
So, what's next?
House Democrats celebrated a major victory late last night after they passed a sweeping overhaul of the nation's health care system while simultaneously approving a package of fixes to the measure. But it's not the law of the land, not yet. What happens next is both simple in that there's one major vote left. But it's a bit complicated, since President Obama actually will sign one bill and then wait for the Senate to pass the other.
Come along and I'll explain.
The House approved the Senate bill last night, warts and all. Those warts - a tax on high-end insurance plans, several special deals made for members of the Senate on Medicaid and abortion language that pro-life Democrats in the House weren't comfortable with - are removed through a budget reconciliation measure. That plan - which also passed the House last night - was the product of careful negotiations between the House, Senate and Obama administration and had the blessing of labor unions and many health care advocacy and interest groups. It also contained reforms to the student loan system.
Here's where it gets tricky. Obama on Tuesday will sign the Senate-passed bill, clearing the way procedurally for Senators to begin debate on the reconciliation fix. The whole thing made House Democrats very nervous since that meant trusting the Senate would actually fix the bits they didn't like. But Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid showed House Democrats a letter signed by members of his caucus proving they had the votes to pass the reconciliation measure on an up-or-down vote. That paved the way for Sunday night's House victory. Still with me?
The Senate parliamentary rules are that a reconciliation measure cannot be considered unless it is actually reconciling existing law. So Obama has to sign the bill before debate can start in the upper chamber. Senators have indicated they will start debate right after Obama signs the measure, and House Democrats said Sunday night they think the matter can be wrapped up within the week.
But the Senate is the Senate, and is usually about as fast as molasses. Reconciliation rules do limit the time for debate and prevent the type of filibuster that's become standard GOP practice over the last year, but it may be optimistic to think things will move along at a speedy pace. We're not sure yet.
In a statement last night, Reid said the Senate was preparing to "complete its work." Senate Democrats are planning an afternoon press conference Monday with Sen. Jeff Bingaman (D-NM) and several doctors and nurses groups to showcase what is in the health care reform legislation.
Republicans for weeks have suggested they might throw up blockades known as points of order during the reconciliation debate, but we're not sure yet how serious that threat might be. Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC), one of the most conservative lawmakers, said yesterday he will introduce legislation this week to repeal what he called a "health takeover." He claims the measure is unconstitutional.
We'll be tracking every development very closely. Keep an eye on our Countdown to Reform wire for the very latest.
C0mm0n5en5e
March 22, 2010 8:20 AM
Since the signing of the (hopefully) soon-to-be-amended Senate bill is going to be so muted, why wait a day?
Also, the "repeal it now" crowd is getting tiresome already. Almost like sports fans who claim the referees gave the game away to the opposing team.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
ivy22
March 22, 2010 8:35 AM
It is unconstitutional to provide health care through the existing insurance system? That is a very big stretch. Wouldn't going to war based on lies be a bit more unconstitutional?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Mr S
March 22, 2010 8:39 AM in reply to ivy22
The part DeMint et al. are going after is the individual mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 22, 2010 9:18 AM in reply to Mr S
Teabaggers and the step that wasn't there.
In reality how many Teabaggers are affected by the individual mandate? I mean they might not like the principle but from the looks of that crowd most of those people are already covered via either employer insurance or that 'Keep Government out of my' Medicare. Is there really a pool of rich, white people who are going to go to the mat because some 27 year old has to buy health care insurance against his will? How many over-50 folk freely choose to go uninsured? I'm 53 uninsured and like just about everyone my age has some medical issues. Maybe it is just that achy joint that may or not be arthritis, or whatever. But very few people my age think we are among the Invincibles, requiring kids to buy insurance in case they screw up ski-boarding or riding that Harley into a tree is not exactly Cosmic Injustice except to the fringiest of Glibertarians, mandates that fall only on other people are not likely to permanently raise your blood pressure.
And the same for the FirePups coming from the other side. I doubt that many of them oppose the principle of Universality, after all they are all for Single-Payer Now, they just think they are being thrown to the wolves that are the private insurers. Now that the deed is done and we can be able to start educating them about what is really included in the Acceptable Benefits Package, what the actual subsidy that applies to people at their income and what the real limits are on their out of pocket cost I am thinking a lot of air will come out of the indignation balloon.
There is some weird assumption on both sides that a bunch of people out there are freely of their own choice not being insured, as opposed to not even have access to it even if we wanted it.
Teabaggers and FirePups alike are anticipating being thrown into some sort of fire pit when in reality most of them will see no near term changes at all. Except for some pleasant surprises, like the lack of a co-pay on their next checkup (no cost sharing for preventative care) or that $250 rebate check if you are a senior who falls into the donut hole this year on Part D.
