Senate moving onto the vote-o-rama--plus, new reconciliation bill coming soon

by: Chris Bowers

Wed Mar 24, 2010 at 17:58


The debate on the reconciliation bill has ended in the Senate.  Voting is now underway.  CSPAN2 has live coverage.

The Wonk Room catches Senator Baucus saying that there will be 23 votes, and it should take about 7-8 hours.  This is a bit confusing, as it seemed as though 36 amendments had been filed by 11:20 a.m. today.  Perhaps either some were withdrawn, or ruled out of order.

No matter what happened, expect a final vote either late tomorrow, or early Friday.  This is not going into the weekend again.  Huzzah!

Also, no matter what happens, Democrats are going to vote, as a bloc, against all amendments.  This includes any amendments that would strengthen the bill, such as a public option.

However, on a positive note, Tom Harkin has said that the next reconciliation bill, which will come pretty soon, could contain some strengthening amendments.  Notably, Harkin indicated this includes the possibility of a public option (emphasis mine):

The Senate this week is debating a reconciliation bill that would modify the healthcare reform law President Barack Obama signed Tuesday. The bill on the Senate floor was written based on the current budget resolution, which will soon be replaced. Harkin indicated that the new budget could also allow for a reconciliation bill, which he believes could be used to enact the public option.

Harkin supports the public option and said the House and Senate advocates would "begin working on that immediately" but, like other Senate Democrats, rejected amending the current reconciliation bill because such a move would force the House to pass it again. Because of centrist Democratic opposition, the public option may not have enough support to pass the House. "The greater good is getting the bill passed," not waging a fight this week over the public option.

With another reconciliation bill coming up shortly, there is another opportunity to pass some good, progressive stuff.

While I wouldn't blame anyone for being dubious and cynical about actually getting a public option in the second reconciliation bill, Senate Demcorats are showing increasing weariness with Republican obstruction tactics, and Harry Reid did promise a public option vote sometime this year.  I wouldn't call passing a public option in the next reconciliation bill likely, but it is an opportunity.

Chris Bowers :: Senate moving onto the vote-o-rama--plus, new reconciliation bill coming soon

Tags: , , , (All Tags)
Print Friendly View Send As Email
Senate moving onto the vote-o-rama--plus, new reconciliation bill coming soon | 32 comments
Senate Version of Grayson's Medicare Buy In? (4.00 / 2)
I assume that qualifies as a public option (especially if it comes with subsidies, now or later, based on income)? I'd like to know if Harkin or any other Democrat plans to push Grayson's bill in the Senate.
Strongest Public Option. (4.00 / 3)
Grayson's bill would be pretty much the strongest possible public option.

It is a longer shot to pass, but maybe with a deal cut on Medicare reimbursement rates in rural areas, it could be viable.  I think it makes sense as a starting point for debate on a PO.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
Actually, a good starting point would be (4.00 / 4)
Medicare for everyone, for free... with the costs offset by an appropriate level of taxation, with the new taxes distributed progressively among the various groups of taxpayers.

Then, the Grayson bill could be a fallback position.

But of course, Harry Reid's promise to have a vote and $2.50 will get you a small Red Bull and a little change... not a Red Bull, some change and vote.

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
You could try it, but the otherside knows there is no way in hell that single payer will pass.    
[ Parent ]
why not? (0.00 / 0)

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
Well let's see... The insurance companies would spend any amount of money to kill it because it would mean the end of their business entirely and will NOT be supported by any politician from a state or district heavy with insurance companies.  It would put a couple million people out of work (those working for the now defunct insurance companies), which will scare away several more Senators and Reps in an election year who don't want "THEY TOOK OUR JOBS" blaring in campaign Ads.   The AMA would be against it because it could only work by cutting payments to doctors to medicare levels at the very minimum.  With less money coming in, then doctors need to get cheaper malpractice insurance and that will be difficult, so you'd probably have to reform the tort laws significantly, which will pit the trial lawyers against you as well.   You'd also have to keep pharma costs down and big pharma won't accept that.  Not to mention the people who for whatever reason think Single payer is the end of the world.

