TPMDC

Senate Agrees To Debate Health Care Bill

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Senator Harry Reid (D-NV), Senator Dick Durbin (D-IL)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

On a perfectly partisan, 60-39 vote, the Senate agreed tonight to debate and amend a far-reaching health care bill. That debate will get started in earnest after Congress returns from next week's Thanksgiving recess. Democrats and Republicans expect to offer hundreds of amendments (each of which will be held to a 60 vote threshold) and debate for several weeks before holding yet another procedural supermajority vote--to end debate. If that gets 60 votes, then there will be an up-or-down vote on passage of the bill.

If the bill passes it will likely undergo yet more changes in conference with House negotiators. The "conference report" that emerges from that process can't be amended, but can be filibustered in the Senate, so will likely require 60 votes for passage. Only after both chambers have passed the conference report can the bill be sent to President Obama for a signature.

Comments (52) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

November 21, 2009 8:11 PM   

Which Republican did not vote?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:25 PM    in reply to RhodaA

Voinovich. AWOL, I suppose.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:29 PM    in reply to RhodaA

Voinovich (R-OH; Didn't want to miss his 30th wedding anniversary or something, and I'm serious.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:25 AM    in reply to kash79

Wait - a Republican politician taking an oath seriously?
A marriage vow, of all things?

.
.
.

Hunh. Well, the Red Sox DID win the World Series again - more than once. I guess anything is possible.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:12 PM   

Collins AND Snowe.....Nays to even allowing the bill to be debated......the wing nuts are in full cry and woe betide any party member who tries to oppose them. This is going to be one of the epic battles of this century from start to finish and the volume of lies and threats is just getting started.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:24 PM    in reply to dweb823

Word. I'll remind any wingnuts reading this that Medicare (Soc. Sec. Act of 1965) got *double digit* GOP votes in BOTH houses of Congress. So, I ask the current GOP, "who are the traitors now?".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:31 PM    in reply to dweb823

Collins is up for election in 2010. Is there anybody running against her in the Democratic party.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:43 PM    in reply to Maritza

Not true. Collins won reelection in 2008 with 61% of the vote. If she were up for reelection in 2010, I doubt she would filibuster.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:31 PM    in reply to dweb823

Isn't that the truth. Fasten your seat belts!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:08 PM    in reply to dweb823

i noticed that. and imo, obama wasited his time trying to lure snowe in. she and collins may pay for this when they have to run for re-election

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:25 PM    in reply to neesy08

He did not waste time talking bipartisanship, and trying to get her to support the effort.

If there was political calculation -- which there probably was -- it was that it would expose the Republicans for what they are: the party of "NO!" That has negative fall-out for the Republicans.

If it was good faith -- which I believe it (also) was -- then it attempts to change the "tone" -- as he promised during the campaign -- and shows that the Democrats are willing to include those on the other side. And, that they, so far, aren't willing to be included, but only in undermining and ibstructing, and to hell with the best interests of even their own constituents.

And I think President Obama was wise to let it play out. That allowed time for the lies to be seen as lies, by those willing to see that. Finally the lies ran out of breath, and the truth outran the lies.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:23 AM    in reply to dweb823

Hard to believe they have been at it for so long that "they are just getting started" actually makes some sense to me. There is nothing I cannot put past them that wouldn't surprise me.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:19 PM   

I want to know who the abstention was!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:23 PM   

This is a daunting task. Basically, we dn't have 60 Democratic votes, we have about 50 and change, plus 5-7 conservatives/crooks caucusing withe the Dems. The media narrative about the Dem's "big majority" is total hokkum.

I just hope progressives will be a little sympathetic. With assholes like Lieberman and Lincoln and Bayh and Conrad, Reid is doing the best he can. I just hope they don't water down the legislation too much before the cloture vote. The final vote (only 50 needed will be easy by comparison).

One final note, I wonder if the vote to open debate, which already makes you vulnerable to attack for "supporting" HCR, at least according to GOP talking points, will make this 60 a little more solid. After all, just this vote alone is kind of a committment for HCR. You will be attacked for it no matter what happens now.

p.s. Olympia Snowe is a cowardly shithead. I hope she gets the boot up in ME. What a fake "moderate".

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:36 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

I agree. Evan, Mary, Ben, Blanche and Max should move to the GOP wing. Joe should move to the Knesset.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:10 PM    in reply to kash79

Likud would be delighted to have him.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:53 PM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Agreed wholeheartedly. This vote just to get in should have been much easier. But sadly, it wasn't. It was already tough enough. The vote to get out has in effect no chance. What a shame.