All during the time the bill was unpassed supporters were constrained by the reality that things could change, it was possible that really bad things would be inserted and that really good things would be eliminated, but now we have some concrete language to work off of. It is not a bad bill and we have six months to explain that to people, Republican dreams of riding this to massive electoral victory are chimerical, none of the vague fears they are spreading are going to come to pass. And even the parts of the bill that might seem hard to swallow don't come into play until 2014 and after while the sweeteners come in up front.
And watching the R speeches last night I think they know it, they went all in and lost.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
March 22, 2010 10:27 AM in reply to Bruce Webb
Ah. I think you may be missing what I believe is a central position for many of these folks: They are social Darwinists (completely ironic, since probably a large proportion of them also do not believe in evolution...I'm just saying...).
Read That: They believe in 1) survival of the fittest, combined with the concepts that 2a) providing health care to the genetically inferior keeps them alive and that 2b) this dilutes and/or pollutes the gene pool.
If you doubt this, just look again at their treatment of that dude with Parkinsons. This idea fully explains their behavior.
I believe many (most?) of them believe that if a person is too weak or crippled to work, as they have to, then this person is also too weak to be allowed to procreate their weak genes forward. With little doubt, those who are hunters among them (most of them appear proud of their guns) are firm believers that culling the herd of the old, the weak and the infirm keeps the herd strong.
These are, as they have always been, perfect corporate canon fodder to put out there on the front lines to keep their authoritarian leaders in power. This, BTW, is the exact thinking that lay behind the whole eugenics concept practiced by the Nazis. I know mentioning this link is supposedly radioactive talk, but that radioactivity does not cancel-out the parallels.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
hewhohasnoname
March 22, 2010 9:19 AM in reply to Mr S
Republicans were once supporters of the individual mandate. They promoted it as an alternative to Clinton's employer mandate.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
TheRealFish
March 22, 2010 10:07 AM in reply to ivy22
I believe I've heard the argument they're relying on the 10th Amendment as basis to prove providing any federal health care system is an unconstitutional imposition on states' rights. (A nice online version of the Constitution is located here, saving me from WALL OF TEXT time... .)
And, if you view only the 10th Amendment, it seems as though they have wiggle room for their argument.
However, I believe the Preamble was put there as a frame to wrap around and understand everything else contained in the Constitution. One thing they never, ever talk about is a single clause in the preamble: That it is the duty of our "we the people" federal government to "...promote the general Welfare...".
As the online Constituion site points out, "welfare" didn't come to mean the neo-spun evil things it now does until the neos spun out this dictionary rewriting. However, this is what it meant to the framers: "welfare n. 1. health, happiness, or prosperity; well-being. [ME wel faren, to fare well]."
Meaning? The framers stated in the Preamble that it was one of the responsibilities of the US government (we) to promote the health, happiness (and?/)or prosperity" of all citizens (the "government"). Shorthand? We're supposed to take care of each other. And, as clarified in later portions, with equal protections under the law.
And that includes promoting good health, which allows happiness and prosperity to follow.
Bottom line: I believe their argument if full of sh1t.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
fpie
March 22, 2010 8:36 AM
Not sure how serious that threat might be? If the GOPers can throw sand, monkey wrenches, stones or shit in the gears they will do so unto the ends of the world. Bet on it.
The Democrats better have some strategey that does not involve the loyal opposition getting tired, shamed or seeing the mythical light. This one is the big one for the GOP and contrary to their proffessed idea that passing will be the death of the Democratic Party they know it to be the chariot that the Dems will ride for fifty years. This is a blood war for all the marbles. The Democrats better know it and be prepared to live or die by this vote. Get on board or get out of the party!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
CityGuy
March 22, 2010 9:23 AM in reply to fpie
You are correct. This bill is a generational game-changer. You could see and hear the anguish in the GOPers. Agree: Ride this chariot Democrats!
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
just john
March 22, 2010 8:37 AM
I guess this gives Stupak another day to be a prima donna and perhaps shoot himself in the foot by breaking the deal. Then we'd have the Senate bill as the law of the land, with no changes. If Stupak does screw it up that way, one hopes Obama rescinds that executive order, or, if it hasn't been officially issued, that it doesn't get issued.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 22, 2010 8:41 AM in reply to just john
I don't understand what you're saying. The House is done. What does Stupak have to do with anything anymore? He has already voted, and doesn't get to vote again.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
just john
March 22, 2010 8:44 AM in reply to Zell
Sorry, I'd mentally promoted him to Senator. My bad.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 22, 2010 9:29 AM in reply to just john
The Nelson abortion language however odious is better than Stupak and the reconciliation bill doesn't change it either way. That is we already got the least shitty result passed into law.
