TPMDC
Ping Pong: The House Prepares To Take Up The Senate Health Care Bill
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) with Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV)
Share
Send to a friend!
Democratic aides in both the House and Senate have confirmed to TPMDC that the House of Representatives will likely take up the Senate's health care bill, amend it, and send it back to the Senate for final passage--a process known informally as "ping-pong"--with the hope of avoiding the procedural hurdles that the more standard conference committee process presents.
Confirming a report that first appeared in The New Republic, aides say the process would mimic the conference committee in a number of ways, while at the same time closing out Republicans and streamlining final passage.
They also provided further details.
"Most conferences, everything's decided by the time you get to the table," one aide said.
In this case, instead of creating a final conference report that both chambers would pass, principals in both chambers would agree upon a package of changes to the Senate bill that passed on Christmas eve. The House would then vote to amend the Senate bill to reflect those agreed-upon changes, pass the legislation, and send it back over to the Senate for--they hope--a final vote.
In the past, Pelosi said she wanted to conference the bills, so that House members could have a greater say over what the final bill looks like.
But aides say the new way forward is not an uncommon process, which allows the House to have similar input, while offering up other advantages as well.
"This process cuts out the Republicans," said a House Democratic aide. Republicans will "not have a motion to recommit opportunity"--a procedural trick the minority can use to scuttle legislation in the House at the last minute.
Just what the House will demand in exchange for some of the major concessions it will have to accept--most notably the public option--have yet to be finalized, but should become more clear in the hours and days ahead. Under discussion going into holiday recess were fairly major issues, such as whether the exchanges would be organized at the national level (as in the House bill) or at the state level (as in the Senate bill), and whether to adopt the House's earlier implementation date.
House members will huddle in a caucus conference call later this week to sort out their priorities.
"This week is important in terms of finding out where House members are," the aide said.
Comments (56) | Join the Conversation!
Leave a comment
Follow us!
Most Popular
TPM Stories Now Surging on Digg.com
TPM Top News
© 2010 TPM Media LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Sailormarlowe
January 4, 2010 11:12 AM
Pelosi has a face that would have scared the hell out of Albrecht Durer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toxophilite
January 4, 2010 11:16 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Sorry you don't like her face. So?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 4, 2010 11:47 AM in reply to Sailormarlowe
And you have the sort of depth that wouldn't threaten a puddle.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
January 4, 2010 3:13 PM in reply to Dorn76
Amen!
I might add, of all the principal pols in this health care battle -- from Obama to Reid, Dodd, et all -- she's the one I trust the most, it's just that she's totally outnumbered by the corpordems.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 4, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
70 year-old woman found unattractive. More on this breaking story as it develops...
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
plan69
January 4, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Stroszek
actually she's not looking bad for 70.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
January 4, 2010 3:14 PM in reply to plan69
I agree
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
gharlane
January 4, 2010 3:22 PM in reply to Stroszek
I'd be damn happy if I looked that good at 70.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lousgirl84
January 4, 2010 12:36 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
I think she looks pretty damned good for her age and the stressful job she has. In any event, I'm sure she looks far better than you!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
midnight rambler
January 4, 2010 12:56 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Sure, she doesn't look great. But compared to Dennis Hastert?
Bet Sailorman's got the hots for Denny.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 4, 2010 4:37 PM in reply to lousgirl84
Sailorboy, alas, is too ashamed of its face to favor us with a picture (You know the cliche, "you get the face you deserve...")
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 4, 2010 2:23 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Anybody remember the "public option" IS THE COMPROMISE?
A bill without a government run plan in place to provide REAL competition, is just more corporate welfare.
