Healthcare reform bill clears U.S. Senate filibuster

[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

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:

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.