So between potentially having the Trial lawyers, the AMA, the insurance companies and Pharma all spending whatever takes to influence the vote, the Senators and reps who would see massive layoffs because of the insurers going out of business and a vocal component of the public who reviles anything "forced" on them and see Single Payer as a communist plot, it won't pass.   There has NEVER been enough support to even bring it to a floor vote in either house.  It sucks, but without a major change in public opinion, the desctruction of corporate personhood, amending the constitution to eliminate lobbyists and reverse the recent Citizens United ruling, there is no way it would happen.  And the otherside knows that.

A medicare buyin that is an option for all in the exchanges would satisfy most people and be cheaper to implement than a brand new PO.

[ Parent ]
cool (0.00 / 0)
so you've identified the targets that need to be attacked in any present and future campaign work, regardless of what the policy demands are, so we can get to single payer health care (*free* medicare for all).

like how i moved the goalposts there and rebranded single payer health care? :) that's what we do - or should do. :)

[ Parent ]
Maybe, maybe not (0.00 / 0)
You don't know until you fight for it and see what you can get.  Then you move down to where you have to to pass something.  Instead of just folding your cards and taking whatever you think will be super easy, a la current HCR bill (which, as you saw, wasn't easy despite these giveaways).

Also you have a lot of assumptions in there, like:

it could only work by cutting payments to doctors to medicare levels at the very minimum

that I don't think are necessarily true... I don't know for a fact, because you'd need to look at it long and hard to make an informed call, and even then you wouldn't really know until you did it and saw how everything shakes out.

My point, though, is that if you don't try then you are guaranteed not to succeed... and we need look no further than the sheer... lack of imagination and vision... in the current bill to see that.

I'm glad it passed, but I'm also very disappointed at the lack of big ideas.  This bill is about as watered-down a bill as you could conceivably call a victory, and it appears that the administration more or less got what it wanted since last March: a political rather than a policy victory.

[ Parent ]
To answer your question, (0.00 / 0)
please see the last year.

Long story short: no.

Pardon my bitter disappointment at the entire ordeal.

[ Parent ]
I appreciate your understanding. (4.00 / 3)
While I wouldn't blame anyone for being dubious and cynical about actually getting a public option in the second reconciliation bill

Color me... dubious is not really, the word... no it's more of a... kind of... what is it... offended.

There is no intention of getting this passed.  This is all about trying to make us forget that they defecated on our collective face over the past year.  Just in time for us to forgive, forget, donate, volunteer and vote.

To call this bad faith would be an understatement.  Do they just get some kind of perverse kick out of holding this out there and then telling us to go Cheney ourselves in the most public and prolonged way they can think of, only to start all over again literally within days?

sigh

Thanks (in advance) for nothing, losers.

What's the difference? (4.00 / 2)
Harkin supports the public option and said the House and Senate advocates would "begin working on that immediately" but, like other Senate Democrats, rejected amending the current reconciliation bill because such a move would force the House to pass it again. Because of centrist Democratic opposition, the public option may not have enough support to pass the House.

Wouldn't that same argument apply again later this year?

Unless Harkin somehow knows that some of those centrist opponents will leave Congress between now and then, I don't see what difference it makes to have the vote on the PO in a few months instead of right now.

Not to mention that the public option DID PASS the House as part of a comprehensive bill last November.  Even minus Wexler, Abercrombie and Murtha, it still theoretically has 217 votes.

Furthermore, the chances of its passage are arguably more likely if it's bundled with other fixes rather than standing on its own.

The bullshit is becoming really transparent.  Never did I think that our politicians would be crossing their fingers in hope we wouldn't realize that we were being fucked hard in the asshole.

Harkin. (0.00 / 0)
Unless Harkin somehow knows that some of those centrist opponents will leave Congress between now and then, I don't see what difference it makes to have the vote on the PO in a few months instead of right now.

In fairness to Harkin, he was not quoted mentioning the centrist opposition as a roadblock.  That was some editorializing from The Hill.

We PTDB! Now, let's pass Grayson's Public Option Act!