Anybody remember what happened to their premiums when auto insurance was mandated? Mine has gone through the roof!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Miket53
January 5, 2010 5:10 AM in reply to JorgeOrwell
This "competition" is phoney. The government will set requirements for minimum coverage by private companies which will not allow them to be profitable and therefore eventually fold as insurance companies. Its in the bill. Therefore to be competitive they would have to become unprofitable. That is also why their claim "you can keep your insurance" is a lie. People demonize profitable insurance companies which is very odd because they are "private" companies and can charge/offer anythung they want. Its how capitalism works. People on the left create a belief that insurance companies somehow are breaking laws which they are not.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 5, 2010 1:50 PM in reply to Miket53
Not exactly sure what your point is??? Sounds like you agree with me. More competition is good, right?
Problem is, as it stands now, these companies don't have any Real Competition. They have been exempted from the anti-trust laws written by an Ohio Republican in 1890.
These laws prohibit...
1. agreements or practices that restrict free trading and competition between business. This includes in particular the repression of cartels.
2. banning abusive behavior by a firm dominating a market, or anti-competitive practices that tend to lead to such a dominant position. Practices controlled in this way may include predatory pricing, tying, price gouging, refusal to deal, and many others.
Unfortunately, THIS bill still exempts them, but forces you to buy insurance from them. Tell me, where is the competition? Is this the "Capitalism" of which you speak?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 5, 2010 1:57 PM in reply to JorgeOrwell
Regarding "Capitalism". I can't find one unified definition of the term. Here is an excerpt from Wikipedia on the subject...
"There is no consensus on the definition of capitalism, nor how it should be used as an analytical category.[1] There are a variety of historical cases over which it is applied, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[2] Economists, political economists and historians have taken different perspectives on the analysis of capitalism."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
OldenGoldenDecoy
January 8, 2010 11:11 PM in reply to Sailormarlowe
Feel like a whole man now?
My original post was removed. Simply for referring to you by using your given name.
Your given name is Richard Patel, right? So I assume you most likely go by the name Dick?
Perfect...
~OGD~
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
toxophilite
January 4, 2010 11:21 AM
Generally I don't think leaving out one side in a major discussion such as this is a good idea, even if you don't like what they have to say. The thought here is that they're representing real people with real ideas. In this case, however, it is clear that the Republicans have no intention of contributing anything constructive to the discussion. They've made this very clear. As such, I have no problem with cutting them out. Leave the discussion to those who want this bill to be the best it can be under the circumstances.
Actually, the "blue dog" variety of Democrat will represent the more conservative segments of America better than the Party of No in this case.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
January 4, 2010 11:24 AM in reply to toxophilite
Agreed. Dems should go for it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 4, 2010 11:26 AM
Sounds like a smart move. Still, the acid test will be what's in the final deal. A national exchange and earlier start date would be good (though they should move it to 2012 at the latest). So would something a lot closer to the House's employer mandate and the House's financing mechanism (or perhaps something midway that sharply reduces the impact of the Senate's "Cadillac plan" tax). In addition, I'd like to see a greater opening of the exchanges along the lines Wyden's proposed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Andreams
January 4, 2010 11:58 AM in reply to Moose49
Absolutely agree with you re Wyden. Additionally, if they keep the cadillac plan tax, they need to make allowances for older people. I keep hearing about unions having a problem with it due to the great benefits they have but they're ignoring the high price of average policies for us almost seniors. Whether it's a small business group plan or an individual plan, in my state they cost more than the allowed amount. Wyden, with ALL people able to be a part of the large risk pool, would solve that. Age rates should be done away with.
We can be charged 4 1/2 times the amount of a younger person and also a 50% increase on top of that if there are pre-existing conditions. The house bill charges us twice as much, which is reasonable. But Wyden is a lot better.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
January 4, 2010 12:26 PM in reply to Andreams
Excellent point. The biggest problem with the "Cadillac" tax is its cookie-cutter approach. A lot of plans would fall within the tax cost a lot not because they provide excessive benefits (whatever that might be) but because their workforce comes from a higher-risk demographic either because of age or because of the hazards of their profession (think miners or construction workers). In addition, if I understand it correctly, the tax is not indexed for inflation, which means that within several years, lots and lots of people will fall under the tax -- or their employers will reduce their benefits to the point where they are substandard.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 4, 2010 2:13 PM in reply to Moose49
Yes, I had read that, too -- that the "Cadillac plan" tax is not indexed for inflation. One of Bob Herbert's recent columns, I think.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LindaR
January 4, 2010 12:06 PM in reply to Moose49
"Exchanges" are already set up. Just let people join the federal employees' exchange.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Icon
January 4, 2010 11:32 AM
I don't think it's realistic that the House Republicans would manage to pass a motion to recommit.
