[MetroMan]

Now to see if the Senate approves it...

I watched it live on C-SPAN and was ecstatic at the win. It's a major victory for Obama and Pilosi.

The problem here is that the Senate will make amendments and the differences will have to be reconciled by a committee of senators and representatives... and then voted again by the House. With such a narrow win now, will it pass again with the Senate amendments?

This is just the first step in a process that I think will end with a loss of a lot of the spirit of the original bill that was passed today.

Nonetheless, this is a historical day.

 

[MetroMan]

Unfortunately he doesn't have time. He needs to get this done this year. Once the year is over, Senators and Representatives will be in campaign mode looking to hold on to their jobs.

If Obama doesn't deliver on Health Reform by the congressional election, it's likely the Democrats will lose some seats making the already difficult task of passing the bill, absolutely impossible.

They'll have lost the opportunity of a generation and will have to wait until the next visionary President comes along with a majority in the House and Senate.

The imperative to get this bill signed by Christmas is overwhelming.

 

[MetroMan]

The Democrats in the Senate could pull a fast one and decide to vote on the House bill without amendments. If it passes, Health Care reform becomes law.

The Senate could do this by having back room agreements with the House to pass the House bill on the condition that the House agrees to propose amendments in the next session making changes that satisfy the Senate AFTER the bill has already become law.

Now that would be a nice strategy.

 

[Brandon716]

^I wished that were reality metroman, it won't happen though... As many of you know, what the House does is almost irrelevant in the larger scheme of things. The Senate can alter, block, and/or change any of the legislation. As many of you know, the Senate is where all the action is in the US, whereas the House is where all the action is in Canada. Here is a sobering article today... And f*ck Joe Lieberman. I cannot believe that he was Al Gore's running mate for VP in 2000. Joe disgusts me.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20091108/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul

House health care bill has nowhere to go in Senate

By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer – 35 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The glow from a health care triumph faded quickly for President Barack Obama on Sunday as Democrats realized the bill they fought so hard to pass in the House has nowhere to go in the Senate.

Speaking from the Rose Garden about 14 hours after the late Saturday vote, Obama urged senators to be like runners on a relay team and "take the baton and bring this effort to the finish line on behalf of the American people."

The problem is that the Senate won't run with it. The government health insurance plan included in the House bill is unacceptable to a few Democratic moderates who hold the balance of power in the Senate.

If a government plan is part of the deal, "as a matter of conscience, I will not allow this bill to come to a final vote," said Sen. Joe Lieberman, the Connecticut independent whose vote Democrats need to overcome GOP filibusters.

"The House bill is dead on arrival in the Senate," Sen. Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., said dismissively.

Democrats did not line up to challenge him. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., has yet to schedule floor debate and hinted last week that senators may not be able to finish health care this year.

Nonetheless, the House vote provided an important lesson in how to succeed with less-than-perfect party unity, and one that Senate Democrats may be able to adapt. House Democrats overcame their own divisions and broke an impasse that threatened the bill after liberals grudgingly accepted tougher restrictions on abortion funding, as abortion opponents demanded.

In Senate, the stumbling block is the idea of the government competing with private insurers. Liberals may have to swallow hard and accept a deal without a public plan in order to keep the legislation alive. As in the House, the compromise appears to be to the right of the political spectrum.

Republican Sen. Olympia Snowe of Maine, who voted for a version of the Senate bill in committee, has given the Democrats a possible way out. She's proposing to allow a government plan as a last resort, if after a few years premiums keep escalating and local health insurance markets remain in the grip of a few big companies. This is the "trigger" option.

That approach appeals to moderates such as Sen. Mary Landrieu, D-La. "If the private market fails to reform, there would be a fallback position," Landrieu said last week. "It should be triggered by choice and affordability, not by political whim."

Lieberman said he opposes the public plan because it could become a huge and costly entitlement program. "I believe the debt can break America and send us into a recession that's worse than the one we're fighting our way out of today," he said.

For now, Reid is trying to find the votes for a different approach: a government plan that states could opt out of.

The Senate is not likely to jump ahead this week on health care. Reid will keep meeting with senators to see if he can work out a political formula that will give him not only the 60 votes needed to begin debate, but the 60 needed to shut off discussion and bring the bill to a final vote.

Toward the end of the week, the Congressional Budget Office may report back with a costs and coverage estimate on Reid's bill, which he assembled from legislation passed by the Finance Committee and the Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee. The Finance Committee version does not include a government plan.

Reid has pledged to Obama that he will get the bill done by the end of the year and remains committed to doing that, according to a Senate leadership aide.

Both the House and Senate bills gradually would extend coverage to nearly all Americans by providing government subsidies to help pay premiums. The measures would bar insurers' practices such as charging more to those in poor health or denying them coverage altogether.

All Americans would be required to carry health insurance, either through an employer, a government plan or by purchasing it on their own.