[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
It only passed with the Stupak amendment.  Don't forget that.
[ Parent ]
Stupak got his vote (0.00 / 0)
and it failed in the Senate.

He can get another vote if he wants.  He can get a million more votes on the same thing.  I don't care.  It doesn't have the votes in the Senate, and if Stupak wants to change that he's gonna have to persuade current Senators and/or help elect more pro-life Senators.

There isn't anything Stupak can get out of this reconciliation bill.  Abortion doesn't fit.

[ Parent ]
So what do you do (4.00 / 1)
If the Senate adds in a public option and the House rejects the amended bill?  The probability of the House rejecting an amended bill is sufficiently high enough that taking time to go back and forth on amendments will be the same tactical mistake as allowing opponents of HCR to mount an offensive during the August recess.  The Democrats are finally on offense for once and I don't want them to ease up on the pedal.

It looks there is at least some short-term bump in approval ratings due to the current bill being passed.  So, I think the best strategy may be to try to sell the bill to the public so that an increase in public support will encourage more Democratic politicians to support a public option.

Things You Don't Talk About in Polite Company: Religion, Politics, the Occasional Intersection of Both

[ Parent ]
Okay, but how is this different from passing it in a few months? (4.00 / 1)
We will be debating it then instead of now, and it'll be closer to November.

Also, I don't see how pushing for something with 60-65% public support is anything BUT "offense".

[ Parent ]
PO As Part Of The Whole Vs By Itself (0.00 / 0)
I think maybe a public option has a better chance as its own bill thing than it did with the whole shebang.  So, while maybe it could pass in this reconciliation bill, I think the idea here is to rebuild some trust in the Senate Dems among the House Dems.  Can't hurt to lobby for it to be in the next bill!
[ Parent ]
How is this possible? (0.00 / 0)
Don't all bills having to do with taxing/spending have to originate from the House?  Don't get me wrong, a Medicare buy-in would rock, but constitutionally, isn't it iffy?

If it is possible, I think splitting the Public Option from HCR actually works because its a cleaner debate.  Also, it should be called a Medicare buy-in, not a public option.

... (0.00 / 0)
Agreed.  Make it a large debate... we know its popular.   And go with Medicare buy-in... its a much cheaper startup than a PO (since its already in place).
[ Parent ]
... (0.00 / 0)
I hope they do but I'm not sure how they would be able to pass it in the house.   If just doesn't seem like there are enough votes without cutting an even worse deal with stupak.
Will it continue be this bad forever? (0.00 / 0)
You know, I wonder. Do you suppose, as this goes on, that a bit of starch might go out of some of the Republicans, and possibly some of the single-issue fanatics like Stupak as well? No matter where they are on the issues, people do like a winner, and all else being equal, they like to be perceived as being in the winning group. I think that's what held many of the Republicans where they were for so long despite growing misgivings about their party's tactics. (Well, that, and their party's ghastly primary rules.)

I wouldn't be at all surprised if we see significant softening -- at least on some issues -- among those to the right of us, especially if, over time, it sinks in among voters that this bill does have some tangible benefits, and if the Democrats begin to make more effective use of their majorities.

I'm not trying to be a pollyanna here, but I do think that the Republicans, Blue Dogs, etc. have held the pedal to the floorboards for so long that they might be developing a little cramp. Something to watch, anyway.

[ Parent ]
... (4.00 / 1)
Hey I hope I'm wrong.  I just haven't seen any evidence that a standalone PO bill is passable.  Even Grayson's bill... how much support does it have...

I can see it easy getting 150-175... its those last votes that will be the challenge.

[ Parent ]
Agreed (0.00 / 0)
What you say makes sense. I was thinking more generally, and even so, I think that my scenario is unlikely to come to full fruition unless the Democrats hold both the House and Senate in November, and get a few more things passed.

Still, I've seen the conventional wisdom come unraveled before (1965-1968) and on those rare occasions when it does, it can happen with astonishing speed.

