, but with Massa retiring it looks like Kucinich will be the sole "nay" vote now. As of yesterday, three current and former Progressive Caucus co-chairs sounded like they would all vote for the bill.
Stupak bloc to be pacified? The main obstacle to passing the health reform bill is now Bart Stupak's bloc of members who voted for the bill in November, but refuse to do so again unless their restrictive reproductive rights language is added to the bill. Reports usually put this group of members at "roughly a dozen,", while I have identified at least seven, and possibly seventeen, members who are part of Stupak's bloc.
One possible solution to this impasse is emerging. Stupak, and his bloc, may be open to voting for the health reform bill if they get a vote on a separate piece of legislation that would retroactively impose his restrictive language on the health reform bill. Details are still murky, but David Dayen has the relevant questions on how this would work:
1) Would the President agree to delay signing of the final bill until the Stupak standalone bill gets a vote? Presumably Stupak would want such a guarantee.
2) Similarly, would the Senate be bound by such an agreement to put the amendment up to a standalone vote? Or is this just a House deal?
3) If the vote fails in either the House or the Senate, would that be it for health reform? Is this a promise of a future vote rather than a promise not to sign health care into law unless this passes?
4) What would Republicans do, in both the House and the Senate? In the House, all of them fell in line and agreed to the amendment back in November. In the Senate, all but Collins and Snowe agreed on the vote, which ultimately failed. But if health care rides on Republicans taking this vote, would they vote for it themselves, or would they rather put pro-choice Democrats in the excruciating position of having to vote for an abortion coverage ban in order to get health care through?
5) If Republicans refuse to play along, would Democrats whip the vote?
All good questions. Currently, they have no answer.
If no agreement can be reached with Stupak, can health reform pass anyway? If no agreement with Stupak's bloc can be reached, then the other path to passing health reform through the House would be to round up an equal number of "nay" votes on the November bill to vote "yes" on the Senate bill. In addition to Bart Gordon, twelve other November "no" votes publically wavering now: Altmire (PA-04), Baird (WA-03); Boucher (VA-09); Boyd (FL-02); Kosmas (FL-24); Markey (CO-04); McMahon (NY-13); Minnick (ID-01); S. Murphy (NY-20); Glen Nye (VA-02); Ross (AR-04); Tanner (TN-08).
If the Stupak bloc really does have twelve members, then all but one of those votes would be needed to pass the Senate health reform bill through the House.
All of this adds up to what strike me as pretty long odds. For a different view, both Intrade and Nate Silver both put the odds at just over 50%. No matter what happens, it is going to be very tight. The margin is, at most, a dozen votes in either direction.
STATE BLOGS
Powered by: SoapBlox