EMAIL SIGN UP!
Most Popular This Week
Popular content
Today's Top News
Reconciliation Bill Passes Senate
The Senate approved a package of fixes to the health care reform law Thursday, drawing to a close the chamber's year-long effort to overhaul the nation's insurance system.
House Rules Committee Chairwoman Rep. Louise Slaughter, D-N.Y. presides over a meeting of the committee to decide on the rules for the debate of the Health Care Reconciliation Bill on Capitol in Washington, Thursday, March 25, 2010, in Washington. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta) But the work isn't done quite yet.
The bill passed 56 to 43, with Vice President Joe Biden presiding over the chamber. Senate Republicans forced a pair of changes to the reconciliation bill overnight, sending it back to the House for a final vote later Thursday.
Democrats believe the minor changes - to language regarding Pell Grants for low-income students - won't derail House passage, meaning that Democrats are set to finally conclude the legislative struggle needed to make health reform a reality.
"We all made history," Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) told a group of Democrats on the floor, as they celebrated the vote. "We could do nothing else."
Three moderate Democrats voted against the reconciliation bill - Nebraska's Ben Nelson and the two senators from Arkansas, Mark Pryor and Blanche Lincoln. Lincoln faces a tough re-election fight this fall. Republican Johnny Isakson of Georgia is ill and wasn't in the chamber.
No Republicans voted for the reconciliation bill, just as no Republican voted for the underlying health reform law. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized the the measure until the end, saying, "It is the most unsavory sausage-making, Chicago-style bill I have ever seen."
He said the GOP mantra would be to "repeal and replace" the bill going forward. "We can't just have the status quo," McCain said.
The vote came as President Barack Obama took the stage in Iowa City, Iowa - his first stop since he signed the legislation Tuesday - hoping to promote the bill to the American public, which polls show is deeply skeptical of reform. He told Republicans he welcomed the chance to debate them on the merits of the plan, particularly if they insist on pressing for a repeal of the law.
"My attitude is: Go for it," Obama said. "If these congressmen in Washington want to come here in Iowa and tell small-business owners that they plan to take away their tax credits and essentially raise their taxes, be my guest."
The reconciliation bill makes a variety of fixes to the health reform legislation, which passed Sunday night in the House. It removed controversial deals like the Cornhusker Kickback and also pushes off implementation of an excise tax on high-cost "Cadillac" health plans until 2018.
The final vote on reconciliation in the Senate came with little drama - but it followed weeks of tough negotiations between House and Senate Democrats over what should be in it, and whether there would be the votes to pass it.
The top leaders in the Senate, Democratic Majority Leader Harry Reid and his counterpart, Republican Sen. Mitch McConnell, worked out a deal in the early morning hours Thursday to hold the vote at 2 p.m. - and it went off on time, with the final outcome not in doubt.
Sen. Robert Byrd (D-W.V.), the longest-serving senator, was wheeled into the chamber by an aide and shook hands with Reid before going to his place and waiting for his name to be called in the roll. There was a humorous moment when Reid's name was called and he said 'no,' before quickly correcting himself. He made the same mistake when the Senate voted on the overall health reform vote, on Christmas Eve. The chamber broke out in laughter.
Senate Republicans found two rules violations in the section of the bill on student loan reform, and Democrats were forced to strike 16 lines of language dealing with Pell Grants.
The House has already passed the reconciliation bill, on Sunday night when it approved the landmark health reform measure. But since the House and Senate must pass identical versions of the reconciliation bill to put the fixes into law, the reconciliation piece must go back to the House for a second vote.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) said her members would approve the package of changes later Thursday and send the measure onto the president.
"Of all the things they could send back, this is the most benign and easily fixed,' Pelosi told reporters Thursday.
The legislative path that brought the Senate to Thursday's vote was tortuous and politically risky.
The Senate spent months trying to write a bill that could win 60 votes. Democrats succeeded on Christmas Eve, only to lose their filibuster-proof majority a month later.
