Healthcare reform bill clears U.S. Senate filibuster

[MattusMaximus]

Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)

Seems as if the two teams stuck to their guns. It was Dems 60 and Repubs 39 (1 didn't vote), with nobody crossing the aisle.

Now the actual debate will begin, without the threat of a healthcare reform killing filibuster. I think the GOP just lost their last, best chance to stop this thing and hand a big political defeat to Obama - good.

At least now we can move forward on this thing, and it's about damn time. I think we'll see a finished bill signed by Obama by about the end of January or beginning of February at the latest.

Let the rightwing whining begin :)

[KoihimeNakamura]

Doubtful. Reid has to do a LOT of political maneuvering to get votes and it's really unlikely it'll reconcile with the House version.

[XBoxWarrior]

Doubtful. Reid has to do a LOT of political maneuvering to get votes and it's really unlikely it'll reconcile with the House version.

On what do you base this statement?

Reid has already done some political acrobats to get past cloture. He got Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln and even that pesky Lieberman to come along...I would argue that these conservatives will be allowed to depart now, if they chose, and Harry will still have 50 to pass any bill...Biden is obviously a 'yes' vote.

I personally think the Senate bill is a much better jumping off point than the Stupak amended House bill.

[Sporanox]

Passing the bill into law is a very real possibility at this point. On the other hand, if that happens then the Blue Dogs have a good chance of getting voted out...heh.

I'll wait and see.

[JoeTheJuggler]

So after debate and voting on amendments to this bill, will it still need a supermajority to pass the floor vote from the Senate or just a simple majority?

I'm trying to count how many more times they'll need to get all 60 votes before this becomes a law. At least once more (after the bill is merged with the House version), but I think it might need 3 more times (to pass the current bill, again for cloture and floor vote on the merged version).

Meanwhile, what are the major differences between Reid's version and the version that passed in the House? It sounds to me like they're an awful lot more similar than they are different. (Though I suspect the current version won't pass the Senate. I predict it will take changing the public option at least to a triggered thing.)

[Thunder]

the final bill will have a public-option.

...with a 3 year or more trigger...and state's right to opt-out.

[JoeTheJuggler]

the final bill will have a public-option.

...with a 3 year or more trigger...and state's right to opt-out.
That sounds about right.

Do you know the answer to my question about the majority needed to pass? What I'm really asking, I guess, is whether they'll have to overcome another filibuster when it's time for the final vote, or did the cloture vote already clear a path for a final (simple majority) vote?

[Unabogie]

That sounds about right.

Do you know the answer to my question about the majority needed to pass? What I'm really asking, I guess, is whether they'll have to overcome another filibuster when it's time for the final vote, or did the cloture vote already clear a path for a final (simple majority) vote?

I think it's two more times. Once to "end debate", after which if it passes with 50 votes (+ Biden) then it goes to be merged with the House bill. After that, there is one more time to approve the merged bill (where there will be more debate and there could then be a cloture vote) and send the bill to President Obama.

[Thunder]

That sounds about right.

Do you know the answer to my question about the majority needed to pass? What I'm really asking, I guess, is whether they'll have to overcome another filibuster when it's time for the final vote, or did the cloture vote already clear a path for a final (simple majority) vote?

they will need 60 votes to get past the debating...so they can finally vote.

im not sure, however, if they can filibuster once the final compromise bill comes through. i sure hope not.

anyone?

[JoeTheJuggler]

I think it's two more times. Once to "end debate", after which if it passes with 50 votes (+ Biden) then it goes to be merged with the House bill. After that, there is one more time to approve the merged bill (where there will be more debate and there could then be a cloture vote) and send the bill to President Obama.

Sounds like it'd be 3 more, then. The merged bill would be re-introduced as a new bill, wouldn't it? (So they need a cloture vote to start debate and another one to pass the merged bill.)

[JoeTheJuggler]

they will need 60 votes to get past the debating...so they can finally vote.

im not sure, however, if they can filibuster once the final compromise bill comes through. i sure hope not.

anyone?

I don't see why not. That bill will have to be introduced as a new bill. (Similarly, the Reid bill is a merger of the two Senate bills that passed out of committees.)

ETA: I could well be wrong though. I dunno.

[Unabogie]

Sounds like it'd be 3 more, then. The merged bill would be re-introduced as a new bill, wouldn't it? (So they need a cloture vote to start debate and another one to pass the merged bill.)