The Republicans got nothing, the parts of the bill they and their corporate masters hate are already passed and will become law. Period. I just don't see any of the changes in the reconciliation bill that from their standpoint are worth going to the mat for. In the bigger scheme of things failure of this essentially supplemental bill just means people in Nebraska get a little extra pork. Somehow I don't see that pegging the outrage meter. What other provisions are so key that temporary failure would make this a deal breaker for Dems? I mean I support the higher subsidy levels and all but the big pieces are in and done.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 22, 2010 8:38 AM
Can we start with the "Republican Representative So-And-So voted in favor of the Cornhusker Kickback" ads, please?
And keep them up through election day?
Please?
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Bruce Webb
March 22, 2010 9:32 AM in reply to Zell
No Republican Representative voted for the Senate Bill that included the Cornhusker Kickback. Now if you are asking for ads against Republican SENATORS who may vote to not repeal it then your comment is coherent, otherwise you seem to be channelling your avatar.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Zell
March 22, 2010 10:07 AM in reply to Bruce Webb
Ummm, every single one of the Republican members of the House of Representatives just voted against a bill to repeal the Cornhusker Kickback.
I suspect that every single one of the Republican members of the Senate will do the same in the coming days.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kth
March 22, 2010 10:45 AM in reply to Bruce Webb
Just to clarify, the House Republicans unanimously voted against the reconciliation bill yesterday, the main import of which was to strip out the Cornhusker kickback and other particularly gamey bits of meat in the sausage.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Skybolt
March 22, 2010 8:40 AM
It wouldn't be unconstitutional to socialize the entire system, and it's not unconstitutional to make the kinds of far smaller changes that passed last night. Congress can pass necessary laws, they can regulate interstate commerce, they can levy taxes, and they can compel people to go along. The only scenario in which this bill is declared unconstitutional would be an entirely partisan vote by the Supreme Court that violates both precedent and the plain language of the Constitution. That is not impossible, as we know, but it's very unlikely.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Moose49
March 22, 2010 8:50 AM
As Josh has noted, Senate Democrats need to take this debate by the horns and frame it so you're either for the Cornhusker Kickback or against it. If you're opposed to reconciliation, you're for Nelson's sleazy deal.
After all, health care reform is now law. Voting against reconciliation won't change that. It will just mean a worse law than it could or should be.
Their messaging should be consistent and relentless.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
March 22, 2010 8:55 AM in reply to Moose49
+1. And let's not forget the Louisiana Purchase as well. Make the Thugs eat those deals- they're the ones now trying to make sure they'll be enshrined in law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 9:32 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The Louisiana deal is not being stripped out.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
March 22, 2010 10:02 AM in reply to FreeRider
I didn't know that- it's been misreported in a lot of places. Sad, but thanks for the correction.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
FreeRider
March 22, 2010 10:21 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
I have no objection to that deal which was done to compensate for the huge cut in federal benefits that went directly to the poor because of Katrina aid.
Here's an explanation of what that deal accomplishes and how it's applicable to any state in Louisiana's position.
http://blog.newsweek.com/blogs/thegaggle/archive/2010/03/21/why-the-louisiana-purchase-isn-t-a-dirty-backroom-deal.aspx
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 22, 2010 11:34 AM in reply to FreeRider
Click the link, read the article. It is orderless. It's called legislating, what legislators are supposed to do.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
kth
March 22, 2010 10:29 AM in reply to Steve LaBonne
The Louisiana Purchase, while indefensible, is a one-shot and far less egregious (fiscally and ethically) than the Cornhusker Kickback, which was a funding in perpetuity.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Steve LaBonne
March 22, 2010 10:43 AM in reply to kth
That I agree with. I can't regard it as an actually good thing but it clearly doesn't smell nearly as bad as Nelson's deal.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
UglyMoe
March 22, 2010 8:58 AM in reply to Moose49
Right on.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
enough already
March 22, 2010 10:10 AM
im not white. i dont like it. i dont havegood insurance. I ts hard to fathom when you pay cash for an mri you can pay 99 to 200 cash. On paper ins is 1500 or more for mri . also meds with out ins can be less expensive. by the way why does all the manufacturig is done in mexico. yet these meds are so expensive dont you thing meds are going tocost more. like the idea 400 dollars for a hammer.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
MasonMcD
March 22, 2010 2:26 PM in reply to enough already
I think if your MRI provider was to tell the Medicare auditors that they allowed someone to pay $200 vs $1500, your MRI provider would either be quickly fined, or be required to allow everyone to pay $200.