[ Parent ]
Budget bill is the key (0.00 / 0)
I'm a bit iffy on the details of Reconciliation, but I know they have to have something in the budget ahead of time to even try it.  Getting this into the budget would be a minor victory with the possibility of something real later on.  Not getting it in either assumes the filibuster is eliminated or it will be another year before anyone can even seriously try.

For now, I think it is important to put as generic as possible holder in the budget for additional health care reform via  reconciliation.  I'd also like to see some incremental improvement in other areas before this bill takes full effect.  As smaller bills, it is easier to push beyond the self imposed spending limit of the initial bill.

watching this thing on CSPAN (0.00 / 0)
confirms and reconfirms just how useless Nelson (Nebraska) really is.  
I don't buy it (0.00 / 0)
Not this year. You can only do reconciliation once each fiscal year as I understand it. They still need to get financial reform, maybe climate legislation, some other measures (more "jobs" bills, whistleblower protection, maybe food safety) through and a new budget resolution won't be approved until the summer. If and when that happens, it seems extremely unlikely to me that they'll put together a reconciliation bill this fall with a public option.

I think if we get a public option, it'll happen if a Democrat wins in 2016.  

Fiscal year 2011... (0.00 / 0)
The bill could still be passed this year, and would take effect in October, when the current fiscal year ends.

REID: Voting against us was never part of our arrangement!
SPECTER: I am altering the deal! Pray I don't alter it any further!
REID: This deal keeps getting worse all the time!
[ Parent ]
Harry Reid… (4.00 / 2)
...is clearly trying to get re-elected. That means he's a pressure point. Progressives have got to learn to apply pressure where (and when) they might have leverage.

"This ain't for the underground. This here is for the sun." -Saul Williams
Cue up Big Tent Democrat's inevitable quick hit-like post on TalkLeft (0.00 / 0)
about how anyone who believes that a public option might actually make it into a second recon bill let alone be passed into law is a fool and progressives suck and progressive blogs are worthless and life's a bitch and then we all die. Hell, he may be right more often than he's not, but man is that guy a downer.

"Those who stand for nothing fall for anything...Mankind are forever destined to be the dupes of bold & cunning imposture" -- Alexander Hamilton
when is this oppor? (0.00 / 0)
when is the next reconcil bill opportunity then? is it this spring right? harkin, sanders and brown have stood down for reid's promise of a po vote soon. real soon. i hope this gambit is right. ahip already is trying to evade the children coverage int he bill as we have seen today
Reconciliation Bill Back To The House For Another Vote (0.00 / 0)
Politics: "The reconciliation bill will have to go back to the House for another vote after Senate parliamentarian Alan Frumin ruled early this morning that two minor provisions violated the chamber's rules and could not be included in the final bill, according to Majority Leader Harry Reid's spokesman Jim Manley.
Both provisions made technical changes to the bill's Pell Grant regulations. All told, 16 lines of text will be removed from the 153-page bill, Manley told reporters as business on the Senate floor wrapped early Thursday morning" (Shiner and Frates, 3/25).

The Washington Post: "Senate leaders expect to push the amended bill to passage Thursday afternoon, with final passage to follow in the House before the weekend" (Montgomery, 3/25)by student aid.

Roll Call: "Democrats remained confident they would pass the reconciliation bill - a companion bill to the health care measure Obama signed into law earlier this week. ... [A] GOP aide acknowledged the changes are largely inconsequential. ... Nevertheless, the Republican aide said the GOP sees the ruling as a win, noting that Democrats were forced into dozens of difficult votes on a host of political issues, including tax cuts, Medicare spending, federal funding for Viagra prescriptions for convicts and other amendments" for medical school(Stanton, 3/25).

enhanced spam? (4.00 / 1)
what are those links at the end of each paragraph?
[ Parent ]
Senate moving onto the vote-o-rama--plus, new reconciliation bill coming soon | 32 comments




USER MENU


blog advertising is good for you
blog advertising is good for you

Donate to Open Left
QUICK HITS
SEARCH

   

Advanced Search

STATE BLOGS

Home | RSS/XML Feed | Register | Contact

  © OpenLeft 2007-2010, Powered by SoapBlox