The White House and congressional leaders revived the bill after deciding on a two-step process - the House passing the Senate bill, followed by both chambers using fast-track rules known as reconciliation to pass a package of fixes. This was the only way House members would agree to approve the Senate bill, and the only way the Senate could make changes that the House wanted.
Reconciliation was fraught with challenges. But Democrats successfully scrubbed the bill of any potential procedural landmines, preventing Republicans from stripping out any major policy pieces that would have endangered its passage in the House or the Senate.
Democrats also held together during the more than 13 hours of amendments, turning each one back. While Republicans implored their colleagues to make changes, Democrats argued that any changes would send the bill back to the House for another vote, an outcome they worked mightily to avoid before the parliamentarian's ruling early Thursday. That meant Democrats had to vote against such campaign ad fodder as a provision barring sex offenders from being given Viagra.
Once Republicans struck two minor provisions from the bill, sending it back to the House, some liberals suggested that Democrats had one last chance to fight for the public option. But no senators took the bait.
Democrats insisted on keeping the bill as clean as possible so the House can give the measure swift approval - and that the party can be done with the health care debate once and for all.
Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a leading proponent of a public option, shook his head Thursday morning when asked whether he'd offer the proposal as an amendment to the reconciliation bill.
Senate Budget Chairman Kent Conrad (D-N.D.) said: "Everybody feels committed, feels we've done the right thing, knows that the things that are required to go back to the House are insignificant and the House has already told us, ‘No problem.' So we don't want to change that."
The drama playing on the Senate floor eventually became a battle of wills between Republicans and Democrats, with each side trying to outlast the other.
Reid finally adjourned the marathon session at about 2:45 a.m. Thursday after striking a deal with McConnell to reconvene later in the morning -- news that was greeted with audible sighs of relief from tired senators.
By the time senators filtered into the chamber Thursday afternoon, the final vote felt almost anticlimactic to Democrats who had expended so much energy to get to that point.
Not only had the comprehensive bill already passed the House with fanfare Sunday night, the fixes package still needed to go back to the House, robbing Senate Democrats of their moment to close the book on health care.
Lisa Lerer, Manu Raju and Carol E. Lee in Iowa City, Iowa, contributed to this story.
- Posted in
Comments
Note: Disqus 2012 is best viewed on an up to date browser. Click here for information. Instructions for how to sign up to comment can be viewed here. Our Comment Policy can be viewed here. Please follow the guidelines. Note to Readers: Spam Filter May Capture Legitimate Comments...

23 Comments so far
Show AllOf course Obama states he is willing to debate the Repugs. Obama and the Repugs have been a very effective tag team in enacting one of the biggest corporate welfare scams in history.
Notice how Obama never offers to debate Dr. Flowers, Ralph Nader, or anybody else who might actually address the facts rather than to keep piling the hyperbole ever deeper?
Some on the right insist this is the beginning of single payer:
http://article.nationalreview.com/429059/the-reality-of-obamacare/jonah-goldberg
The real progressives aren't ending their fight for single-payer. They don't need an Obamacare Trojan Horse to keep fighting. What does he mean by a more pure single-payer plan? He couldn't possibly be saying Obamacare is single-payer, could he?
Where does the right get their facts from?
"Insurance company ... now heavily regulated government contractors: Really? What a relief. Here I thought they were getting a guarantee on profits (Obama: They have a right to make a profit) and no limit to how high they can raise premiums. But, if that's called heavy regulation every corporation in America should glamoring to be under heavy government regulation. I haven't heard anything about CEO salaries being limited.
"Profit-hungry insurance companies were never the problem." Wendell Potter needs to set this guy straight.
Probably the only part of this that is accurate and upsetting, if it's true:
"The legislation allocates $10 billion to pay for 16,500 IRS agents who will collect and enforce mandatory “premiums.” Does that sound like the private sector at work to you?"
Don't bother reading Jonah Goldberg. He's proven many times over that he is brain-dead. He merely repeats lies told to him by others.
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? (Who will guard the guardians, watch the watchers, etc?)
Hello Tramaker,
A phrase I remember comes to mind. From their mouths to God's ear.
