THE TREATMENT MARCH 25, 2010
-
Read Later
READ LATERAvailable only to subscribers. SUBSCRIBE TODAY
-
Listen
ARTICLE AUDIO
- Font Size
The headline today is that the House must take one more vote on health care reform. But, don't worry, the news from the Senate is almost all good.
As you know, the underlying reform law, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care, is law already. That happened Tuesday, when President Obama signed the bill. At this point, the only questions is what happens to the bill amending the Act--the one that strips out the Cornhusker kickback, reduces the tax on benefits, raises the tax on wealthy people's non-wage income, and improves the financial protection for people buying coverage in the new insurance exchanges.
The House passed those amendments on Sunday, right after it passed the Affordable Care Act. The hope was that the Senate would approve it, without changing a word, so it could go straight to the president.
But the amendments are moving through the budget reconciliation process, in which the rules prohibit the Senate from considering measures that are not germane to the budget. Republicans had threatened to challenge provisions that looked suspect. The fear was that the Senate parliamentarian would rule out key sections, even though Democrats had already consulted with the parliamentarian (with Republicans present) to get a sense of what would, and wouldn't pass muster.
Well, the Republicans followed through on their threat. And the parliamentarian did, in fact, throw out two passages from the bill. But the passages were about Pell Grants. All of the health care provisions stayed in. The Washington Post has details:
Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said one of the deleted provisions was a technical item that he considered "as close to a 'nothing' as you can come around here." The second, more substantive provision would have set a formula for establishing maximum Pell Grant awards. But Conrad said the formula would not have taken effect for two years, giving Congress time to restore it in another bill.
Frumin deemed both measures to be out of order because they had no budget implications, Conrad said Thursday. The senator said no other Republican challenges to the legislation were still pending before Frumin, raising Democratic hopes that the Senate would take a final vote within hours.
Among other things, this means that a provision extending some basic insurance regulations--like bans on lifetime caps--to all plans remains part of the reconciliation package. (The original Senate bill exempted some existing plans from the requirement.) It's an important change and I, for one, feared it might not get through.
Senate leaders say they hope for a final vote today. Republicans may yet find new ways to delay its passage, but they can't, and won't, keep that up forever. The will to fight just isn't there. And while the ruling means the House must vote on the bill one more time, that should be relatively perfunctory. It's the same bill they already approved, minus those two minor provisions, and it's mostly features they sought in order to make reform overall more appealing.
Update: TPM's Brian Beutler has more on why the House should be able to pass the reconciliation bill, again, with minimal fuss.
5 comments
Since it has to go back to the House now, why not attempt to put a public healthcare plan into it? A public option commands majority support in the House; if it has 50 votes in the Senate (plus the VP), then now would seem to be the perfect opportunity to make it happen. We certainly won't have another chance for many years. And if there aren't 50 votes for it in the Senate, then nothing is lost by the attempt.
- rhubarbs
March 25, 2010 at 11:51am
But rhubarbs, wouldn't that mean starting over from scratch?
- Tgossard
March 25, 2010 at 12:27pm
Nope. It would be just another amendment to an existing law, and a relatively minor one at that. If it can be worded to satisfy the Byrd rules on reconciliation, then it would simply be part of the bill the Senate is sending back to the House, and the House can vote on it without amendment if Pelosi chooses. Since Republicans forced changes to the bill in the Senate, might as well give it a try. The public option was never an alternative to the Obamacare system of mandates; it was just another option for helping people fulfill the mandate.
- rhubarbs
March 25, 2010 at 1:51pm
Too bad the Democrats don't use the latest GOP maneuver against them. "The GOP was against the Cornhusker Kickback but now they're for it. They just believe in wasteful spending."
- tnmats
March 25, 2010 at 2:34pm
Well, that was quick. Reconciliation sidecar passed. Here's Krauthammer from March 6: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MTA0YWU2NjQzZTM3YjRmNDA4ZDk2NWNjNzQyYjlmYTY= So here we go. If this is going to pass, the House has to accept the bill that the Senate has passed as step one. Now, I have heard that some members of the House want to attach a provision that says that unless the Senate then fixes it with the sidecar — this fixing amendment bill — the bill passed in the House will stay in the House and never be on the president's desk, so it never becomes law. But I also understand that the parliamentarian in the Senate is saying that unless it [the original Senate bill] becomes law, you can't have the sidecar. So it's a catch-22. Now, if all of that is true, then what you have here is an issue of trust. Do the members of the House trust their own Democrats in the Senate? If it passes in the House — if it [the House] passes the Senate bill as is — what is the incentive, ultimately, for the changing of the bill in the Senate? It will stay as is. They [House Democrats] worry they are going to be left hanging high and dry. And there is an aphorism out of the House which I think is attributed to Tip O'Neill where he says . . . "The House Republicans are the opposition, the Senate is the enemy."
- bhunziker
March 25, 2010 at 3:15pm