After all, just this vote alone is kind of a committment for HCR.

In other words, those who voted against are perfectly happy about the status quo. They simply do not see any problem there, and/or they don't fucking care. Why oh why can't those corporate whores be more effectively attacked for this very fact? It never ceases to be frustrating...

(* F**k you Olympia. Keep busy kissing nutjobs' arse and get beat by a Democrat).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:29 PM    in reply to geofu54

The legislative process is always frustrating. It is also, though, fascinating for those who like the fine detail and nuance of the process, and don't get both pissed off and sick to their stomach seeing how sausage is made.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:24 PM   

PO seems to have no chance in hell to pass with a majority conservative Senate.

Also, Obama I'm sure, if not naive was optimistic, to think he can find some moderation and bipartisanship from Republicans. Snowe, after some much WH ass-kissing, has bitch slapped them.
Republicans are almost as dangerous in opposition, if not more.

If Baucus in the finance committee and the WH had ignored Snowe from the beginning, we may have already passed a bill by now, and may be with a little less commotion.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:34 PM   

Voinovich? Are you f'ing kidding me! What a joke...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:34 PM   

So Snowe voted against even debating the bill. RIP "moderate" Republicans.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:31 PM    in reply to Why oh why

Bidon, on Jon Stewart, said the Republican party is made up only of "hard core conservatives". It has no moderates anymore.

Whereas the Democratic party has liberals, moderates, and conservatives. And that that's the problem with a big tent: the more one has in it, the harder it is to come to agreement.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:35 PM   

Thanks TPM. You are picking up the responsibility of our fourth estate, I have heard that the news networks are ignoring this.

How totally bogus is that?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:39 PM   

Isn't it inevitable we go to reconciliation? Lieberman, Landrieu and Lincoln (The big three L's for Losers) have already threatened to filibuster the 2nd cloture vote to end debate if the PO is included. You need 60 votes now to remove the PO or add a trigger. I don't see all 60 dems in favor of that. Right now, it looks to me the Reconciliation may end up being the only hope for getting any bill. Am I reading this wrong?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 8:41 PM    in reply to Curtis

I'm not an expert on Senate procedures. But someone was saying that may be Reid should pass much of it via current bill, and contentious issues like PO should be pass through budget appropriations up or down vote.

I don't know how it will work, if at all. But not a bad idea.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 5:15 AM    in reply to kash79

That sounds like a very good idea: pass the ban on rescission, guaranteed issue, repeal McCarran-Ferguson while they're at it. Leave the mandate and the weak PO out of it. IMO, the PO, in its present form, isn't worth fighting for. And it will only get weaker from here on in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 11:06 AM    in reply to kash79

But if the PO goes, then mandates have to go, too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:27 PM   

Snowe is up for reelection in 2012. But unless we get off of our asses and focus on beating her, she'll stay on, just like stupid Susan Collins. According to opinion polls, the Republicans hate her - it's the stupid Democrats who are her biggest supporters. OFA, Move On, and other progressive groups have to put a target on her and take her out in 3 years.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 3:39 AM    in reply to El Puerco

A poll just came out about a week ago that suggests that she might not even survive her primary challenge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:35 PM    in reply to hewhohasnoname

There have been challenges to her from the right. What she should also worry about is the state law suit against ME's biggest private health insurer: that ongoing release of information should sufficiently inform the electorate to undermine her traditional support from the more moderate. She certainly hasn't got elected by Republicans-only.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 9:45 PM   

I find it.......I don't know if I should say incredible, shocking, disheartening, or complete bullshit that 3-4 Senators can LITERALLY dictate to a 55 vote MAJORITY of Senators. I find that absolutely amazing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:36 PM    in reply to theone718

It's called DEMOCRACY.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:09 PM   

thank you democrats for leading a country, you are setting up the middleclass to start being a force in america again - remember, competition, competition, competition

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:27 PM   

Now we have to wait and see the outcome of the actual vote!

admin
http://invetrics.com

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 10:34 PM   

Now come's the really tough part

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 21, 2009 11:48 PM   

I think the next move, message wise, should be this. The Republican enablers voted for the deficit increasing tax cuts for wealthy investors and voted against saving tens of thousands of American lives. Nine of the ten unhealthiest states are Red, including Landrieu's.

