TPMDC

Can They Get It Done? With Health Care Reform On The Line, The Senate Waffles

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

Sen. Kent Conrad (D-ND)

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The clear consensus among leading Democrats is that the only true way forward on health care is for the House to pass the Senate's bill with a separate, guaranteed bill, or bills, making major changes to key aspects of it. And with Democrats down to 59 votes in the Senate, those changes would have to be passed via the budget reconciliation process, which circumvents the filibuster.

Progressives support the idea, but key questions remain--including whether the Senate can, or will take the necessary steps to make that happen.

Already, a number of conservative Democrats have come forward to say they oppose the proposed solutions outright. Others, including Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE) and Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) have said they prefer different approaches. And for the plan to hold, Democrats could lose no more than 9 members.

"It's a new reality post Massachusetts special election so the question is do you want to try to find any procedural way you can to get something through, or do you want to try to reach out one more time to see if we can do this in a bipartisan way," Lieberman told reporters today.

As you know, after a lot of pushing and pulling, I voted for the Senate bill, because I thought that it was good enough to vote for, and therefore I would vote for it again, but I've always felt that the best way to adopt a major reform like health care reform is bipartisan.

I hope before any other strategies are followed--and I'm encouraged to believe that this is true--that the White House and the Democratic leadership will one more time reach out to the Republicans and see if they want to try a common ground health care reform.

Progressives, however, favor the remedy.

"I do [support the reconciliation approach]," said Sen. Sherrod Brown (D-OH). "The strategy's not really discussed at length yet. But I want to see a health care bill."

"We're going to find a way to do this, and it's going to be a good bill," Brown said.

Assuming there are 50 votes (plus Vice President Joe Biden as tie breaker) for "Plan B," it's still not completely clear whether Senate Democrats will be able to pull the trick off. There are procedural and political complications that will need to be massaged away.

"We've got to understand, again, the Byrd rule requirements," said Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND). The Byrd rule specifies if it does not score for budget purposes, it's subject to automatic strike; if the score is only incidental to the policy strike, it's subject to automatic strike.... I think the role of reconciliation would be quite limited in a health care compromise."

Pressed by TPMDC as to whether he would set the wheels in motion if asked by leadership, Conrad was non-committal. "I would have to know what that meant," Conrad said. "Words have real meaning here.... What would I be asked to be getting behind. I don't know that at this moment, so I could not say, 'yeah, I'm willing to get behind something' when I have no idea what it is I'm being asked to get behind."

Comments (50) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 26, 2010 4:01 PM   

Simple solution. Put the public option back in and watch the CBO score drop like a rock.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:04 PM    in reply to wbgonne

How is this even relevant, though? If they put the public option back, it's a new bill, requiring 60 votes to beat filibuster, and right now they'd get 52-54 possibly, lose by a mile, and so?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:44 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

I don't see what you're saying. A public option is negative on the deficit so it would pass muster and help the other fixes pass muster in a bill that Dems want to go through the reconciliation process. It would not somehow become a non-reconciliation bill or merge with the original senate bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:30 PM    in reply to Kevin Sutton

Interesting. Don't know if you're right (and don't know if anybody "knows" the right interpretation), but it's an intriguing argument.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:18 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

SCHIP and Medicare "Advantage" (the latter a true fiscal boondoggle and giveaway to Big Pharma and Big Insurance, courtesy of the "fiscally conservative" GOP) were both passed through reconciliation. So I don't see why a PO couldn't be.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 12:40 PM    in reply to gharlane

Yep, I'm understanding more now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:00 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

The public option is already in the House bill. It's weak, but it's there. And it will save a lot of dough. Perfect for reconciliation, no?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:49 PM    in reply to wbgonne

Reconciliation still requires a new bill, it would have to go through the House again, committees and all.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:02 PM    in reply to Overreach THIS!

The conventional wisdom seems to be that the Public Option could pass the Byrd rule by virtue of its large positive budgetary impact. The argument is that the primary job of the PO is to save money...which is exactly what reconciliation is for.

There are some things that wouldn't fly. But it sounds to me like most of the big items the house wants should be ok.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:58 PM    in reply to hunter

Under Rule XVI, "new or general legislation" is not eligible for passage by reconciliation.