Hell, if they really wanted to avoid that problem they could just have the Rules Committee write the special rule for the conference report such that it cannot be recommitted.
Still, while I think this approach will take longer, it's probably safer. By starting with the Senate bill and amending it rather than trying to merge it with the House bill, there's less likelihood of provisions getting in that the Lieberman/Nelson bloc don't like because the entire starting point is their bill, not just half of it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Reece
January 4, 2010 12:03 PM
I love it when government officials and/or congressional aides don't know the name of the process they're using. While 'ping-pong' is evocative, this process is generally called "navette" which, comes from the French word for the a weaver's shuttle, because the legislation similarly shuttles back and forth between the two houses. It's more common in other countries, but I can't come up with an example off the top of my head.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ondioline
January 4, 2010 12:09 PM in reply to Reece
Really?!?!?! That's your takeaway from this? You'd rather the quoted officials use an obscure French term for a weaver's shuttle rather than the (no less than) equally descriptive term that everyone else who has broached this possibility in the last several months has used?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 4, 2010 2:22 PM in reply to Reece
Dude, I think Congress banned the use of French terms back in 2002.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 4, 2010 12:04 PM
Good, do that, this fight needs to be over.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 4, 2010 12:18 PM
This is ridiculous. Our parliamentary system is completely broken. Just change the Senate rules, Harry.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 4, 2010 7:30 PM in reply to Stroszek
Change the Senate rules to what, exactly?
Senate rules can't trump the constitutional requirement that both chambers of Congress pass the same bill.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
January 4, 2010 12:34 PM
I mean seriously, who could have thunk it when the pro-shitty bill crowd was saying the House could fix the bill in conference?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 4, 2010 1:43 PM in reply to dijamo
The House is still going to be amending the bill ala conference. There won't be any substantive difference beyond circumventing a needed confrontation on parliamentary rules. I realize reading a whole article is kind of demanding on the sputtering mind of a PUMA, but you really should make a good faith effort before skipping down to the comment section to spew your usual dead-ender bile.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dijamo
January 4, 2010 4:53 PM in reply to Stroszek
Seriously? Did you even read the link where Pelosi said it was unlikely they'd use the ping pong tactic? I called bullshit then, and I call it again to the people who think there will be any substantive improvements to this shitty bill. Lo and behold, I was right. Nancy repeatedly caved to GWB and she'll repeatedly cave to Obama. It was just to stifle progressive criticism with false expectations of the House standing up to improve the bill in conference. Just like Obama said we could fix the mortgage cramdowns through bankruptcy court and it didn't need to be included in the stimulus package. Still waiting on that, and how many people are out on the street because of Obama & Congress' inaction? Obama fakes left and goes right. How many times does he have to do it before thinking democrats realize how badly they've been played?
This bill is pathetic, unpopular with Republicans, Indies and Democrats (not Obamacrats). When we lose seats because of it in 2010 (and Obama maybe loses reelection in 2012), it will be the fault of Obama's failure in leadership. Period.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
AnonymousCoward
January 4, 2010 7:37 PM in reply to dijamo
Whether it's a formal conference committee or an informal negotiation of what will be in the "ping-pong" bill, there's still going to be a negotiation. How exactly do you figure that the results of that negotiation would be different coming out of conference rather than coming out of the informal negotiation?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tom Dibble
January 4, 2010 1:56 PM in reply to dijamo
I don't recall anyone saying the senate bill could be fixed "in conference", for precisely the reasons cited above: anything changed "in conference" would be subject to the (overly conservative, both procedurally and compositionally) Senate fillibuster, so anything coming out of conference would have to be pretty much identical to the Senate bill.