If you participate in Medicare/Medicaid, you can't arbitrarily charge different rates if someone is insured or uninsured.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lok52
March 22, 2010 3:23 PM in reply to enough already
Really? $99 - $200 for an MRI? Tell that to my local hospital after I had to have one to check for a possible brain aneurysm. No insurance, and on unemployment with a low income, so they kindly knocked off 60% of my bill. I only owed them $1400, at $50 a month. I make sure to thank everyone I know that is against HCR and has insurance, since their insurance bills are higher to make up for what I can't afford to pay. (Or rather, what I am not paying, I can't really afford the $50.)
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
barbara63
March 22, 2010 10:12 AM
Once Obama signs this Bill, isn't it a law? Even if reconciliation doesn't work, it's still the law.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
par4
March 22, 2010 10:23 AM
If reimportation of meds and a 'public option/non profit' for any and all isn't in the 'reconciliation fix' this bill should never have been passed.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Lok52
March 22, 2010 3:29 PM in reply to par4
Yes, you are right. It is much better for 10s of thousands of more Americans to go broke and/or die over the next decade, rather than accept a flawed bill that will improve their lives. I am sure you have heard the phrase about perfect being the enemy of the good. In politics, that is the most important phrase to remember, and I am glad so many of the members of Congress have managed to do just that.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
jeffgee
March 22, 2010 10:29 AM
Yesterday, a news teaser during the Simpsons (Fox) asked the question "will the new health care bill end up in the Supreme Court?"
I hadn't heard about that anywhere else yet. Maybe Waterloo DeMint or some other nihilist GOPer leaked to Fox News that he is going to try to get the Roberts court to overturn it.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Severus
March 22, 2010 11:49 AM in reply to jeffgee
Virginia Commonwealth Attorney General Cuccinelli has plans to sue. I read somewhere, and that 11 other states are lining up.
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62L32E20100322
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
dem4life
March 22, 2010 10:40 AM
Do white folks have any shame.....all over again
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 22, 2010 10:44 AM
Don't miss Paul Krugman's "Fear Struck Out" column today.
http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/22/opinion/22krugman.html?hp
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Joekuh
March 22, 2010 12:20 PM in reply to Brownbagger
I'm reading that very column now. The comments are almost as good as the article itself.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Ron Thompson
March 22, 2010 11:52 AM
So what if the Supreme Court throws out the individual mandate? That would just make it better, unless they throw out the whole law. It was only in there to backstop the prohibition on refusing coverage for a pre-existing condition: it's there to buy off the insurance companies. If forcing people to buy coverage from private corporations is declared unconstitutional, the only way to fix it would be through the power to tax and spend, by putting all uninsured people in Medicare or Medicaid and taxing them on a sliding scale based on income. Basically, you tax everyone for coverage by the government, and then provide a refundable tax credit of 100% of the costs of private insurance paid by individuals.
If they don't do that, then people will still be able to go without insurance until they need it, and then buy some, since the prohibition on refusing coverage for pre-existing conditions is obviously within the federal government's power to regulate interstate commerce.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
Brownbagger
March 22, 2010 11:55 AM in reply to Ron Thompson
Perhaps Obama is an evil genius after all.
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?
June 12, 2010 5:19 AM
Ah. I think you may be missing what I believe is a central position for many of these folks: They are social Darwinists (completely ironic, since probably a large proportion of them also do not believe in evolution...I'm just saying...).
Read That: They believe in 1) survival of the fittest, combined with the concepts that 2a) providing health care to the genetically inferior keeps them alive and that 2b) this dilutes and/or pollutes the gene pool.
If you doubt this, just look again at their treatment of that dude with Parkinsons. This idea fully explains their behavior.
I believe many (most?) of them believe that if a person is too weak or crippled to work, as they have to, then this person is also too weak to be allowed to procreate their weak genes forward. With little doubt, those who are hunters among them (most of them appear proud of their guns) are firm believers that culling the herd of the old, the weak and the infirm keeps the herd strong.
These are, as they have always been, perfect corporate canon fodder to put out there on the front lines to keep their authoritarian leaders in power. This, BTW, is the exact thinking that lay behind the whole eugenics concept practiced by the Nazis. I know mentioning this link is supposedly radioactive talk, but that radioactivity does not cancel-out the parallels.
m65 kamagra
Reply | Flag Abuse
Are you sure this comment violates TPM's Terms of Service?