TPMDC

Dems Brainstorm For A Way Around Health Care Impasse

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:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid are looking for a solution to the health care conundrum and are facing some tough realities. They know the House won't pass the Senate health care bill unless it can be sure the Senate will act on separate piece of legislation amending a number of its key provisions. And they know that many of these changes--particularly to the tax structure of the Senate bill--would likely only pass by circumventing a filibuster using the so-called budget reconciliation process.

The duo are working through a number of possibilities, including a new idea, floated by several House members, to expedite the reconciliation strategy. But, as always, nothing's as easy as it seems.

"There are obviously a handful of ideas that people are looking at," said a House Democratic aide. "We passed a student loan bill in the House. That's sitting over in the Senate. One idea that has been discussed is to, on that bill, amend it to address the concerns about the Senate [health care] bill, primarily the Cadillac tax, and the Nebraska [Medicaid] deal; have the Senate pass that under reconciliation, have that come back to us, we pass it, and we also vote on the Senate bill."

The nascent plan, which, according to House and Senate aides, is said to be of interest to leadership, has one major appeal. If the Senate acts first, then House members can be sure that their concerns with the health care bill will be addressed. "The House doesn't have to be reliant on the Senate voting to fix some of the House concerns with the Senate bill [later]," the aide says.

Procedurally, this might be tricky. According to Marty Paone--a budget expert, who has advised Senate leadership on reconciliation strategy--the student loan bill may not be a workable vehicle.

"That bill is not a revenue bill, only came out of Ed and Labor committee so it can't be used for tax provisions," Paone emails. He adds, "[T]he rules prohibit taking up a bill and turning it into a reconciliation bill. It has to be one that has met the House reconciliation instructions from the outset."

According to Paone, the House will have to act first. "I think the House will need to pass a reconciliation bill first with the [Nebraska] changes and other financing changes because some of them entail tax changes so it must originate with them. Then the Senate could act on it as a reconciliation bill needing only a majority vote. Ideally they negotiate all such changes ahead of time so the senate does not have to amend but rather just pass it and send to the President."

Which, if anything, goes to show that threading the procedural needle--which must be threaded if the Democrats are to resort to Plan B--is more difficult than it sounds.

Comments (44) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (0)

January 25, 2010 5:35 PM   

I think that the House is going to act first to pass a bare bill then it will have to pass via reconciliation via the Senate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:27 PM    in reply to Maritza

Did you read the article? The whole point is to come up with a way for the sidecar to pass first (erm, I guess it's really a frontcar?).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:04 PM   

Seems kind of silly to think that the Senate could vote to repeal parts of a bill that haven't even passed the House yet.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:28 PM    in reply to converse

Why? Obama doesn't have to sign them in the order they're passed.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:06 PM   

If the Democrats want to survive, they should pass the Senate bill as it is. Corrections to the Senate approach will have to come later.

Insisting on the Senate to act first to correct the bill prospectively will result in nothing at all being done.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:25 PM    in reply to eratosthenes8

If they want to survive, they have to pass a bill that people like. Which at this point means they have to do 2 things (in some order):

1. Pass the Senate bill
2. Fix the bill so people like it

This, in essence, is the sidecar reconciliation strategy. It's really quite sensible, which is why everyone's worried about whether they'll do it.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

January 25, 2010 6:30 PM    in reply to Jyrinx

Pretty sure the sidecar reconciliation strategy has nothing to do with people "like" the bill. It's going to be addressing a bunch of arcane loopholes which the House has excellent reason to be concerned about but which will be completely abstract to most people unless they are a member of certain specific labor unions. I think really to the extent there's public support for the sidecar strategy it's mostly about saving face for "progressives" who just want to be able to walk away saying they won something.

The sidecar's worth pursuing but you're gonna have a damn hard time afterward explaining what the difference was.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:42 PM    in reply to mcc

No, the fixes to the excise tax were quite substantial; in particular, they raised the threshold at which taxation kicks in. That's a concrete number that could be spun to great effect.

Also, we don't know exactly what was being hashed out in the pseudo-conference, but it's not unreasonable to expect that they would've lowered the age rating from 3:1 (from the Senate bill) to 2:1 (from the House bill), which is great for seniors.

A national exchange would be way more effective than lots of tiny state-based ones (though that's a harder policy point to sell in a 30-second ad).