To keep down costs, the government subsidies and consumer protections don't take effect until 2013. During the three-year transition, both bills would provide $5 billion in federal dollars to help get coverage for people with medical problems who are turned down by private insurers.

Both House and Senate would expand significantly the federal-state Medicaid health program for low-income people.

The majority of people with employer-provided health insurance would not see changes. The main beneficiaries would be some 30 million people who have no coverage at work or have to buy it on their own. The legislation would create a federally regulated marketplace where they could shop for coverage.

The are several major differences between the bills.

_The House would require employers to provide coverage; the Senate does not.

_The House would pay for the coverage expansion by raising taxes on upper-income earners; the Senate uses a variety of taxes and fees, including a levy on high-cost insurance plans.

_The House plan costs about $1.2 trillion over 10 years; the Senate version is under $900 billion.

By defusing the abortion issue — at least for now — the House may have helped the long-term prospects for the bill. Catholic bishops also eager to expand society's safety net may yet endorse the final legislation.

Lieberman appeared on "Fox News Sunday," while Graham was CBS' "Face the Nation."

 

[kEiThZ]

And f*ck Joe Lieberman. I cannot believe that he was Al Gore's running mate for VP in 2000. Joe disgusts me.

I dunno. Lieberman has a point. From a Canadian perspective, certainly it's horrible that you guys don't have a public system. However, given the massive deficits in the US, it's a fair question to ask if such a venture is affordable. The US is after all, will be reaching third world levels of debt by the end of the next decade. Unless they are willing to accept increased taxes, I'd argue that real public health care will remain unattainable. Would the majority of Americans really be willing to accept the kind of personal taxation levels we have in Canada? I am really doubtful that they would. At least from what I've seen from the friends and relatives that we have in the States (quiet a few of whom are Democrats).

 

[Brandon716]

He doesn't bring up fair questions, his wife is the head of a lobbying effort to protect private health insurance and pharma interests. He's in total loyalty to them, and fillibuster is a procedural vote.

Lieberman is particularly bad because he was so warmly welcomed by Obama and Reid helped him retain his committee chairmanship and other seats and assignments. If this is the payback that Democrats get, he should be removed from the committees he's in as he isn't fulfilling his leadership roles in the Democratic caucus even if he's a registered Independent.

Why is this important? Because fillibuster is purely procedural. Joe Lieberman can vote to stop the fillibuster so the bill can come to a vote on the floor, but then vote personally against the health bill. This way he doesn't stand for something he's against, but he isn't blocking a vote.

Lieberman needs to be given a free choice ultimatum. Stand with the Republicans and fillibuster one of the most groundbreaking pieces of legislation in modern history and lose his committee status, or oppose fillibuster regardless how he wants to vote on the final bill's passage and stay within his Democratic leadership posts. It would be his free choice, but he doesn't deserve Democratic leadership roles and he certainly doesn't need to be Democratic chairman of the Homeland Security committee if he isn't voting procedurally with his caucus that gives him that power.

In any event, whether a public option lives or dies is completely up to the US Senate, its irrelevant what the House did at this point. The Senate can alter this bill as it sees fit.

^BTW, the reason why he doesn't bring up valid points is that the House health bill has been graded by the CBO to reduce the deficit. The public option isn't a taxpayer backed option, its a government administered program that only gets its funds from premiums it charges members who partake in the option.

I repeat: the public option is 100% deficit neutral as it doesn't draw from taxpayer funds.

That's why Lieberman is a lame guy with lame excuses.

 

[Brandon716]

delete

 

[kEiThZ]

Interesting comments Brandon. I sometimes forget that Lieberman is an Independent. I wonder how the Democrats square his opposition to their seminal piece of legislation with his leadership roles.

Personally, I don't think it's all that bad to go through without the public option. Just getting a framework into place would be an accomplishment. You can always add stuff down the road. After all, most countries didn't build their health care systems in one go. Even here in Canada, there is still debate over what should and should not be covered.

Sometimes I wonder if the Democrats are over-reaching to the point where this legislation could result in a Republican resurgence in a few years. Far better for the US and the world, for the Democrats to work under the threshold of public angst and not provoke a return of the Republicans (in their current especially virulent right-wing reactionary form).

 

[Second_in_pie]

I dunno. Lieberman has a point. From a Canadian perspective, certainly it's horrible that you guys don't have a public system. However, given the massive deficits in the US, it's a fair question to ask if such a venture is affordable. The US is after all, will be reaching third world levels of debt by the end of the next decade. Unless they are willing to accept increased taxes, I'd argue that real public health care will remain unattainable. Would the majority of Americans really be willing to accept the kind of personal taxation levels we have in Canada? I am really doubtful that they would. At least from what I've seen from the friends and relatives that we have in the States (quiet a few of whom are Democrats).

The US doesn't already have 3rd World levels of debt?

