An effort spearheaded by Republicans to repeal the new health care law collapsed Wednesday evening after the Senate refused to ignore its adverse impact on the deficit.
By a vote of 47-51, the Senate sustained an objection to the legislation on the grounds that it does not comply with congressional budget rules. Because a full repeal of the law is projected to increase the deficit, waiving that point of order would have required 60 votes.
But even if Democrats had allowed a straight up or down vote on the amendment, it likely would have failed. No Democrats voted with the GOP to remove the objection, giving them fewer than the 51 they'd need to successfully repeal it. Republicans -- and, really, everyone else -- have been expecting this outcome for months. And while this blunts their head-on efforts at repeal, they've always expected that their best chances to destroy or chip away at the law will come either via the courts, spending bills or amendments to the law meant to weaken it.
One such effort, driven by Sens. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) and John Barrasso (R-WY) would allow states to opt out of the law's key provisions, which, they say, would cause the overall policy to collapse.
Top Democrats have suggested that if Republicans keep forcing votes on full repeal, they'll put the legislation on the floor, and during the debate, force votes on amendments to exempt popular aspects of the law. More....
Reconciliation gained new relevance on Tuesday, when Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said that unless the public option is stripped out, he's prepared to join a GOP filibuster of the health care reform package. Without Lieberman, Democrats would only have 59 votes to end a filibuster -- one short.
Majority Whip Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), who is in charge of corralling and counting votes, also said that reconciliation is still being considered. "The failsafe on this is reconciliation," Durbin said. "I hope we don't reach it because you can only do a limited amount of things on reconciliation."
Durbin was referring to the Senate parliamentarian's ability to strip out parts of any bill going through the reconciliation process that don't have a direct impact on the budget. (More on reconciliation here.)
But reconciliation is also a club that Reid can swing at conservative Democrats and Lieberman.
Read the rest at Huffington Post
POLITICO reports:
Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-CT) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.
Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will. Asked about Lieberman’s threat to filibuster a final vote on the Reid plan, White House press secretary Robert Gibbs said: "I haven't seen the report from Sen. Lieberman or why he's saying what he's saying. I think Democrats and Republicans alike will be held accountable by their constituents who want to see health care reform enacted this year.”
Lieberman said that he’d vote against a public option plan “even with an opt-out because it still creates a whole new government entitlement program for which taxpayers will be on the line."
His comments confirmed that Reid is short of the 60 votes needed to advance the bill out of the Senate, even after Reid included the opt-out provision. Several other moderate Democrats expressed skepticism at the proposal as well, but most of the wavering Democratic senators did not go as far as Lieberman Tuesday, saying they were waiting to see the details.
Lieberman did say he's "strongly inclined" to vote to proceed to the debate, but that he’ll ultimately vote to block a floor vote on the bill if it isn’t changed first. UPDATE - Be sure and take the time to read Marcy Wheeler's piece:
Hey Reporters??? It Might Be Worth Pointing Out Lieberman Is Stupid or Lying…
So here’s what Joe Lieberman claims the public option will do:
* Be costly to taxpayers
* Drive up premiums
* Involve cost-shifting to private plans
* Create an entitlement
* Increase the national debt
* Put more of a tax burden on taxpayers
As DDay points out, this is utter nonsense.
Lieberman’s justification on this is just nonsense – the public option would SAVE money for the government, to the tune of $100 billion dollars over 10 years according to the Congressional Budget Office. It also would cost nothing to the taxpayer, being financed by individual premiums. Now, there’s the possibility that if the public option was set at Medicare +5, there might be cost shifting, if you ignored challenges to that claim, if you ignored the way insurance companies will game the system to push high cost people into the public option, and if you ignored the many other ways the insurance companies will be cost shifting themselves once this system is set up.
But everything else Lieberman said is horse puckey. He is either completely ignorant about health care works (unlikely, for a Senator from Connecticut). Or, he’s lying his ass off as to his rationale.
Don’t you think the press ought to call him on that?
From TPM LiveWire
According to news reports, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid is sending the Senate's health care bill to the Congressional Budget Office today, and may unveil the bill publicly as early as tomorrow. MSNBC, Reuters, the Wall Street Journal, CNN, Fox News and the Washington Post are all reporting this timeline. The bill reportedly includes a public option, but states may opt out of the program. According to the Wall Street Journal, it also includes a $750 fine per employee for employers who don't provide insurance and whose workers receive government subsidies for health insurance. It will also prohibit insurers from dropping or denying coverage to sick patients.