Finally, if they really know what they're doing (not holding my breath), they'll add a public option in the sidecar. Supposedly there have always been 51 votes (at least the 60-vote threshold was always the given rationale for dropping it), and a public option makes the whole bill way more popular.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 7:51 PM    in reply to Jyrinx

I don't see how they can do age rating through reconciliation.

The public option is a bridge too far for the Senate at this point, I think. I agree that going strictly by polls it should be a no-brainer, but Democrats are running scared from anything that can be tarred as liberal right now.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:07 AM    in reply to SS451

Running scared is so god damned stupid. Give the majority what they want which is a Public Option. How the hell can you go wrong giving a sound majority what they want??? How the hell can you get reelected if you do NOT give the majority what they want???

Pass the Senate bill. Move it progressive through reconciliation. Get reelected. Done!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:07 PM   

This is the most workable strategy. All the changes the House wants are budgetary and so could pass under reconciliation rules. The hard parts that couldn't be done under reconciliation are already in the Senate bill.

But for crissake, stop diddling, already. It's the foot-dragging that got them into this situation in the first place.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:10 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

I'm with Goofy. My sentiments exactly.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 9:07 PM    in reply to Moose49

Cartoon Avatars for Action Now!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 9:13 PM    in reply to The Commenter Formerly Known as NCSteve

Ummm.... Yes We CAAN?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:22 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

If you support this strategy, call your senators to pass their bill. They have to feel the heat from their constituents, too.

Hopefully, this process works. And--yes--SOON.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 8:03 PM    in reply to mrut

I've called my Rep twice and each Senator once, and I will call them again tomorrow and the next day and the next. They are all Democrats, but even if they were Republicans, I would still call them and express my support for passing the Senate Bill.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 9:44 PM    in reply to barbara63

I've been calling Durbin. Tomorrow I will call Burris too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:31 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Co-sign.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:37 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

But for crissake, stop diddling, already. It's the foot-dragging that got them into this situation in the first place.

Yes.

At this point, Democrats remind me, strongly, of Wall Street. Tone-deaf and clueless. Although, actually, Wall Streeters don't bother to hide their greed and avarice.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 7:58 PM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Yes, co-sign here too.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:20 AM    in reply to mans_best_friend

Yes, and diddling would include sitting around marvelling about how amazing complicated this is. Just do it!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:14 PM   

Democrats brainstorming. Should be a short meeting.

Jeezuz, what a disappointing bunch.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:22 PM   

Wait, what's more difficult than it sounds? They negotiate the changes (as they had already started doing), then they write them down as a House budget reconciliation bill, it passes, then they pass it in the Senate. Sure, it'll need to be negotiated carefully to be sure it gets 50 votes (plus Biden) in the Senate, but it's not rocket science.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:26 PM    in reply to Jyrinx

Pass it while Robert Byrd is still alive, please!

All we need is another bout of mass hysteria when he does what all mortals must inevitably do and the Dems lose another Senate seat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:35 PM    in reply to mrut

WV governor is a Democrat.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:39 PM    in reply to mrut

As long as it's at least 50, but not 60, it doesn't matter.

Although to be honest, I would have thought Byrd's frail condition would have forced Dems to consider what to do if, heaven forbit, they lost him before they voted--so why were they so freaking freaked out by Brown's win?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:46 PM    in reply to CT Voter

This is what I can't figure out. Why did Congress completely lose its head when Brown won?

But FreeRider is right. In WV (unlike MA), the governor appoints someone to finish out the term of the deceased senator. Right now, WV has a Democratic governor whose term isn't up until 2012 (the end of Byrd's term, too).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 9:21 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Because they're Democrats in Congress. Because both the left and the right wings in both Houses bear responsibility for the way this thing has been dragged out. The right as they searched ceaselessly for a compromise that would suddenly make Republicans stop acting in bad faith while coming just short of inciting everyone else in the party to actual violence. The left as they fought for their unicorns and rainbows and moved with ever greater rage from one shiny object to another as each preceding one slipped from their grasp.