Nuff said.
Let's make it so.
Nothing would be more infuriating to the Riech than to have this be the camel's nose and for US to spur the camel into the tent.
Not that I want to agree with that NeoCon twerp, but, yes, this could be the first step toward National Health, if we take it that way.
Debate them? He won't even acknowledge their letters, or phone calls, or anything. Obama would be turned into a stuttering, stammering mess Ralph Cramden style by both Flowers and Nader. He wouldn't be able to bully them, either, as he does others, with snide little put-downs. Flowers and Naders could wipe the floor with Obama on facts alone.
Very true--Marcia Angell, MD too.
No mention of the OOOooopppss/Glitch in the wonderful Health Care bill. Turns out that we were either lied to..or no one bothered to read the bill before it was voted for or signed. Somehow, instead of the coverage for pre-existing conditions for children kicking in 2010..coverage doesn't happen until 2014. Same as the so-called "donut hole" fix for Medicare patients. The reduction of 50% off the cost for Brand name drugs also does not happen until 2014. This info seems to be missing from the MSM. However, Neil Cavuto and The Washington Examiner both covered the story a day ago. Neil asked the Democratic Congresswoman he interviewed..what else would be found in the bill that will be different than what we had been told.
http://video.foxnews.com/v/4122543/public-option-still-an-option?playlist_id=87249
FYI - I don't know if it's true but according to this article, the pre-existing conditions waiver for children starts this year NOT in 2014. 2014 is when it is estimated to begin for adults. We have to try to sift through the misinformation and find the truth.
Here is the article I am referring to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2010/03/05/DI2010030503080.html
once obama shed the hide of the lion of wizard of oz, he secured a win with the republicans. it is too bad that it took him a whole year to do it. he discovered that the guys across the isles are more fitting wearing it. one wonders whether he will remember this next time around.
Now its up to Health and Human Services to carry out the law.
Execution of this law will be crucial to Nov. election results.
There is no going back. However there is gains to be had going forward.
"Forward, the Light Brigade!"
Was there a man dismay'd?
Not tho' the soldier knew
Someone had blunder'd:
Theirs not to make reply,
Theirs not to reason why,
Theirs but to do and die:
Into the valley of Death
Rode the six hundred.
(It's amazing how often Tennyson becomes appropriate.)
Considering the claim by Carrie Budoff Brown & Meredith Shiner, confusing is the claim concerning "the health care reform law" towards which "the American public, . . . polls show is deeply skeptical of reform." This claim is bewildering in light of the polling data identified in the article "Polls indicate support for health care reform up since vote" @
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2010/03/25/
polls-indicate-support-for-health-care-reform-has-increased-since-sunday-vote/?fbid=xcaVLqnXAdQ
Posted: March 25th, 2010 06:30 PM ET. (Apology for splitting the URL for the article after ". . . 25/," but otherwise the CommonDreams mechanism drops the latter portion.) Significantly in any case,
"Support for the health care reform bill has increased as a result of Sunday's approval [of] the legislation by the House, according to three national polls conducted after the vote."
Concerning attitudes expressed in some comments to this article in this blog, relevantly,
"'Some of the difference is no doubt due to the fact, noted in several CNN poll, that some Americans opposed the bill because it was not liberal enough.' says CNN Polling Director Keating Holland. 'It's likely that people in this group still dislike the contents of the bill, but are pleased that a Democratic Congress got something done on this issue.'"
Considering this material, will somebody more astute than I in polling please explain Brown & Shiner's claim, "the health care reform law" towards which "the American public, . . . polls show is deeply skeptical of reform?"
USA Today/Gallup Poll. March 22, 2010. N=1,005 adults nationwide. MoE ± 4.
"As you may know, yesterday, the U.S. House of Representatives passed a bill that restructures the nation's health care system. All in all, do you think it is a good thing or a bad thing that Congress passed this bill?"
Good Thing 49%
Bad Thing 40%
Unsure 11%
To me, that looks like a 60% majority of Americans will be quite pleased to kick the Party of No from the Hill in the midterms, as the 11% probably are unsure as the biull didn't go far enough.
can you say "Super Duper Majority"?
