TPMDC

Labor Coalesces: Pass Senate Health Care Bill, But Only If It's Fixed Quickly

Spread the word. Share this article on Facebook!

Share

SEIU President Andy Stern

Share

Twitter Fark Reddit Send to a Friend

Send to a friend!

To email:    Your Name:    Your email:

The most influential labor organizations in the country have arrived at a common solution to the Democrats' health care conundrum: Move forward, pass the Senate bill through the House, but only if a separate, filibuster proof bill codifying a crucial changes is passed post haste.

"Step one: The House should pass the Senate's health insurance reform bill - with an agreement that it will be fixed, fixed right, and fixed right away through a parallel process," writes SEIU President Andy Stern at the Huffington Post.

Reform can work -- the Senate bill can serve as the foundation for reform and include at minimum the improvements the Administration, House, and Senate have negotiated. We cannot squander the opportunity to make real progress. The House and Senate must move forward together. And, there is no reason they cannot move forward together to make those changes through any means possible -- whether through reconciliation or other pieces of moving legislation.... There is no turning back. There is no running away. There is no reset button.

The AFL-CIO has a functionally similar, but tonally tougher take. "We don't want the House to pass the Senate bill as is," AFL-CIO spokesman Eddie Vale tells me. "It needs to be paired with a Senate [bill]--through reconciliation--that makes fixes."

Such a pairing, according to Vale, should be "simultaneous, or almost side by side."

Functionally, these are nearly identical positions. Vale says an outreach effort to disgruntled progressives and members supportive of organized labor is ongoing. "From the very beginning we have been discussing and communicating these decisions with members, progressives...and are of course continuing to do so now."

Unclear is how large a time lag between the two bills labor would accept. As to whether passing a reconciliation bill to amend the Senate bill is feasible, union officials see a ray of hope. "If the House passed the Senate bill, could reconciliation, that process, be used to fix things that might be improved upon? Yes," Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad (D-ND) told reporters today. "Would I support it? I can't know that without knowing what would be included in the package."

Comments (26) | Join the Conversation!

Recommend Recommend (1)

January 20, 2010 2:14 PM   

your step one sucks. I wouldn't trust this crew to pass anything down the road:

...those Members unwilling to accept the Senate version of the bill without changes, but concerned that they won't get what they're promised in the way of a fix, can hold final passage of the Senate bill hostage until the fixes are taken care of. And they'd be crazy not to, if there's any serious consideration being given to heading down a "fix it later" path.

And here's an additional procedural tip e-mailed to me by Jeff. If House Members are still skittish about voting for the Senate bill straight-up, even after securing a fix through reconciliation, they can use a little procedural trick called a "self-executing rule" (see this CRS report [PDF] for more)-- or at least a self-executing provision in a rule -- to take care of business. At the conclusion of the reconciliation process, when the House and Senate have both passed their bills and have agreed on a conference report settling any differences, the House may opt to include in the rule it adopts to govern debate on that conference report a provision deeming the Senate amendment to H.R. 3590 agreed to by the House. That way, when the House adopts the rule to allow the reconciliation bill conference report to come to the floor, it also agrees to the Senate bill it's amending along the way, just moments before beginning debate on the fix, and without ever having a separate, stand-alone vote on the Senate bill they don't like.

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2010/1/20/827478/-Can-health-insurance-reform-still-pass

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:29 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

That way, when the House adopts the rule to allow the reconciliation bill conference report to come to the floor, it also agrees to the Senate bill it's amending along the way, just moments before beginning debate on the fix, and without ever having a separate, stand-alone vote on the Senate bill they don't like.

What does this mean? That when they vote to bring the reconciled bill to the floor, they're also voting to approve the Senate bill which is still being revised?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:35 PM    in reply to CT Voter

Never mind. The President has caved, and wants Congress to wait until Brown is seated.

Way to buck up the base, Obama.

I'm throwing in the towel at this point.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:53 PM    in reply to CT Voter

I think there is a decent chance we'll see something like what is being discussed here happen.

Pass the Senate bill alongside a recon bill full of what should've been in the bill to begin with. Which is too bad, since a recon bill only lasts so long. So, I think it is far from a good idea to put those parts in a recon bill, but it is the only way forward.

Rahm has made a mess of the President's agenda. That I believe.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 7:36 PM    in reply to Indie Pro

The biggest fix is a delay in the effective date of the tax, which wouldn't be effected by the sunset (since the delay would end before the 10 year sunset).

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:36 PM    in reply to CT Voter

that's my understanding, though you might want to read the linked articles for yourself, to be sure.

here's the c-span article that goes over the process:

http://www.c-span.org/questions/week177.asp

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:15 PM   

The fact that is pushing for this route will make progressives get on board. The dye is cast. There is not the political oxygen to continue this for another 2-3 months. This is the only way it can and will happen.

Pass it, move on to the economy and jobs and spend the next 10 months selling it to the people.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:16 PM   

Yaaaay!! Andy gets it!!