All of them were playing chicken with the other wing, trying to drag things out till the other side's will broke. Then, suddenly, with Brown's election, they finally had to face the fact that they'd fucked up and they freaked because they realized it was their fault. They sat there and bickered with each other over trivia, just like we did here, all the while ignoring growing barbarian horde outside the gates. They freaked because the alternative would have been to move forward, which would have required moving off their entrenched positions, which would have required them to at least implicitly admit they'd been wrong.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:23 AM    in reply to Jyrinx

This is an out-and-out flaw in the article. They would need to coordinate. So f**king what??

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

DP1

user-pic

January 25, 2010 6:38 PM   

Here's how to make it better, get everyone behind it and send it back to the senate and make the thugs filibuster:
-No annual or lifetime limits on coverage.
-premiums based on income, and strict regulation of this. No charging sick or old more than young & healthy.

- Annual caps on out of pocket expenses including, deductibles, co-pay's, medicine
-No rate can be raised for 5 years for new customers and only every 2 years for existing ones
-Rate increases capped at 1%
- Windfall taxes on financial and energy companies and repeal of the bush tax cuts for the rich - paid into medicare
-Minimum fine of $100k if a customer in good standing is dropped paid into medicare
-Cri m inal charges on the individual who makes the decision to drop a customer and the customer dies as a result.
-if customer is unemployed or has taken a pay cut, then they have to keep the premiums as is or lower them (back to the income based rates)

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 7:00 PM    in reply to DP1

Would that be gross income, earned income, or taxable income? If republicans liked progressive stuff (like taxation for example) we would have a fair taxing system. No repub is going to back anything based on income.

I like all your ideas, but I don't think they would pass because republicans will oppose ANYTHING in order to ruin the President.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:16 AM    in reply to DP1

Wow. I want to live in your imaginary world. If the Dems did all that they would be reelected in a landslide. It is so common sense to give average middle class/working class people the simple fairness that anyone understands. They are the vast majority of voters for Christ's sake! That will be the ticket to reelection. Please Dems! Do the right thing just this once! Win one with your heart and your mind together.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:44 PM   

Scrap the whole toxic bundle. Reconsider in 2012. And, uhh...Democrats "brainstorming"? Heh heh, right.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:11 AM    in reply to Sailormarlowe

Shutup.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:44 PM   

What I'm glad to hear is that we seem to be passing through the irrational reaction stage of either walking away or "trying" to do this another way that's bound to fail. Last week it was just "dead" and the House wanted nothing to do with. Over the weekend it was "it shouldn't be dead but the Senate sucks" and now we seem to have finally moved into "how can we get the changes to the Senate bill we want and still pass it"

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:48 PM   

I read all of the above, then found myself shuddering. What a horror show topic - "People Reduced to Relying on Senator's Brains" for anything whatever! I'm suppressing a scream!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 6:59 PM   

Look at Obama's comments leading up to thew State of the Union and it's clear that he's moved on from health care. It's all about a centrist package that can gain Republican votes.

http://www.political-buzz.com/

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 7:18 PM    in reply to jim43

Yup, it's back to the DLC strategy for the perpetual reign of plutocrats. They throw a few gold coins to the masses from their golden carriages and don't much bother about how many folks get run over.

This country is in the worst fix since the Great Depression fighting two unwinnable wars and the only answers they have is to trickle down a few itty bitty tax credits.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 8:36 PM    in reply to bluebell

And it makes no sense TODAY.

Clinton went all centrist because he had Republicans controlling congress. He had no options.

Obama still has big majorities. It's a totally inappropriate reaction, and speaks to some bad advice from old Clinton people.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 26, 2010 12:20 AM    in reply to AnswerFrog

Old Clinton people? Really? That man's charm and veto power saved this almost-a-democracy from complete republican domination in the last decade. I will be forever grateful.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 7:01 PM   

I don't think it is wise to buy anything coming out of Washington while we explore uncharted territory.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 9:53 PM   

"Brainstorm"? sounds like the ultimate oxymoron to describe the Dem majority. I DARE them to surprise me by showing a spine. Obviously Obama's out.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 10:03 PM   

Actually, I think this is good news. They're getting down to brass tacks. If things were going to hell, you'd be getting a steady stream of stories from members saying "this won't work" -- trying to kill the thing in its crib.

You heard a lot of that last week. Now, not so much. I'm cautiously optimistic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 25, 2010 10:20 PM   

The Democrats can't brainstorm their way out of a paper bag, so this is a scary prospect when it comes to a "health care impasse."

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