It will be a wonder if ANY Rethuglicans survives...why reelected someone who has pledged to do ABSOLUTELY NOTHING BUT COLLECT THEIR PAYCHECKS???
USA Today-- corporate MSM.
No wonder why we have a dumbed down public--they read corporate media crap.
I sure hope Amy Goodman does not reference this MSM poll on Democracy Now or I will have to stop watching.
Statistics like that are content-free because the question itself is meaningless. It could refer to any outcome:
'...restructures the nation's health care system, expanding the reach of Medicare to everyone and adding vision and dental.'
or
'...restructures the nation's health care system, making it a federal felony punishable by 20 years in prison to provide medical care to anyone with a net worth less than $500K in 2010 dollars'.
All that question tested is whether people can be bamboozled and are polite.
"Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) criticized the the measure until the end, saying, "It is the most unsavory sausage-making, Chicago-style bill I have ever seen."
mmmmmm...I suddenly have a craving for a McCain's Savory Chicago Style Sausage Pizza....
coincidentally, a McCain's pizza has a slightly higher IQ than Senator McCain
Raydelcamino brought up that we won't see Obama offering to debate Ralph Nader and others who know the ugly truth about this issue. I was just thinking earlier about how Obama would've done in 2008 had Nader not been censored from the debates, as per usual, with scarcely an objection by anyone since 2000 by the way.
Media "spoiled" elections are why this compromise happened. Non-corporate candidates are withheld from the discussion, as per http://realitybeknown.com.
The real spoilers are the media outlets that limit debate. I think that should be where our focus should be. So long as we buy the "spoiler" myth, perpetrated by the spoilers themselves, we'll keep losing time after time.
"There are a thousand hacking at the branches of evil for one who is striking at the root." - Henry D. Thoreau
Imagine if 'progressives' buried the election myths of the media and had a thousand striking at the roots as opposed to the branches.
For the root of evil, perhaps Thoreau was referring to human nature--at least the weakness therein that leads us cooperate with it.
Real change will not happen with a compromise.The status-quo remains in place.
The practice of false change is safe with this bill.
"The difference between social service and social justice" is that social service "works to alleviate hardship" while social justice "aims to eradicate the root causes of that hardship."
- Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr.
The root cause of that hardship is the capitalist system itself and it's greedy little masters.
"Reforms, regulatory agencies and elections themselves are America's "Circus Maximus", mere flourishes on the veneer of democracy painted over the naked concentration of power accrued to the few who hold the reins of the corporate mechanism, the most stunningly efficient means ever invented for accumulating and concentrating wealth, which is then translated into political power." -
Vi Ransel
This is the first place I could find to post this
---------------------------
Individuals who don’t purchase health insurance may lose their tax refunds according to IRS Commissioner Doug Shulman. After acknowledging the recently passed health-care bill limits the agency’s options for enforcing the individual mandate, Shulman told reporters that the most likely way to penalize individuals that don’t comply is by reducing or confiscating their tax refunds.
Speaking at the National Press Club on Monday, Shulman downplayed the IRS’s role in enforcing the recent overhaul of the health insurance industry by claiming the agency would not aggressively target individuals who don’t purchase coverage. He noted that the health-care bill expressly forbids the agency from freezing bank accounts, seizing assets or pursuing criminal charges, but when pressed said the IRS would most likely use tax refund offsets to penalize those that don’t comply with the mandate. The IRS uses refund offsets to collect from individuals that owe the federal government a delinquent debt.
Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2010/04/05/irs-chief-buy-health-insurance-or-lose-your-tax-refund#ixzz0kLktF2kO
-------------------------------
It is, of course, the working poor who have those little refunds coming, because the withholding system means they're more or less forced to over pay their taxes through the year and then ask for the excess back when filing.
Thus it will be the working poor --too poor to afford insurance that they'll never be able to use-- who will have their tiny, desperately-needed refunds -perhaps the closest thing they have to savings- confiscated every year.
Theft under color of law.