TPMDC

Democrats Face Long Slog As They Try To Finish Health Care By Year's End

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

With no firm deadline in the Senate, but a health care bill expected on the floor next month, it's probably worth laying out a rough time line for the larger reform effort.

The House will soon have a cost estimate from the Congressional Budget Office on its health care bill--including three different variants of the public option--and will then proceed to a floor debate and vote. Compared to the Senate, this entire process should be relatively painless.

On the other side of the Hill, the floor debate could take weeks.

Both Democrats and Republicans are expected to offer hundreds of amendments, each of which, by unanimous consent, will likely be subjected to a 60-vote threshold for passage. (This agreement would serve as a time saving measure. Without it, every amendment package would be subject to two votes and a long delay: a 60-threshold cloture vote to overcome a filibuster, followed by up to 30 hours of debate, and a 51-threshold vote for passage. That would slow things down significantly.)

It's difficult, in other words, to imagine a floor vote on the final health care bill before December. Republicans have basically announced their intent to drag things on as long as they can stand it, so it could potentially have to wait until the eve of holiday recess.

And even then, that doesn't mean the health care fight will be over. Once both the House and Senate have passed their bills, principals from both chambers will meet in a conference committee to iron out major differences between the two versions. These sessions can be swift--but if the differences are truly great, they can drag on for quite some time.

Democrats continue to say--after pushing the deadline back from August, through October, and November--that they hope to have a bill ready for the President's signature by the end of the year. It's possible--but it's starting to seem unlikely.

Comments (14) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

October 20, 2009 11:48 AM   

if things are gonna drag out, they might as well study the idea of an All Payer System. See if it might help contain costs.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 11:50 AM    in reply to Indie Pro

An all-payer system would keep in place our many public and private insurers, but would require that they each pay the same price to providers. Thus, all public and private insurers would continue to operate, but they would be required to use a common payment methodology (e.g., DRGs for hospitals, RBRVS for physicians) and pay a common price.(1) A number of other countries (Germany, France, Japan) have national health programs that resemble, to varying degrees, all-payer systems (U.S. General Accounting Office, 1991), as did some proposais for health care reform introduced before Congress. Advocates suggest that an all-payer system would enhance access to care and, at the same time, better control health care costs. In fact, a report by the U.S. Congressional Budget Office (1991) concludes that if Medicare's payment rates were employed, universal health insurance coverage could be provided under an all-payer system at a net cost of only $5.6 billion, less than 1 percent of total U.S. health spending in 1989.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 1:59 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Did you actually understand that? Then maybe you can explain it to me! :^)
Another idea that Uwe Reinhardt (aka Dr.Strangelove) explains here is risk adjustment compensation for plans that end up with sicker patients; plans that end up with a less expensive risk pool (say a lot of younger, low risk customers) contribute to a compensation fund. Plans that end up with higher risk pools (say poor urban or rural folks, or an older crowd) are compensated from that fund. It's all based on statistical formulae that allow them to predict costs (so...Republicans probably won't like it; "knowledge: BAD, religion: GOOD. uuuuuhhhh"):
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MoHF_7lZx_8

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 2:58 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

govt negotiates prices for all private and public insurance, thereby lowering adminsitrative costs and creating an equal playing field. It's a single payer system, but a different name, and allowing for more private ownership

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 3:09 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Thank you! And brilliant. I don't see a down side to that. It might even please private insurers. Have any Congressmen/Administration officials brought it up?

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 3:11 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

I think it is an interesting idea.

I'm most concerned with the cost of premiums, and this seems to be a way to effect them. I'd like to see some studies and projetions, though the paper cites the CBO and others rather gratuitously.

I'd like to learn more.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 4:38 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

Billing is an enormous cost to hospitals, clinics and doctors. If I understand this correctly, it would simplify the process. They'd charge the same thing for the same service to all insurers, government or private. I don't see how it could not affect costs for the better, including premiums. Of course private insurers can always choose not to pass savings on to consumers, and have a tremendous incentive not to. The cost of a government run plan's premiums would almost certainly come down. That is, if they choose not to contract the public plan out to private insurers...I've heard that may be part of whatever option they formulate. Any case, it sounds good and I'd be interested to know what you learn.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 12:14 PM   

No recesses. Four days off for Thanksgiving, and if they're still not done by the end of the year, a couple of days off around Xmas and New Years, and other than that, they've got to stay in session until this gets done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 12:55 PM   

The article suggests Republicans are, once again, the boogeyman slowing things down.

Not true. They don't control shit.

What's been holding up the process for months is the inability of many Congressional Democrats (as well as potentially President Obama himself) to adhere to a set of Democratic Party values that, personally, I thought had been settled for decades.

Obviously, not settled.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 2:04 PM    in reply to willia451

Yes and no. There have been Dixiecrats for a long time. They defected to the party of Reagan, but they're back with us in all their retrograde idiocy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 5:10 PM   

There are a lot of "ifs" in this story. I suppose that if a lot of things happen a certain way, and if these certain things take a long time, then yes, a bill by year's end would be difficult. If.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 5:12 PM   

After watching this WHATEVER the Senate says I want you to add at least 2 weeks to a month to it. These assholes are never on time, EVER.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

October 20, 2009 5:23 PM   

No public option? You gotta be kidding! Go for Single Payer now for all of us. Put a dagger in the heart of the insurance industry. Then let's see if that constitutes a pre-existing conditon or an exclusion because they really have no heart.

Reply | Flag Abuse

Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?

Leave a comment

Your response:

Follow us!

Most Popular

TPM Stories Now Surging on