The "fix it later" argument is that we have opportunities to enhance this reform with subsequent legislation, both in terms of speeding up the schedule and in terms of making it more comprehensive. As opposed to killing this bill, which would have halted health care reform efforts for another 16 or so years, just like the last time and the time before that. That's 16 years a lot of folks in this country don't have to wait on even a start for good health coverage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 4, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to Tom Dibble
Exactly. I was very unhappy with the Senate version after Lieberman and Nelson got through "enhancing" it, and I thought for a long time whether I though it was worth passing or not, but Paul Krugman and also a supportive article in the New Yorker convinced me it was worth taking what we could get for now, because it's still better than what we have, and it does at least provide a base from which to make improvements.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Richardxx
January 4, 2010 5:16 PM in reply to slb
I agree with both of you. The essential changes in the system are first community rating (with insurance rules reform) and second something very close to universal coverage. Get those and the new system can and will be amended as the worst aspects are demonstrated. Once established they can't politically be taken away.
There are going to be a of minor and relatively non-controversial patches possible once something is passed with those to things in it. The set of minor and relatively non-controversial patches to the existing non-system were used up years ago. There are no more small things that would improve the status quo.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
JorgeOrwell
January 5, 2010 2:06 PM in reply to Tom Dibble
Where do you come up with this "16 year" time table? This argument is pretty specious.
Most companies in this country acknowledge that we need reform with teeth that will bring down costs for everyone or this "experiment" we call the USA will fall apart.
Reform WILL happen or heads in Congress WILL roll.
Unfortunately, this bill has no teeth to bring down costs in any meaningful way, for those of us who actually own small business and form the backbone of this economy.
Again, I will use the auto insurance mandate as my example. Has anyone here seen their premiums go down or even stabilize under this mandate?
If so, tell me the name of the insurance outfit and state where live, I'd like to research that claim.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 4, 2010 12:50 PM
Not a peep out of those who always claimed such around here. I'm not shocked. Who is bullshit and hollow, that's what we've learned through HCR.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 4, 2010 1:39 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Not sure if this is what you're referring to but they're not bypassing input from the House, just working through parliamentary hurdles in a needlessly convoluted way.
But as always, I'm sure you won't let facts get in the way of being a narcissistic tool.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 4, 2010 1:51 PM in reply to Stroszek
Yes, I'm sure the bill will get more progressive. You knob sucker.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Stroszek
January 4, 2010 1:59 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I don't know how far it will go, but the bill will be amended just as if it went through conference. I personally think it's ridiculous that we're taking this route instead of just changing the Senate rules, but it's doubtful that the two processes would yield substantially different results... you useless sad sack.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 4, 2010 2:07 PM in reply to Stroszek
it's doubtful that the two processes would yield substantially different results
that I believe... you cheerleading spineless something or other
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
January 4, 2010 3:36 PM in reply to Indie Pro
Indie: I've generally agreed with you over the months of this debate and I am sickened by the White House and Democratic sucking up to the special interests in this bill.
That said, I have to agree with Krugman and others and sadly accept this quarter of a loaf because the alternative is even worse, and then continue to fight for more progressive changes in the future.
I don't know how far back you go, but I still remember opposing Carter and working for Kennedy on the grounds that Carter was too conservative and even if it cost the Dems the presidency, that the citizens first had to see how bad Reagan and the conservatives were for them before they would turn to progressive Dems in the FDR or Kennedy mold.