Businesses would not be required to provide health insurance under legislation being readied for Senate debate, but large firms would owe significant penalties if any worker needed government subsidies to buy coverage on their own, according to Democratic officials familiar with talks on the bill.
For firms with more than 50 employees, the fee could be as high as $750 multiplied by the total size of the work force if only a few workers needed federal aid, these officials said. That is a more stringent penalty than in a bill that recently cleared the Senate Finance Committee, which said companies should face penalties on a per-employee basis.
These officials also said individuals would generally be required to purchase affordable insurance if it were available, and face penalties if they defied the requirement. Read it all at NYTimes.com
Single-Payer would be so much less expensive and less confusing... Keep telling your Senators and Representative that is what you want.
From Huffington Post:
A House committee has voted to strip the health insurance industry of its exemption from federal antitrust laws as senators announced plans to take the same step.
The moves Wednesday signaled a growing determination by Democrats to punish the insurance industry for its criticism of President Barack Obama's health care overhaul agenda. The House Judiciary Committee voted 20 to 9 to repeal a 1940s law that exempted the health insurance industry from federal controls over certain antitrust violations including price-fixing.
Lawmakers said they wanted to include the legislation in a larger health care overhaul bill taking shape in the House. In the Senate, Majority Leader Harry Reid announced plans to repeal the antitrust exemption as part of its health care legislation.
From David Waldman in a Comment at Daily Kos
If the bill comes to the floor with no public option in it, and the "deal" is that opponents are to be allowed a vote on an amendment that would add it in, here's what will happen:
- The "deal" will be a unanimous consent agreement that the public option amendment (and possibly other amendments) will require 60 votes to pass
- The public option amendment will garner majority support on the Senate floor -- say, around 55 votes -- but because Senators agreed unanimously that 60 would be needed, the amendment would fail
- The Senate would pass a bill with no public option, and would go to conference with the House to settle that difference (and all others)
- The House and Senate would vote on whatever settlement they reach in conference, and the fate of the public option would be in the hands of the conferees
Now, why would there be such a unanimous consent agreement?
- Opponents of the public option will threaten to filibuster an amendment to add it
- leadership on both sides will know that the filibuster will be useless if there are 60 votes to end it
- leadership also knows that ending a filibuster means:
- the trouble of conducting that filibuster
- filing a cloture motion which takes one day plus one hour (at minimum) to become eligible for a vote on it.
- the trouble of running out the clock on the 30 hours of post-cloture debate permitted by the rules
- So instead of going through all of that, they agree ahead of time to transfer the 60 vote threshold onto the vote on the amendment itself
Transferring the 60 vote threshold directly onto the amendment itself puts the amendment at no disadvantage relative to the hurdle of overcoming an actual filibuster, so in that sense it's not a concession at all. But it does relieve opponents of the public option amendment of the burden of having to go on record as opposing cloture on that amendment. Instead, all they have to do to require 60 votes to pass it is silently assent to a unanimous consent agreement.
Read the diary this was posted to, also by David Waldman: Remember the "Painless Filibuster?" See also: Is there a (scary looking) deal that can help the public option survive the Senate?
Must watch, if you missed this segment. Women who vote for these 30 Republican jerks really need to take a hard look in the mirror, or maybe their daughters' faces.
In The Nation, Emily Douglas provides some background info if you need it, along with a reminder of the bravery it takes for rape victims to speak out:
Upon hearing the amendment passed, Jamie Leigh Jones told the Minnesota Post: "It means the world to me...It means that every tear shed to go public and repeat my story over and over again to make a difference for other women was worth it." It's a reminder that rape survivors go public with their stories at a serious emotional cost, and the onus is on political leaders and advocates to make it worth what could be only in the most euphemistic sense be referred to as their while.
At the end of his segment on the bill, John Stewart tied it all up with a bow. Now we get it! Comparing this move to regulate government contractors to ACORN's frozen funding, he says, "You don't want to waste taxpayer money on someone who advises fake prostitute how to make imaginary crimes. You want to give it to Halliburton, because they're committing real gang rape. You cut out the middleman! And they say government doesn't work."
From Chris Bowers at Open Left
# In the House, the public option tied to Medicare rates has 200 confirmed supporters. However, that appears to include the leadership at this point. Further, the count will drop to 199 when Robert Wexler leaves Congress, and his replacement will not be sworn in before the health care vote. The CA-10 and NY-23 special elections will both take place on November 3rd, with the former guaranteed to send another public option supporter to Congress and the latter guaranteed to send a public option opponent.