I support single-payer healthcare and I worked hard for the public option, but it's getting ridiculous, now. There is no one "public option"; it would have to be renegotiated in the House and (after more wrangling, shouting, screaming, bleeding) it would have to get 50 votes in the Senate without being shot down as "new legislation." I don't see this happening.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:01 PM   

The objecters call on hold hands as they jump off the next cliff, one for all and all for one!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:02 PM   

And Conrad said he would support Reconciliation the other day?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:03 PM    in reply to VictorLH

By the way, while I'm at it - Fuck You Joe Lieberman!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:05 PM    in reply to VictorLH

We're all at fault here, we just don't seem to get around to saying that often enough. Cosign!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:07 PM   

White HOuse and the Democratic leadership will one more time reach out to the Republicans and see if they want to try a common ground health care reform.

Insanity. Doing the same thing over and expecting different results. Joe Lieberman advocates for insanity.

And at this point, I think the headline could be changed thusly:

Can they get it done? With XXXXX on the line, the Senate waffles

and still be accurate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:11 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Well, and then there is the fact what LIEberman says, and the current Corporate Mass Media meme accompanying his statement — that whole thing about the MA election being a shout-out for tacking to the Right or letting health care drop — is pure bullshit (at least according to follow-up polls).

Admittedly, those polls tend to suggest the MA voters who elected Brown might be just a tad...um...un-careful in their voting or thought processes. The internals of one poll in particular confirms that MA voters are all up in that with HCR going forward:

Here is info from ThinkProgress.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:12 PM   

And as DailyKos reports, Dems are ok with 50 for passing Bernanke, but apparently not for passing HCR. I can't think of anything that epitomizes where their priorities are than that.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:27 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Oh, but it's all the fault of the dirty fucking hippies. It always is.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:43 PM    in reply to Steve LaBonne

You dirty fucking hippie! I am one, too, I guess, despite the fact that I'm more used to wearing a suit.

Oh well. This administration has finally made dirty fucking hippies of us all.

We are all dirty fucking hippies now.

Ich bin ein Dirty Fucking Hippie!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:19 PM    in reply to again

This administration has finally made dirty fucking hippies of us all.

Yes, it finally has. I'm going over to the DFH side.

And it feels good!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:50 PM    in reply to CT Voter

CT, I'll happily join the DFH ranks as well, I just missed being able to be one first time around (although I did get called one in my late teens, but by then it was passe).

On your original point, the difference is that their corporate masters want Bernanke, so 50 votes + Biden is just fine. They don't want anything resembling real health care reform, so 100 votes wouldn't be enough.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:53 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Seriously makes me want to jump off a bridge.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:51 PM    in reply to CT Voter

That's the progressives fault too, any one of them can force a cloture vote that requires 60 votes, why aren't they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:25 PM   

I think that Conrad would do it if there was specific stuff that is needed for reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:27 PM   

Anyone who doesn't believe health care is dead, is smoking something.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:31 PM   

Ever since Tuesday night, I've felt like a fool and a sucker for giving money to Democratic candidates and committees (including the DSCC) and volunteering my time on elections (including Coakley's). If they can't get their shit together with 59 votes, they're going to lose and lose badly this fall and have no one to blame but their own spinelessness and incompetence.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:34 PM    in reply to Moose49

Yes! I feel stupid for contributing to the DSCC, too.

And this idiocy almost makes me feel happy that Coakley lost. Can you imagine how cautious she would be?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:31 PM   

I'm losing my mind following the Senate toeing the water.

Do it! Now!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 4:55 PM   

We're going to get this done. But only because the jerks in the Senate have no other choice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:58 PM    in reply to Alex39

If that's even true, sad state of affairs as it is, I'll be very happy.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:18 PM   

I'm certainly not the first one to suggest this, but if you want HCR to pass, call your Senators and tell them to support fixing the Bill through reconciliation. I called mine this afternoon and I will call them again tomorrow, along with my Rep.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:01 PM    in reply to barbara63

I'm a broken record about this, but call the DNC and the DSCC, too. Their sole reason for existence is raising money to protect incumbent Democratic seats (read: Bayh and Lincoln) and to fund challengers.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:13 PM    in reply to mrut

You keep breaking those records. It is obvious by how clueless people can be, that you need to draw them a bloody MAP!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:32 PM   

The better question is this: Is the Congressional leadership doing any of the heavy lifting that will inevitably have to go into this? Namely, getting CBO scores on the compromise / reconciliation package so it's ready to go?

