TPMDC
Swallow It Whole! How Democrats Could Pass Health Care Without Coakley's Vote
MA AG Martha Coakley
Share
Send to a friend!
It's become conventional wisdom at this point that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid can't accept any major changes the House might make to his health care bill, because he needs to retain the support of all 60 of his members. But what happens if Martha Coakley loses her Senate race, and that number drops to 59--one shy of the threshold needed to stop a filibuster? There may be an out. Technically.
For a bill to become law, the House and Senate have to pass identical versions of the same legislation. Because the Senate already passed a health care bill, if the House just adopted it word for word, the President could sign it, and health care reform would be done.
Senate aides are aware of this backdoor, though they caution that it would create major political problems. House Democrats aren't exactly big fans of the Senate language, and wouldn't take too kindly to the notion that they should scrap all the hard work they put into their own reform bill.
"There is not a snow balls chance in hell that the House will pass the Senate bill," one top Senate aide noted.
That may or may not be correct. Faced with a lost vote in the Senate, the pressure on the House to pass a bill at all costs would be enormous. But Democrats are clearly focused on succeeding without losing Coakley's vote. Probably a better use of their energy.
As I noted here, once the House passes a modified version of the Senate bill, the legislation has to return to the Senate for yet more votes, which the GOP will surely filibuster.
Frustrated House leaders are coming to terms with the fact that Reid's hands are tied: he can't afford to lose a single health-care vote within his caucus, and, thus, can't veer too far from the bill he passed last month. That means there are very few changes they can demand to the Senate reform package. But unless Coakley loses, they'll certainly be able to demand some.
Comments (25) | 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.
docrocktex
January 12, 2010 9:50 AM
Or they could stop pretending they HAVE to have 60 votes to pass any form of legislation and go back to the days where a simple majority was sufficient. Let the "party of no" filibuster, and call their bluff for once!!!!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
January 12, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to docrocktex
Except that if the legislation doesn't get passed, moderates and independents are not going to care that the Republicans fillibustered it. They're going to blame the Democrats, since they're the party in charge.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
tatere
January 12, 2010 11:46 AM in reply to jdb316
They can dispose of the filibuster with 51 votes any time they choose.
They can still split the bill up and pass parts of it using reconciliation.
But that would require Violatin Tha Sacred Comity of Tha Senate! oh heavens. Health care is as nothing by comparison.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jdb316
January 12, 2010 9:59 PM in reply to tatere
Do you even understand the consequences of trying reconciliation?
1. The Republicans would have put forth so many amendments that it would have been hard to even keep 51 votes together for the entire time. You think they were obstructionist before? Just imagine what would have ensued if the Democrats tried to go around them. Say what you want about the Republicans - they stay unified.
2. The spending authorization for anything passed via reconciliation would have to be renewed after five years. If the Republicans took control of the Senate by then, or even just picked up a few more seats, that would be the first thing they would decide to let expire. And health care reform would be dead before it even had a chance to work.
I'm sure not crazy about the final bill either. But this is probably the best that can be done right now, given the political realities of the country, and the hard core progressives need to understand that. It's either start with this and hope to improve on it once the public has seen some positive benefits (and realized there was no boogeyman after all) or have to wait another 15-20 years before starting from the very beginning.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
celldumceen
January 12, 2010 9:59 AM in reply to docrocktex
The Dems don't have the political courage to do that!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
runfastandwin
January 12, 2010 12:16 PM in reply to docrocktex
YES YES YES. Make them actually filibuster, instead of just threaten.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
T Groan
January 12, 2010 10:06 AM
Thank God I bough insurance company stock!!! Go Democrats!!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
monet768
January 12, 2010 1:38 PM in reply to T Groan
Me too! They are on a roll
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Indie Pro
January 12, 2010 10:08 AM
talk about killing a party. The Baucus bill or nothing.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Tim
January 12, 2010 10:10 AM
Why is there a senate, and is that reason still valid?
At the very least, pass an amendment to the constitution that allows the house to override a 'senate veto' with 56% majority vote or something like that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
January 12, 2010 10:16 AM in reply to Tim
Interesting proposal, from a political science point of view. What is more likely to occur is, eventually, a further weakening of the filibuster rules in the Senate. Filibuster's are a procedural-and customary-practice in the Senate. What you propose would require a change in the US Constitution. Which is unlikely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
lapdogs
January 12, 2010 10:25 AM in reply to Tim
That's a great idea. The Senate is worthless and more out of touch with the people back home.
They keep saying the Senate of where legislation that gets passed by the House by big numbers goes to "Simmer". They need to change that phrase about the Senate being where Legislation goes to Die!!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steaming Pile
January 12, 2010 10:30 AM in reply to lapdogs
I hate to say this, but we really need to repeal popular voting for senators, and give it back to the state legislatures, most of which are not amused by the Party of No.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
January 12, 2010 10:57 AM in reply to Steaming Pile
Popular voting for Senators exists because the Senate was even more corrupt than it is now when it was controlled by state legislatures.
If state legislatures were put back in charge, they would promptly be bought lock, stock and barrel, as they were in the old days, by the same interests that control the Senate today.
To really change the Senate's behavior, we need two things:
1) Changes in the rules so that a majority can pass legislation, and
2) A change to population-based representation so that the most conservative 21% of the population no longer has a veto.