Well, I was young and naive and it didn't work that way; instead I got a lifetime of rightwing rule that has ruined the nation. Kennedy, himself, has said he wished he took Nixon's compromise on health care, and I agree with him. We need to get what we can and then push like hell for more.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 4, 2010 5:43 PM in reply to rwc
You mis-learned the lesson of Carter.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
rwc
January 5, 2010 2:00 AM in reply to Indie Pro
enlighten me if you see this response at this late date
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Dorn76
January 4, 2010 2:17 PM in reply to Indie Pro
I know, if a few people on the internet had wished for it a little harder, we'd have real reform.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 4, 2010 4:31 PM in reply to Dorn76
wished for it a little harder
Please clap...clap harder....I think it's working...Tinkerbelle is alive!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 4, 2010 5:46 PM in reply to Dorn76
if people would've actually cared enough to get involved, instead of fence sitting like you, maybe it would've been different. You chose to cheerlead instead. Now this is what I can expect from you.
I'm only sticking around to watch you fools twist yourselves into more interesting shapes as you continue to pretend Obama and the Democrats are liberal or progressive.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 4, 2010 1:24 PM
I'm still undecided about whether the bill should be allowed to include the restrictions on women's health care that are now in both bills. I hate to give up the health insurance reforms, but it isn't a good trade when you have to limit women's health care to get it. That should be the first priority, in my opinion.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 4, 2010 2:32 PM in reply to hoppycalif2
I don't like it either, Hoppy, not one little bit, but I don't think we have much choice. If we insist on more reasonable rules on abortion coverage, we'll end up with no bill at all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jollyroger
January 4, 2010 3:05 PM in reply to slb
on abortion coverage
The "opt-out" option on public expenditure is a terrific idea.
I would like to opt out of: !. My share of the war supplemental. 2. My share of the war on cheap drugs 3. My share of money going to "faith-based" subsidies to Yahwist nut preachers and all their works 4. My share of any crop subsidies to tobacco farmers 5 Fill in your own blank.
It it's legal for the rich , it should be legal for the poor.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 5, 2010 3:39 AM in reply to jollyroger
Yeah, I'd like an opportunity to carve those things out as well!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 4, 2010 10:27 PM in reply to slb
That is giving in to blackmailers when we say we have to give up coverage of women's health care in order to get some kind of improvement in health insurance. I think Reid should have reversed the stakes here and offered not to withdraw most of the federal spending in Nebraska, for example, if that state's senator would vote for the bill. Likewise, Lieberman should have been told he could remain a chairman of a committee if he would vote for the bill. It is hard to win a ball game when you play without gloves and spikes while the opponents use gloves spikes and leaded bats.
There are very few progressive senators who have enough courage to face down a mouse, and those that do have courage are not allowed any form of leadership position, so we are unduly handicapped.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
slb
January 5, 2010 3:38 AM in reply to hoppycalif2
You don't really think the Senate Democrats could have told Lieberman "Be nice and vote for the bill as proposed, and we'll let you keep your chairmanship," and made it stick, do you? I mean, how credible would the threat have been to take his chairmanship away after Obama had insisted on giving him one? And even if they had, that wouldn't have gotten his vote for the bill.
Sorry, Hoppy. When you don't have the cards and the other guy calls, you have to fold.
If there had been Republicans and Conservative Democrats who really wanted to see this bill pass, Democrats would have had some leverage. But they would have been perfectly happy with no bill at all. You can't make deals with people who don't want any deal to go through.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hoppycalif2
January 5, 2010 3:18 PM
I'm pretty sure every politician in Congress has something they want or need, that the leadership can provide. And, they also have something that they desperately want not to run into, and the leadership can learn what that is. Good Congressional leaders make it a point to know about all of that, and they use the information to get the last few votes they have to have for what they need to get passed.
Remember when the Repubs kept voting open for hours on one of their favorite bills, while the leaders "negotiated" with recalcitrant members to get them to change their votes so the measure would pass? Even though that violated the rules, they did get their bill passed and suffered no consequences by doing it that way. The Democratic leadership lacks the cojones to pull off something like that. Even though the Senate prides itself for being a well-mannered gathering of gentlemen, it isn't and never has been. It is a den of inequity, where the survivors are the fittest.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?