No, the last cloture vote is called something like "motion to consider" and it needs 60 votes. It's not a new bill.

So I'm pretty sure it's only two more times. And really, it's just once, since if you get people like Lieberman and Nelson to vote for cloture on the Senate bill, it's almost inconceivable they'd filibuster the merged bill, assuming they already got their bribes...er...considerations.

[balrog666]

The was a procedural vote to allow debate and nothing more.

Several Dem senators stated they were voting only to allow debate and that the current bill would never be allowed to pass.

And that little gesture cost the Dem leaders (and US citizens) billions and billions in future appropriations.

[Policenaut]

Anywhere but Washington and this would be bribery. I guess it's no surprise. Washington has worked like this for a long time.

[SezMe]

Sounds like it'd be 3 more, then. The merged bill would be re-introduced as a new bill, wouldn't it? (So they need a cloture vote to start debate and another one to pass the merged bill.)
I don't think so. After conference, the bill goes back for an up or down vote; that's it. No more amendments, etc. I don't know if the filibuster comes into play.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)

Seems as if the two teams stuck to their guns. It was Dems 60 and Repubs 39 (1 didn't vote), with nobody crossing the aisle.

Now the actual debate will begin, without the threat of a healthcare reform killing filibuster. I think the GOP just lost their last, best chance to stop this thing and hand a big political defeat to Obama - good.

At least now we can move forward on this thing, and it's about damn time. I think we'll see a finished bill signed by Obama by about the end of January or beginning of February at the latest.

Let the rightwing whining begin :)

Does this mean we are officially a socialist country? Or do we have to wait until it passes first?

[Newtons Bit]

I don't think so. After conference, the bill goes back for an up or down vote; that's it. No more amendments, etc. I don't know if the filibuster comes into play.

They need 60 votes to end debate. That's technically what a filibuster has morphed into. Debate just started.

[Tricky]

I think the filibuster attempt was a bad move on the part of the Repubs. It makes it look like they don't even want to discuss it. It is a good thing that it got past this point. That means that it is likely that some form of health care bill will be passed into law.

And that's the main point. Things can be tweaked forever, but not until there's something to tweak. Once health care for all becomes a reality and people see that it's not going to end democracy as we know it, then it will be a lot easier to fix the parts that don't work. Of course it is always possible that the result will be a disaster (and I'm quite sure the Republicans will try to paint it that way) and we can make major "fixes", which might include a return to a system similar to what we have now. Possible, but unlikely, IMO.

Of course, I hope they get a pretty decent bill out the first time beause that will increase the chance that it will become a fait accomplis, with few people, even right wingers, wanting to ditch it completely.

[UNLoVedRebel]

Does the next vote need 50 or 60 votes in the Senate to pass?

[Newtons Bit]

Does this mean we are officially a socialist country? Or do we have to wait until it passes first?

I think we will officially be a dumb country. I can understand a UHC system. Everyone gets covered and there's efficiency through volume and decreased (I would hope) paperwork. But a government-run insurance company? WTF?

[JoeTheJuggler]

They need 60 votes to end debate. That's technically what a filibuster has morphed into. Debate just started.

So does this sound right?

Now (after Thanksgiving, that is) there is debate and proposing/considering/voting on amendments.

Once all that's done, it would take a supermajority to pass. Now if the cloture vote is technically just to end debate and allow a final vote on the bill, does that mean the official vote on the bill just requires a simple majority? If that's true, it would give the Blue Dogs some political wiggle room if they could vote for cloture but vote against the bill knowing that it will pass without their votes.

At any rate, Unabogie is right that it's really only one more vote in the Senate that really matters. But if the Senate passes a version without a public option, and the merged version doesn't have the public option, the big hurdle might be in the House.

[Unabogie]

I think we will officially be a dumb country. I can understand a UHC system. Everyone gets covered and there's efficiency through volume and decreased (I would hope) paperwork. But a government-run insurance company? WTF?

They've had one for 40 years called Medicare.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

I think we will officially be a dumb country. I can understand a UHC system. Everyone gets covered and there's efficiency through volume and decreased (I would hope) paperwork. But a government-run insurance company? WTF?

Medicare

[SezMe]

Once all that's done, it would take a supermajority to pass. Now if the cloture vote is technically just to end debate and allow a final vote on the bill, does that mean the official vote on the bill just requires a simple majority? If that's true, it would give the Blue Dogs some political wiggle room if they could vote for cloture but vote against the bill knowing that it will pass without their votes.
Yes, that is my understanding. As Newtons Bit said, the 60 vote hurdle is to end debate. The bill itself only requires a majority. And, yes, this might be the wiggle room the Blues need.