Worth noting: Of the four dozen undecided and "lean no" members the Progressive Caucus is targeting at this point, half were first elected in 2004, 2006 or 2008. As such, it really shouldn't be difficult for the overall House leadership to pass a public option with Medicare +5% rates if they wanted to. If they want access to the party treasury for re-election, then they better not sink the policy aims of the overwhelming majority of the party.
# In the Senate, despite Lieberman's recent grumblings, everything I hear still points to Evan Bayh, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and Ben Nelson as the main obstacles to passing a public option. As leader of the Conservadems (looking in to increase power), as someone who voted against the budget (appears to oppose even the principle of universal health care), and as a scorned Vice-Presidential short-lister who shifted sharply to the right in 2009, Evan Bayh strikes me as particularly problematic. Check out this quote of his in the Politico, where he basically says he will join in a Republican filibuster against virtually any health care bill:
"It's not fair to ask people to facilitate the enactment of policies with which we ultimately disagree," said moderate Sen. Evan Bayh (D-Ind.). "So the closer we get to the end of the process, the more, for me, the process and policy will be one and the same." It isn't fair, eh? How about the fairness of the Senate elevating itself to unicameral status through its culture of 60-votes? Is it "fair" to use the filibuster to destroy the branch of Congress that actually has equal representation for the American people?
Now that the primary responsibility for health reform has shifted to Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, progressives are pushing him to get tough with conservative Democrats looking to delay progress of a unified Senate reform bill.
Progressive Caucus member Rep. Alan Grayson (D-Fla.) and representatives from the Progressive Change Campaign Committee delivered their respective petitions to Reid's office Wednesday afternoon. With some 87,000 signatures collected in the past week, the PCCC urged Reid to strip leadership powers from members of the Democratic Caucus who do not vote for cloture to prevent a Republican filibuster -- a clear shot at Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.), who chairs the Homeland Security committee and said Monday he "wouldn't rule out" allowing a filibuster to proceed.
Reiterating the urgent need for reform outside the Hart Senate office building Wednesday afternoon, Grayson didn't single out any congressmen or senators, but said he was baffled by continued delays given the Democratic supermajority and the cost of delay.
"Every single day in America, 122 more Americans die for lack of health insurance. That means that as we stand here in front of you right now, one or two or three more Americans have died because we have not acted yet," Grayson said. "I apologized to the dead and their loved ones for our inaction. Now it's time to move beyond that and get the job done."
Reid's deputy, Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), said the PCCC and Grayson ought to "count to 60 and understand we need to be together, and there are times when we need to work out our differences."
Grayson wasn't sympathetic to that argument Wednesday, noting that other Americans are paying the price while the Senate tries to work out its differences. Pulling a large American Journal of Public Health study from his jacket pocket, he said, paraphrasing the study authors, "You take two Americans who are otherwise identical in every single way -- same age, same gender, same race, same smoking habits, same weight -- you put them side by side, if one has insurance and one does not, the one without insurance is 40 percent more likely to die."
Read it all at Huffington Post
Update:
Reid pushed back Wednesday afternoon against the consensus that health reform is on him -- after Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), laid the fate of the public option in the Majority Leader's hands Tuesday night. "He would rather say anything so it wasn't up to him," Reid snapped Wednesday, en route to a meeting with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and Sens. Chris Dodd (D-Conn.) and Max Baucus (D-Mont.).
Dodd said he expects the Senate finance and health bills to be reconciled by the end of next week. "The Leader will set the agenda," he said.
Here is Schumer with the best plan:
SCHUMER: "Well, first, Leader Reid has the option of putting it in the final bill. If he puts it in the final bill, in the combined bill, then you would need 60 votes to remove it. And there clearly are not 60 votes against the public option."
From Bloomberg.com
Twenty-seven U.S. labor unions defied White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel and announced their opposition to the $829 billion health-care measure passed yesterday by the Senate Finance Committee.
The unions say in a full-page newspaper advertisement today that lawmakers need to make "substantial" changes to the bill or they will urge their members to seek its defeat on the Senate floor. Emanuel asked organized labor not to go public in opposition, said Gerald McEntee, president of the American Federation of State, County and Municipal Employees.
"He told us that we really don't want to be looked upon as the group that stopped meaningful health-care reform," McEntee said in an interview yesterday. "We would love to be on the exact same page as the White House, but we see ourselves as fighting for our members."
Members of the United States Senate stand for re-election every six years. Only one-third face re-election every two years. Out of the 33 senators who went through a rigorous campaign and heard from their constituents on a daily basis, eight are freshman Democrats. (Five more are freshman, but were appointed and did not campaign.)