But I agree. If US Healthcare already takes up 15% of their GDP (Canada is only 10%,) what'll things look like with the government taking up everything?

I dunno, but I'm getting a bad vibe about the future of the US. I have no doubt that it'll continue to be a world leader, but large parts of the US seem to be either degrading or falling behind. I'm curious as to what the country will look like through this century.

 

[afransen]

Interesting comments Brandon. I sometimes forget that Lieberman is an Independent. I wonder how the Democrats square his opposition to their seminal piece of legislation with his leadership roles.

Personally, I don't think it's all that bad to go through without the public option. Just getting a framework into place would be an accomplishment. You can always add stuff down the road. After all, most countries didn't build their health care systems in one go. Even here in Canada, there is still debate over what should and should not be covered.

Sometimes I wonder if the Democrats are over-reaching to the point where this legislation could result in a Republican resurgence in a few years. Far better for the US and the world, for the Democrats to work under the threshold of public angst and not provoke a return of the Republicans (in their current especially virulent right-wing reactionary form).

The Democrats are gutless. They should be punishing those people who break from the Democratic coalition by taking away their committee chairmanships and other perks. There is no incentive to stick your neck out for the party, as things stand.

 

[MetroMan]

Bill Clinton is giving the Democratic Senators a "pep talk" tomorrow.

He knows first hand how failing to pass health care reform, results in the Dems losing seats in the following congressional elections.

While the loud headless chickens protest the bill introduced by the House, studies show that an overwhelming majority of Americans (including Republicans) support Health care reform.

If Lieberman facilitates a filibuster, I really hope Harry Reid slashes him from the Democratic caucus and that his political days are numbered.

Let there be a vote. Don't muddle in technicalities to prevent the Senate -- Democrats and Republicans alike -- from exercising democracy on behalf of their constituents.

 

[Brandon716]

The Democrats are gutless. They should be punishing those people who break from the Democratic coalition by taking away their committee chairmanships and other perks. There is no incentive to stick your neck out for the party, as things stand.

The Democrats won't be gutless if they oust Joe Lieberman from his committee chairmanship. Its Joe's personal choice if he wants to remain in the Democratic caucus, but it wouldn't surprise me if he switches teams over it.

 

[Brandon716]

Interesting comments Brandon. I sometimes forget that Lieberman is an Independent. I wonder how the Democrats square his opposition to their seminal piece of legislation with his leadership roles.

Personally, I don't think it's all that bad to go through without the public option. Just getting a framework into place would be an accomplishment. You can always add stuff down the road. After all, most countries didn't build their health care systems in one go. Even here in Canada, there is still debate over what should and should not be covered.

Sometimes I wonder if the Democrats are over-reaching to the point where this legislation could result in a Republican resurgence in a few years. Far better for the US and the world, for the Democrats to work under the threshold of public angst and not provoke a return of the Republicans (in their current especially virulent right-wing reactionary form).

The framework for a public option isn't there if they don't pass it now, and there is zero political will to get it done after this crucial vote. Its the way the system is, it took 16 years since the last serious health reform package was voted on. Before health reform totally failed in 1993, the last serious reform happened under Richard Nixon some 20 years prior. That seems to be the health reform cycle: every 15 to 20 years. Although between Medicare's passage in the 60's and Nixon's introduction of corporate managed care (HMO's and PPO's) it was barely 10 years.

Hopefully this process has shown how the US system works... A bill begins in the House, goes to the Senate, both chambers put it through multiple committees, after all individual chamber committees approve their versions of the bill it goes to Conference Committee to be mixed together. It goes back to the House where it can either be voted up or killed. If its killed it has to be re-introduced, and this is the real power of the House. They can stop legislation before it gets to the Senate.

If the bill gets to the Senate then the US Senate can change whatever it wants after its passed from the House, and the Senate gets to vote on final passage.

Our bi-cameral legislature is smoke screened to make it look like we have popular representation when the only effective power the House has is to block a bill, they have no power to fully create a bill. They can just block a bill from being passed before it gets to the Senate and nothing more.

Since the US Senate isn't population apportioned, each state has equal representation and that's why Conservative viewpoints tend to win in part, the other part being the massive corporate pay-to-play system entrenched in American politics.

When Wyoming has equal say as California, and to run a campaign you have to sell your soul to the corporate devil and forget what people want, that's what creates our system. That's why we don't have universal health care in America and won't.

...this public option is not universal care, even though its an improvement.

 

[ganjavih]

From a Canadian perspective, certainly it's horrible that you guys don't have a public system.

It's not just from a Canadian perspective... most if not all developed countries have universal coverage of some sort.

 

[GenerationW]

If Lieberman facilitates a filibuster, I really hope Larry Reid slashes him from the Democratic caucus and that his political days are numbered.

It's Harry Reid, and he's too gutless to slash anyone, never mind someone with Lieberman's influence.