I'm quite pessimistic. Hell, they only got 60 votes to even OPEN debate. Some Blues say they will not allow a bill with a public option and some libs say they won't allow a bill without one. To split the middle with triggers or optin/out language will so weaken the bill that it just might as well be thrown on the trash heap.

And the public option is not the only hurdle. Abortion funding is another land mine.

What a mess.

[Sporanox]

Medicare

Medicare isn't supposed to pay for itself, IIRC.

[David Wong]

To split the middle with triggers or optin/out language will so weaken the bill that it just might as well be thrown on the trash heap.


That's absurd. The bill still ends the (deadly) practice of refusing coverage based on pre-existing conditions and cutting loose patients on technicalities as soon as they start costing the insurance company money. It still expands coverage to poor people currently not covered by Medicaid. It extends coverage to the vast majority of the 46 million uninsured.

I have no idea how the public option became the only part that matters with health care reform; I'm not even sure it would help (some estimates say public option premiums would cost MORE than what could be had on the open market).

If watering down the public option is what it takes to get a bill that saves freaking lives by making sure the uninsured get coverage, fine. It still will be one of the most important--and beneficial--pieces of legislation of the last 50 years.

[KoihimeNakamura]

Maximus: The fact that he had to spend somewhere on the vicinity of 300 million in 'bribes' to get it to a vote suggests that there is more logrolling ahead. And when they try reconciling, both sides will want what they got..

.. yeah, I'm being cynical

Also: Re fixing it later: the Dems are tearing apart some reforms passed after AIG fell by Bush so.. no I don't expect that to happen either.

[Beerina]

Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091122/ap_on_go_co/us_health_care_overhaul)

Seems as if the two teams stuck to their guns. It was Dems 60 and Repubs 39 (1 didn't vote), with nobody crossing the aisle.

Now the actual debate will begin, without the threat of a healthcare reform killing filibuster. I think the GOP just lost their last, best chance to stop this thing and hand a big political defeat to Obama - good.

At least now we can move forward on this thing, and it's about damn time. I think we'll see a finished bill signed by Obama by about the end of January or beginning of February at the latest.

Let the rightwing whining begin :)


So a piece of crap is better than nothing?

[Peephole]

Does the next vote need 50 or 60 votes in the Senate to pass?
60

[ponderingturtle]

60

Sort of. You need 60 people who are not trying to block it, only a simple majority of votes cast to pass.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Sort of. You need 60 people who are not trying to block it, only a simple majority of votes cast to pass.

And that point could be key for the Blue Dogs. They can tell the Dems they voted for cloture, but they can tell their conservative constituents they voted against the bill itself.

I don't think the political cost to "moderate" Democrats would be as devastating as some suggest if they pass some form of this thing.

ETA: There is also the "nuclear option". (My understanding of that is that the majority can re-cast the bill as a budgetary thing and then a simple majority rules. Is that about right?) I don't think anyone is seriously considering that route.

I think the only thing that might bring it up is if enough of our congresspersons think that the Catholic Church should be involved in the legislative process to the extent that they insist on their opinion (which runs counter to established law) be forced on the country.

[volatile]

I think we will officially be a dumb country. I can understand a UHC system. Everyone gets covered and there's efficiency through volume and decreased (I would hope) paperwork. But a government-run insurance company? WTF?

So a piece of crap is better than nothing?

Yeah... but you're only getting that "piece of crap" as a sop and as a stupid compromise because of all the ill-informed, knee-jerk reactionary whining against a single-payer, universal system that would work properly.

[jnelso99]

ETA: There is also the "nuclear option". (My understanding of that is that the majority can re-cast the bill as a budgetary thing and then a simple majority rules. Is that about right?) I don't think anyone is seriously considering that route.

The term "nuclear option" generally refers to doing away with the filibuster.

[Brainster]

Joe says no (http://online.wsj.com/article/SB125900412679261049.html?mod=WSJ_hpp_LEFTTopStori es):

Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a "public option," or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Mr. Lieberman says he won't vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.

[JoeTheJuggler]

The term "nuclear option" generally refers to doing away with the filibuster.
Yes, that would be the effect by setting a new precedent.

I was wrong about the technical argument for it, though. It doesn't involve casting the bill as a budgetary thing.