The perspective of these freshman senators is valuable since they recently were out campaigning in their states and thus have a fresh perspective on what their constituents want. I would urge all senators to listen to what they are saying about the public option. Sen. Al Franken (D-Minnesota), Sen. Mark Udall (D-Colorado), Sen. Tom Udall (D-New Mexico), Sen. Jeff Merkley (D-Oregon), Sen. Kay Hagan (D-North Carolina), Sen. Jeanne Shaheen (D-New Hampshire) are all on board for a public option.
One freshman senator opposes a public option, but would vote for a bill with a public option in it. A spokesman for Sen. Mark Warner (D-VA) told Brian Beutler of Talking Points Memo that, "Warner would vote for a health care bill with a public option. It's not a make or break thing - he wants to see a health reform bill that contains costs, and if it includes a public option ... he would vote for it."
One freshman senator, Mark Begich (D-Alaska), is not on the record and his staff has indicated to Truthout that he would not come out in support or against a public option until he saw how it would be paid for in the final bill. The five newly appointed senators are all on board for the public option with Sen. Roland Burris (D-Illinois), even threatening to not support a bill that does not include a public option. Sen. Paul Kirk (D-Massachusetts), the newest appointee, is carrying the torch of Ted Kennedy. Every senator, especially those up for re-election, should heed the call of these senators who just went through hard-fought elections. Some of these senators come from traditionally red states, many from purple states, so the Blue Dogs should follow their lead. Senators Pryor, Lincoln, Lieberman, Landrieu, Bayh and Nelson (Nebraska), you, more than any other senators are standing in the way of real change. The other Blue Dogs, like Senator Warner and Senator Hagen, are putting the country first. At least commit to Senator Warner's position and pledge to not vote against a bill with a public option. If you can't do that, pledge to not support a filibuster, and vote your conscience when the bill goes up for a final vote. Read it all at Truthout.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) and Finance Committee Chairman Max Baucus (D-Mont.), once in polite disagreement over the idea of a public option component in healthcare legislation, are approaching a breaking point over the issue.
Reid and Baucus have staked out opposing positions on the central question of a government role in health reform — Reid has consistently stood in favor, but Baucus has consistently said the idea doesn’t have enough Senate support. Having deferred the issue to Baucus this summer, Reid signaled on Thursday that he is prepared to join Sens. Charles Schumer (D-N.Y.) and John Rockefeller (D-W.Va.), who both pushed a public option amendment that failed in a committee vote last Tuesday.
“We are going to have a public option before this bill goes to the president's desk," Reid said in a conference call with constituents on Thursday, as reported by the Las Vegas Sun. “I believe the public option is so vitally important to create a level playing field and prevent the insurance companies from taking advantage of us.”
On the same day, Harkin gave The Des Moines Register the same message, suggesting clearly that he will side with Reid against Baucus.
Read it all at TheHill.com
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-Nev.) gave Republicans his most direct warning to date that he is prepared to use a procedural maneuver to pass healthcare reform with a simple majority.
Reid told Republicans that he would prefer to pass healthcare reform under regular order but warned that he would not hesitate to use budget reconciliation if the legislation stalled in committee. The Senate Finance Committee began marking up a sprawling healthcare reform bill on Tuesday morning. Read it all at TheHill.com
In this letter, he states:
health insurance co-ops are not a real alternative to private health insurance and they are not a substitute for a strong public plan option, and we should not suggest to the American people that they would be.
Sen. Rockefeller did research on the history of coops and the applicability to the heath insurance field. He wrote letters to the National Cooperative Business Association (NCBA), the United States Department of Agriculture (USDA), and the Government Accounting Office (GAO) requesting detailed information about the current role of insurance coops in the heath care field.
In his letter to Baucus and Grassley, he describes what he found out as "astounding." Read it all at Daily Kos
Illinois Sen. Roland Burris served notice a short time ago that Democrats might have problems other than the Republican variety in getting health-care reform legislation out of the Senate.
Burris, a Democrat, announced that any legislation lacking provisions establishing a public entity to compete with insurance companies would not get his vote in the Senate.
Given that the new legislation unveiled today by Sen. Max Baucus lacks the so-called public option in favor of less controversial cooperatives, Burris’s decision could signal trouble from liberals in the Senate as well as in the House. Read it all.
We can't let this happen...
One of Barack Obama's chief allies in the United States Senate hinted on Sunday that a public insurance option could go by the wayside as Congress hammers out its health care legislation.
Appearing on CNN's "State of the Union," Sen. Dick Durbin (D-Ill.), one of the chamber's foremost progressives, said that while he supported a government-run option for insurance, he was "open" to alternatives. Read it all
|