Unfortunately, 2) will never happen without a new constitution, which is, well, not too likely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
monet768
January 12, 2010 10:27 AM
PASS THE DAM THING WOULD YA!
WHO EVER DOESN'T LIKE IT THEY CAN TURN THEIR SOCIAL SECURITY CHECKS IN AND THEIR MEDICADE/MEDICARE CARD BACK TO THE GOVERNMENT.
YOO WHO
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Darrius
January 12, 2010 10:30 AM
They're still debating this?? Why haven't they passed it already. This fight needs to be over.
The House has no leverage, pure and simple. They are wasting political capital and precious time to build more. At the end of the day any bill that can pass will essentially be the Senate bill anyway.
They should stop wasting time. THIS FIGHT NEEDS TO BE OVER!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
madmatt
January 12, 2010 10:47 AM
At this point they can do whatever they want...nothing in either bill helps me in the least...and nothing prevents Ins co's from using my cash for private jets.
Thanks for nothing dems...at least now I don't have to waste a tuesday in November!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dal20402
January 12, 2010 10:58 AM in reply to madmatt
You mean other than the 85% loss ratio requirement?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Beetlejuice
January 12, 2010 10:52 AM
Gee! Just think! If the Senate democrats had pushed harder to make the bill easier for the public to swallow and followed the House's lead on it, HCR would have been law on Christmas Eve.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
bushwhacked
January 12, 2010 11:12 AM
It's no wonder Max Baucus has that shit eating grin. He has come to the realization to what he has cost our country and the damage he inflicted on meaningful health care reform. May the history books portray this money grubber for exactly what he is. A disgrace to this country. Sorry had a teabag moment there.
No no no, I can't take it back it's all true.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jana47
January 12, 2010 11:12 AM
Health Reform is about Saving the Lives of the 44,000 Americans who die every year because they have no access to health care. The Harvard Study and others are factul
Unfortunately in the U.S. this has no bearing on making sure we pass this bill to STOP THE DYING!
Those fighting this bill have made it about everything but SAVING LIVES!
Has Americans, some, become that uncaring and that cynical that what we see in this fight to IGNORE THE DYING has become common place in our country?
Human Rights Issues? Is this not one?
We rae the only Industrialized country in the world that doesn't provide health insurance/coverage for all its citizens
Republicans spent $5 TRILLION DOLLARS ON TAX CUTS FOR THE RICH AND HAD NO WAY TO PAY FOR IT AND IT WENT STRAIGHT TO THE NATIONAL DEBT
REPUBLICANS are whaling about STOPING HEALTH CARE AND CHOOSE TO IGNORE THAT THIS BILL IS ABOUT SAVING LIVES
The same 44,000 dying and paying taxes are paying their monthly checks to take care of their families, amazing
Media refuses to addres the real reason we need health reform because it doesn't get RATINGS!
Millions with health insurance have filed Bankruptcy because health insurance carriers did not pay significant portions of their claims forcing them to file bankruptcy another issue no one wants to talk about
Until it happens to those fighting this Life Saving Needed Reform they will never get it
Death PANELS? They already exist! 44,000 Americans are dying every year and congress has a chance to stop it but
The Republican party is only interested in GREED & RETURN TO POWER WITH NO IDEAS AND SOLUTIONS FOR FIXING THE MESS THEY MADE OF OURS AND THE WORLD'S ECONOMY
WHAT HAVE THE REPUBLICANS DONE TO HELP FIX THE MESS THEY MADE?
JUST SAYING NO WILL NOT RETURN THEM TO POWER BUT THEY THINK THE AMERICAN PEOPLE ARE CLUELESS ENOUGH TO RE-ELECT THE PARTY OF NO SIMPLY BECAUSE
THEY HAVE BEEN SITTING COLLECTING OUR TAXPAYER DOLLARS WHILE WE PAY THEIR PAYCHECKS
AND THEY HAVE DONE ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO EARN THEIR PAY CHECK
WHAT WOULD HAPPEN TO YOU AND ME IF WE SIMPLY WENT TO WORK EVERY DAY AND TOLD OUR EMPLOYERS NO!
IT'S TIME TO SEND THE REPUBLICANS A MESSAGE THAT WE WILL NOT ACCEPT THEM PLAYING HOOKEY ON OUR DIME!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FlownOver
January 12, 2010 12:40 PM
Nate Silver still has Coakley by >8%. Are we trying to scare ourselves, or what?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Weitberg
January 12, 2010 12:43 PM
Lieberman will filibuster if he isn't given the MA senate seat too.
TheWeekinRebuke.com
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
LuxVeritas
January 12, 2010 1:27 PM
A better option would be to leave in the public option and slam health care reform (at least the big sticking points like public option) through the Senate via reconciliation.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
willia451
January 12, 2010 3:00 PM
HIR is a dead issue. I would not be shocked at this point if nothing ever got to the President's desk. The House and Senate versions, in my mind, are irreconcilable. Potentially asking progressive and moderate dems in the House to "swallow it whole" is a bridge too far. They are never going to do that.
Besides.
The right and the elderly hate the entire concept. The left and labor doesn't support what Congress is offering (especially the Senate version). And the vast majority of Americans (the so called "moderate" center) are clueless to the true effects of HIR'S core provisions.
Where is the support for HIR supposed to come from? Thin air?
Either make it into something the majority of Americans can simply understand and support (like single payer or a form of it), or drop the effort.
As it is, we are wasting our time.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?