Another interesting fact:

States Receiving Most in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. D.C. ($6.17)
2. North Dakota ($2.03) R
3. New Mexico ($1.89)
4. Mississippi ($1.84) R
5. Alaska ($1.82) R
6. West Virginia ($1.74) R
7. Montana ($1.64) R
8. Alabama ($1.61) R
9. South Dakota ($1.59) R
10. Arkansas ($1.53) R

States Receiving Least in Federal Spending Per Dollar of Federal Taxes Paid:

1. New Jersey ($0.62) D
2. Connecticut ($0.64) D
3. New Hampshire ($0.68)
4. Nevada ($0.73)
5. Illinois ($0.77) D
6. Minnesota ($0.77) D
7. Colorado ($0.79)
8. Massachusetts ($0.79) D
9. California ($0.81) D
10. New York ($0.81) D

Red states are Welfare states. Look who's spreading the wealth. Maybe they need to pass a law saying that you only receive the amount in federal funds that you pay in.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:19 AM    in reply to patmcgrowen

I wholeheartedly agree. Repubs are SOOOO anti-socialist, what will their argument be against such a bill? Enlighten me. I can't even think anywhere like them that I cannot even comprehend an argument against it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 5:28 AM    in reply to patmcgrowen

Wow...where'd you get this? If I had the money for a full page ad in all the McClatchy papers...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 2:41 PM    in reply to Tanjaoui

Here is the link to the most current statistics

http://www.taxfoundation.org/research/show/266.html

The hypocrisy is glaringly evident.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:10 AM   

Is it possible that Lincoln would vote for a trigger that contains a much stronger ("robust") public plan just so she doesn't have to vote for the public option? Does she really think conservatives in Arkansas are going to care how she votes on this? She's got a "D" next to her name. She's toast no matter what.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 12:54 AM   

So how will the Senate deal with making sure Wall Street retains their profit margins?

That should be the headline.

I am still invested in health care companies. You would be foolish not too, because they are cheap right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:15 AM    in reply to rbeats

The sad part is that their profit margin doesn't even include the big fat salaries of their CEO's, and the luxurious benefits they receive (i.e., private jets, five star hotels, and the infamous "golden parachutes"). This is a travesty.

I have no hope, after tonight, of a public option. RIP, PO. May we see you in the afterlife.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 3:42 AM   

"I have no hope, after tonight, of a public option. RIP, PO. May we see you in the afterlife."

It depends on how old you are, mophan. If you're young(ish), you'll probably see it before you die. That's because the PO (and ultimately, Single Payer) is going to have to wait until the old folks, and most of the disgusting Boomers (I am a Boomer, by the way) die off. And good fucking riddance to them; they are nothing but backward, selfish, obstructionists. Sad, but true.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 1:40 PM    in reply to miki

This Boomer isn't any of that. And I'm fed up with the ignorant broadbrush bashing of Boomers. Boomers got the US out of Vietnam -- despite the best efforts of chickenhawk Boomers such as Bushit and Cheney.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 4:05 AM   

A great win for Industry, Corporatism and Conservatism. And all their followers rejoice!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:05 AM   

If the PO is truly dead, any chance the opt-out will pass? California, New York, Michigan, Oregon, Pennsylvania and others can enjoy lower rates while Texas, Alabama and Kentucky can pay higher prices, get refused coverage and take a stand against socialism.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 11:10 AM    in reply to traitorjoe

Those states would make a fine regional single payer block...if they can pass the Kucinich Amendment or something like it, exempting states from ERISA if they ratify single payer systems.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:32 AM   

The Grand Obstructionist Party will now bemoan the end of society as we know it ... simply because they are afraid of a debate in which they will need to defend the merits of their "protect the status quo because the corporate lobbyists say so" mentality.

Wait for it... wait for it...

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 10:44 AM   

From Juan Cole's Sunday post re: Debate on the Veto of Iraq's new electoral law:

MP Safiya Suhail urged that al-Hashemi's veto be overturned by an up and down vote, and complained that interminable delays in parliament are produced by some blocs' desire always to reach consensus.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 11:08 AM   

Perhaps Voinovich didn't want to sully himself with this pathetic Republican farce. He is retiring; maybe he'll go rogue on the Republicans on a final vote.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 22, 2009 11:39 AM   

?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

November 23, 2009 8:54 AM   

Wave of Debt Payments Facing U.S. Government
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/23/business/23rates.html

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