The last thing they can afford is to dither for another few months on this. The process needs to be moving as rapidly as possible, even if it is only behind the scenes at this point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 5:57 PM   

The Senate bill has already got bipartisan support --- isn't Lieberman a 'moderate' Republican?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 6:37 PM   

You gotta love the corporate media. They take polls on why Brown won and the polls clearly indicate that people think the Democrats were not aggressive enough in pursuing health care and the pundits conclude that 'the results show that the Democrats were too aggressive in pursing health care.' Face it, progressive policies never have a chance - the media deck is stacked against us and our message will never get broadcast.

I used to do HR until they hired a professional (she's a corporate clone and everybody hates her) but I still get HR stuff via email. There is this one awful company that keeps sending me invitations to webinars. The latest was about how the Obama Labor Department was going to ruin business by enforcing labor laws. I was so annoyed that I send them back a really nasty email. I referenced a couple of stories on TPM, if they care to read something other than lies. Won't do any good, but I felt better.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:10 PM   

Good things can come from bad motivation.

Health Care 'Reform' was botched from the get go with Rhambo's childish 'maneuvers' , the punt to Baucus, Obama's 'gotta go bi-partisan', the stupidity of not leading on a single payer, etc,

So, the 'Reform' deserves the death it will get, and the Democratic Party can figure out how to re-make itself in the Democratic tradition of FDR and LBJ. Until then, death of this 'Reform' is a good thing.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:11 PM   

PASS THE DAMN BILL YOU IDIOTS

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:16 PM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

Ezra Klein

Ben Nelson says he will vote against any health-care compromise that runs through reconciliation. Same goes for Evan Bayh. Blanche Lincoln added her name to the list, too.

Which is all as it should be. The virtue of running the compromise through reconciliation is that you can lose a couple of conservative Democrats. In theory, this could be a good thing: 51 senators could enact a better bill than 60 senators. The most unpopular compromises -- namely, Nelson's Medicaid deal -- came in the effort to round up those final votes. The bill's most popular policies -- like the public option and the Medicare buy-in -- were eliminated to placate conservative Democrats.

But instead of seeing this as an opportunity to scrub the bill of some of its more noxious concessions and restore some of the legislation's more popular elements, Democrats seem terrified by the prospect of, as some Hill aides have said to me, "cutting another deal." When you've defined "deals" so broadly as to include votes on legislation and then taken such deals off the table, however, you've also taken legislating off the table.

NBC/WSJ Poll -

Only 28 percent believe the federal government is “working well” or even works “okay,” versus seven in 10 who think it’s “unhealthy,” “stagnant” or needs large reforms.

By comparison, in December of 2000 — during the height of the disputed Bush-Gore presidential election — 55 percent said the government was working well or okay.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 5:31 AM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

Conservative ? Yes. Democrats ? No.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:13 PM   

"Senate Waffles"? Where's the news?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 8:21 PM   

The feckless "progressives" in the House are scrambling to find a way to pin the failure of HCR on Nelson et al

Won't work

If HCR dies, it will die in the House of Representatives and quite possibly Dem control of that body will die with it


It is no fun being a minority member of the House

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 6:42 AM    in reply to JohnMcCSF

Explain to me why the House members should trust the Senate democrats to do their part. I'd like to know the basis for said trust.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:16 PM   

The failure of HCR falls squarely on the shoulders of Obama and the senate Democrats, period.

They have, through their weakness, incompetence, corruption and stupidity managed to completely fuck this up.

I am through with the Democrats. They HAVE fucked up a wet dream.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 9:26 PM   

All this hate on Obama and the Senate when all the House progressives have to do to give us HCR is to get off their high horses and vote for the Senate bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 10:17 PM    in reply to OhioGuy

Yes. That's the most cogent comment in this chain.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 5:28 AM    in reply to OhioGuy

I completely disagree. If I were a member of the House democratic caucus, I wouldn't trust the Senate democrats to deliver anything unless it was in writing. Think about it. Think about the cowardice the Senate democrats displayed over the past year, for god's sake !

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 5:18 AM   

The Senate doesn't waffle, the Senate democrats waffle.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 8:17 AM    in reply to rbe1

What about Waffle House?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 27, 2010 8:52 AM    in reply to eggroll

No, I think this should be the new name for the White House.

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