Here's how Wiki explains it:

The nuclear option is used in response to a filibuster or other dilatory tactic. A senator makes a point of order calling for an immediate vote on the measure before the body, outlining what circumstances allow for this. The presiding officer of the Senate, usually the vice president of the United States or the president pro tempore, makes a parliamentary ruling upholding the senator's point of order. The Constitution is cited at this point, since otherwise the presiding officer is bound by precedent. A supporter of the filibuster may challenge the ruling by asking, "Is the decision of the Chair to stand as the judgment of the Senate?" This is referred to as "appealing from the Chair." An opponent of the filibuster will then move to table the appeal. As tabling is non-debatable, a vote is held immediately. A simple majority decides the issue. If the appeal is successfully tabled, then the presiding officer's ruling that the filibuster is unconstitutional is thereby upheld. Thus a simple majority is able to cut off debate, and the Senate moves to a vote on the substantive issue under consideration. The effect of the nuclear option is not limited to the single question under consideration, as it would be in a cloture vote. Rather, the nuclear option effects a change in the operational rules of the Senate, so that the filibuster or dilatory tactic would thereafter be barred by the new precedent.

Again, the only way I see that possibly happening is if the abortion thing becomes a bad sticking point.

[DDWW]

And did congress still opted out of this very plan?

DDWW

[Kestrel]

Yes, that would be the effect by setting a new precedent.

Didn't the Republican opposition to debating the bill in the Senate already set a precedent?

The time honored tradition is to talk a bill to death so a final vote can't be held. But this is the first case I can recall where the same procedural tools were used to avoid even debating a measure.

[SezMe]

That's absurd. The bill still ends the (deadly) practice of refusing coverage based on pre-existing conditions and cutting loose patients on technicalities as soon as they start costing the insurance company money. It still expands coverage to poor people currently not covered by Medicaid. It extends coverage to the vast majority of the 46 million uninsured.

I have no idea how the public option became the only part that matters with health care reform; I'm not even sure it would help (some estimates say public option premiums would cost MORE than what could be had on the open market).

If watering down the public option is what it takes to get a bill that saves freaking lives by making sure the uninsured get coverage, fine. It still will be one of the most important--and beneficial--pieces of legislation of the last 50 years.
No, it's not absurd. Sure, all those nice things you cite are good things but they don't speak to the core issue that left and right agree upon, namely, that the USA has to do something to bring down the cost of health care. Without something like a competitive alternative to private insurance, costs will continue to escalate as in the past. In fact, even faster because those nice things have to be paid for.

[Thunder]

well, it sounds like only one final filibuster is possible. one to keep debate going on and prevent the Senate from voting. would Lieberman do that? keep the Senate from voting?

[JoeTheJuggler]

Didn't the Republican opposition to debating the bill in the Senate already set a precedent?
I think we're talking at cross purposes. I was talking about the "nuclear option" that would essentially forever end the ability of a minority to block voting (without a supermajority) forever. The Republican filibuster is nothing new or precedent-setting (at least not this time--it's been around a while).

The time honored tradition is to talk a bill to death so a final vote can't be held. But this is the first case I can recall where the same procedural tools were used to avoid even debating a measure.
Ah, I understand now. I'm pretty sure this isn't a new thing either. It certainly didn't require any change in the rules for them to do it.

[MattusMaximus]

Does this mean we are officially a socialist country? Or do we have to wait until it passes first?

You fool! We became a socialist country the moment we elected Barack Hussein Obama!!!11!1

Didn't you get the memo? ;)

[JoeTheJuggler]

You fool! We became a socialist country the moment we elected Barack Hussein Obama!!!11!1

Didn't you get the memo? ;)

I thought it was when FDR started the New Deal. . or when Johnson declared the War on Poverty.

Heck, it may have been when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Dern ol' socialist guvmint tryin' to tell us what we can and can't do!

[MattusMaximus]

Yes, that is my understanding. As Newtons Bit said, the 60 vote hurdle is to end debate. The bill itself only requires a majority. And, yes, this might be the wiggle room the Blues need.

I'm quite pessimistic. Hell, they only got 60 votes to even OPEN debate. Some Blues say they will not allow a bill with a public option and some libs say they won't allow a bill without one. To split the middle with triggers or optin/out language will so weaken the bill that it just might as well be thrown on the trash heap.

And the public option is not the only hurdle. Abortion funding is another land mine.

What a mess.