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:29 PM   

OK. Just how is Congress going to get done AFTER passing the bill what it couldn't do beforehand? In other words, who will be holding the football this time?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:40 PM   

Somebody rush some SPINE to Barney Frank STAT


He always does this ..stomps off and pouts

Infantile

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:43 PM   

The split between SEIU and the AFL-CIO is functional not tonal at least from a practical political standpoint and that really is what this is all about...the policy objectives being the same

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:44 PM   

A lot of people are making hay about Democrats waiting for Brown to get seated, but I don't think 'Plan A" (Was that that the one where it gets rushed through?) was even feasible given time constraints. Plan B/Reconciliation is feasible, and I don't think it's really all that different from the two-opart way of passing a good health care bill; though there's no real good reason to make the House move before the Senate beefs up the bill. (and no good reason they can't go ahead and add the medicare expansion either) If the Senate is actually interested in keeping up it's end anyway.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 2:49 PM    in reply to Kevin Sutton

Exactly. "Plan A" was never going to happen. All it would take to kill it would be for one Senator to get cold feet.

It's much better to have a clear choice. "Plan B" or nothing. Unfortunately it's looking more and more like nothing as the day goes on.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

mcc

user-pic

January 20, 2010 3:08 PM   

All "labor" really cares about is their seven-year excise exemption to give them time to change their contracts. That's almost like tailor made for reconciliation.

I think these are some very reasonable statements, especially compared to the headless-chicken nonsense from a lot of the elected officials. Really I think the labor unions have done a pretty good job throughout this process of simultaneously pushing for strong progressive ends and acting like adults.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 3:27 PM   

Andy Stern knows how to run an important organization. On policy he 'gets it'. Maybe after all the finger pointing and bloodletting he'd make a good White House Chief of Staff. He'd sure do a better job than Rahm.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:13 PM   

Why and the hell does anyone listen to people that represent such a miniscule fraction of American workers and the American electorate. Unions represent about 10% of the workforce, and if you only count private sector workers, they represent a lot less than that. Giving them a seat at the table and acting like they actually matter by giving them a say on how the legislation should be shaped is pathetic.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 10:31 PM    in reply to masanf

Yeah right asshole. The organization that speaks for millions and millions of otherwise powerless average working people should shut up and what ...... let the corporations continue to fuck over little people until we really are just 5% rich owners and 95% poor slaves?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:14 PM   

This sounds like a good idea. Sicne there are few other options, why can't we jsut come together on this one.

Pass the Senate bill, and revise it thru reconciliation.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:18 PM   

And of course what would a statement by a labor thug be without commenters claiming, after yet another repudiation of the current health care bill, that "reform" supporters "get it". Because evidently "getting it" is a euphemism for "clueless" and "politically tone deaf". What the fuck has to happen for the people here to realize that the public doesn't want the Democrats' health care "reform" bill? You would have thought a loss in the most liberal state in the union would be enough. But then I guess that would be giving the densest among us too much credit.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 4:28 PM   

The sheer awfulness of what awaits Americans if the insurance companies once again succeed in putting themselves between you, wage earner, and your doctor, wage earner, and take every last penny out of each of your pockets will make today's evil practices pale by comparison. At least the "Cadillac" tax was designed to put a gap in the E-Z exchange of business profits for insurance profits, bypassing us and our doctors both, and having the money flow directly from one to the other -- while telling us we were getting "Cadillac" plans.

They saw what they could get away with when Clinton failed. Anyone remember how much better behaved they were before he failed?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 6:03 PM   

This is incomprehensible.
The last administration changed the rules of the game, and with a much smaller majority managed to do things that it wanted to do. At times they said that they had political capital to spend, meaning they had power entrusted to them to do what they could. Their base supported them.
Obviously this administration and this party has a much larger majority and thus much more power.
It's also obvious to everyone that the opposition is only interested in obstruction and destruction, not construction.
But with this 'mandate' they/we are not using our elected power to overcome the obstructive wall of the opposition, but we are rolling over and playing dead. This despite having the power and capability to do just what we claim we want to.
I don't understand it. We can rise up, otherwise we deserve our fate.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 7:36 PM   

That's it Andy. Get in there and fight for your 'special tax break'. After driving up the HC costs for everyone else, you sure do deserve it.

See ya in November.


Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 21, 2010 12:21 AM    in reply to Silence

That's right health care corporations, Get in there and fight for your anti-trust exemption. After driving up the cost of living and dying for everyone else, you sure deserve it!

See ya in Hell.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 21, 2010 7:02 AM    in reply to hollywood

They make a good team, don't they?

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 20, 2010 10:38 PM   

Hmmm... this might be politically viable, I'm just afraid it will take too long. But think on how it would actually work. The House passes the Senate Bill and a public option plus package via reconciliation. The Senate Bill goes to the president, who signs it into law. The reconciliation bill goes to the Senate... where it gets shelved.

Progressives gripe, Democrats in Congress start seriously running for reeelection.

Reply | Flag Abuse

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

January 21, 2010 7:36 AM   

I thought that I had made phone calls for, went door to door for, made campaign contributions for, and voted for "Democrats" who were going to vigorously and courageously represent the interests of the people over those of powerful entities driven by insensate greed and craven self-interest. Instead, I have helped elect, and tolerated to the end of my patience, a whole nursery full of cowards, cry-babies, whiners, and Mama's boys who crap their pants whenever some Republican dickhead says "boo". I guess we just need to work to elect more people from the Democratic wing of the Democratic Party who have some balls, and know how to use them.

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