Don't be so pessimistic. The Dems know how important it is to pass some kind of health care reform this year, both politically and for the good of the country. They haven't come to within sight of the finish line to stop now.

And, by now, they understand (both the liberals and the Blue Dogs) that in order to get this thing to go through, everyone is going to have to play the give-and-take game.

And, at the end of the day, the GOP will be left out in the cold, looking like they never wanted any real reform in the first place. Good, it's what they deserve after all the crap they've been pulling on this thing. Though, for the record, I think there's still a chance that a couple of moderate Republicans (that endangered species) like Snowe & Collins could go for the final bill.

[Brainster]

No, it's not absurd. Sure, all those nice things you cite are good things but they don't speak to the core issue that left and right agree upon, namely, that the USA has to do something to bring down the cost of health care. Without something like a competitive alternative to private insurance, costs will continue to escalate as in the past. In fact, even faster because those nice things have to be paid for.

Not to mention all the distortions the bill would add to insurance underwriting. Nobody likes that pre-existing medical conditions aren't covered currently, but requiring that they be covered at no additional cost means that people who aren't sick have little incentive to get insured, since the moment they do get sick they can get covered. It's quite a bit like buying fire insurance for your house after it burns down and expecting the company to pay off your claim.

Or the requirement that health insurance for women be priced the same as health insurance for men. Or the requirement that health insurance for the older non-retirees (50-65 year-olds) be priced at no more than twice the cost for young workers.

In effect, this means that young, healthy men will be heavily subsidizing other people with their health insurance premiums.

[quadraginta]

I thought it was when FDR started the New Deal. . or when Johnson declared the War on Poverty.

Heck, it may have been when Lincoln signed the Emancipation Proclamation.

Dern ol' socialist guvmint tryin' to tell us what we can and can't do!


Nah. It was that pesky "Constitution" thingy.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Preamble_to_the_United_States_Constitution#cite_no te-0)
promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Recipe for trouble right there.

'Course, this didn't help matters any ...

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.


Put those two together and you're just begging for a bunch of commies to try stirring things up.

Bad idea from the get go. Can't imagine what the heck they were thinking.

[Newtons Bit]

Not to mention all the distortions the bill would add to insurance underwriting. Nobody likes that pre-existing medical conditions aren't covered currently, but requiring that they be covered at no additional cost means that people who aren't sick have little incentive to get insured, since the moment they do get sick they can get covered. It's quite a bit like buying fire insurance for your house after it burns down and expecting the company to pay off your claim.

Or the requirement that health insurance for women be priced the same as health insurance for men. Or the requirement that health insurance for the older non-retirees (50-65 year-olds) be priced at no more than twice the cost for young workers.

In effect, this means that young, healthy men will be heavily subsidizing other people with their health insurance premiums.

It means many young healthy men (like me!) will drop our current plans when our health insurance premiums double. Sure, my parents bills will go down somewhat, but I'm :rule10'd.

[JoeTheJuggler]

Nah. It was that pesky "Constitution" thingy.

:)

For the record, though, that second quote isn't part of the Constitution. I'm sure you knew that. . but far be it from me to let that slide! ;)

[quadraginta]

:)

For the record, though, that second quote isn't part of the Constitution. I'm sure you knew that. . but far be it from me to let that slide! ;)

Yes. Of course I did. That's why I didn't cite it as such. I admit to leaving a certain amount of ambiguity there, but I felt confident that vigilant historians would note the digression, as you did. :D

Those who were unaware of the multiple sources probably wouldn't benefit much from the enlightenment. :(

[rwguinn]

It means many young healthy men (like me!) will drop our current plans when our health insurance premiums double. Sure, my parents bills will go down somewhat, but I'm :rule10'd.

That's Ok. They are willing to tax me an extra 3500 bucks on my "Cadillac" health plan, that costs me (and my company) about 16K a year, and still has out-of-pocket costs of about 3000 per year...
(And exempt themselves and their staff from the same tax.)

[Newtons Bit]

That's Ok. They are willing to tax me an extra 3500 bucks on my "Cadillac" health plan, that costs me (and my company) about 16K a year, and still has out-of-pocket costs of about 3000 per year...
(And exempt themselves and their staff from the same tax.)

It's a win-win!

[Dr Adequate]

Not to mention all the distortions the bill would add to insurance underwriting. Nobody likes that pre-existing medical conditions aren't covered currently, but requiring that they be covered at no additional cost means that people who aren't sick have little incentive to get insured ... One of us has missed something.