Now that both the House and Senate have passed health care reform bills, all Democrats have to do is work out a compromise between the two versions. And it appears they’re not about to let the Republicans gum up the works again.
According to a pair of senior Capitol Hill staffers, one from each chamber, House and Senate Democrats are “almost certain” to negotiate informally rather than convene a formal conference committee. Doing so would allow Democrats to avoid a series of procedural steps--not least among them, a series of special motions in the Senate, each requiring a vote with full debate--that Republicans could use to stall deliberations, just as they did in November and December.
“There will almost certainly be full negotiations but no formal conference,” the House staffer says. “There are too many procedural hurdles to go the formal conference route in the Senate.”
One reason Democrats expect Republicans to keep trying procedural delays is that the Republicans have signaled their intent to do so. On Christmas Eve, when the Senate passed its bill, Minority Leader Mitch McConnell memorably vowed in a floor speech that “This fight isn't over. My colleagues and I will work to stop this bill from becoming law."
“I think the Republicans have made our decision for us," the Senate staffer says. "It’s time for a little ping-pong.”
“Ping pong” is a reference to one way the House and Senate could proceed. With ping-ponging, the chambers send legislation back and forth to one another until they finally have an agreed-upon version of the bill. But even ping-ponging can take different forms and some people use the term generically to refer to any informal negotiations.
Whatever form the final discussions take place, a decision to bypass conference would undoubtedly expedite the debate, clearing the way for final passage (if not signing) by the end of January. And, as long as both chambers still get their say, that's a good thing.
Yes, Republicans are sure to complain that they're being excluded from deliberations. But given their repeated efforts to block not just reform but even mere votes on reform, it's not clear why Democrats are obligated to include them in discussions anymore.
Follow Jonathan Cohn on Twitter: @jcohntnr
Print
COMMENTS (7)
I guess there are a couple of ways to look at this. One, Let's do it in secret because Republicans are obstructionists. Or two, let's do it in secret because the majority of the public is against it. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health...
I guess there are a couple of ways to look at this. One, Let's do it in secret because Republicans are obstructionists. Or two, let's do it in secret because the majority of the public is against it. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/other/obama_and_democrats_health...
The argument that "the majority of the public is against" Democrats' health insurance reform proposals is misleading. There are at least three very different groups who are opposed, or doubtful: (a) conservative Republicans, who are going to be against anything a Democrat would propose in this area, as they believe we just have to outlaw medical malpractice actions and everything will be fine; (b) leftists who find the absence of a "public option" unacceptable; and (c) genuine independents (some voted McCain, some voted Obama) who have misgivings about the expanding role of government generally and the growing debt, who have been inundated with propaganda from Faux News, etc., distorting the ... view full comment
The argument that "the majority of the public is against" Democrats' health insurance reform proposals is misleading. There are at least three very different groups who are opposed, or doubtful: (a) conservative Republicans, who are going to be against anything a Democrat would propose in this area, as they believe we just have to outlaw medical malpractice actions and everything will be fine; (b) leftists who find the absence of a "public option" unacceptable; and (c) genuine independents (some voted McCain, some voted Obama) who have misgivings about the expanding role of government generally and the growing debt, who have been inundated with propaganda from Faux News, etc., distorting the truth about pending legislation.
When an actual bill passes, the first group will, of course, be unalterably opposed. Their "Atlas Shrugged" ideology will not allow them to consider factual arguments.
The story will be different with the other two groups. Liberal Democrats who opposed the bill will nevertheless not want to let Republicans repeal it. 30 million new people covered, the end of arbitrary refusals, and other advantages of the new law will look increasingly good. Even without a public option, most liberals will want to protect the gains to be made under the legislation which is likely to pass soon.
As for moderate independents, they too will notice that, hey, there's no "public option". This isn't British or even Canadian-style "socialized medicine". Faux News and friends can get away with a lot of guff right now, as the legislation remains a set of proposals which change a bit from week to week. But once a bill is signed into law, Sen. Franken's observation that "everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own set of facts" will become increasingly relevant. I believe most genuine independents will come to see, over the next few months, that the new law, endorsed by the AMA and the AARP, is mostly positive, and bears little resemblance to the bugbear of Rush Limbaugh's imagination.
So the likely result by next fall is that the new law will be supported by a majority of those with an opinion (some people will want to wait a few years and see how it shakes out).
I am with baxter on this. In fact, most of the items that have the most popularity will come into effect right away, people who could not get insurance will be given megaphones, and the Republicans will have to explain why the woman with cancer really shouldn't have insurance. there is not a snowballs chance in hell this bill will ever be repealed, which is why Repubs are so desperate to kill it so that there shrieks that the sky will fall isn't shown to be total and absolute bullshit.
by the way, I noticed they are looking to sue to stop the bill from being put into effect. So much for their being against judicial activism.
I am with baxter on this. In fact, most of the items that have the most popularity will come into effect right away, people who could not get insurance will be given megaphones, and the Republicans will have to explain why the woman with cancer really shouldn't have insurance. there is not a snowballs chance in hell this bill will ever be repealed, which is why Repubs are so desperate to kill it so that there shrieks that the sky will fall isn't shown to be total and absolute bullshit.
by the way, I noticed they are looking to sue to stop the bill from being put into effect. So much for their being against judicial activism.
You're right, blackie and baxter. The Rethugs have no choice but to take it down before it's ever born. Once it's law, many sceptics and the independents will see that , even with its flaws, it's going to be so much better than what we have now. Which is basically zero for the unemployed and uninsured and almost nothing for the currently insured. Most of the country will finally have real options, the industry will be put on a short leash and Obama will have a major-league victory. What could possibly be worse for a conservative demagogue? The Rethugs give us less than a Hobson's Choice...the status quo or nothing at all.
By the way, judicial activism only exists when it's done by the o ... view full comment
You're right, blackie and baxter. The Rethugs have no choice but to take it down before it's ever born. Once it's law, many sceptics and the independents will see that , even with its flaws, it's going to be so much better than what we have now. Which is basically zero for the unemployed and uninsured and almost nothing for the currently insured. Most of the country will finally have real options, the industry will be put on a short leash and Obama will have a major-league victory. What could possibly be worse for a conservative demagogue? The Rethugs give us less than a Hobson's Choice...the status quo or nothing at all.
By the way, judicial activism only exists when it's done by the opposition. When it's my cause, it's called strict constructionism.
baxter, blackton and dog, thanks for your comments. For the record, I am an independent and very much support health care reform but do have my "misgivings", as baxter put it, about this bill. I'll not go into all those misgivings. Whether or not I eventually see the light, as you three have, remains to be seen.
I would like to clarify my post, which was not at all directed at the bill itself, but at the potential decision to bypass conference. Mr. Cohn attributes this to Republican obstructionism, and that may well be the answer. I was only pointing out that there could be another reason, that being lack of strong public support. It is simply an observation that politicians, when ... view full comment
baxter, blackton and dog, thanks for your comments. For the record, I am an independent and very much support health care reform but do have my "misgivings", as baxter put it, about this bill. I'll not go into all those misgivings. Whether or not I eventually see the light, as you three have, remains to be seen.
I would like to clarify my post, which was not at all directed at the bill itself, but at the potential decision to bypass conference. Mr. Cohn attributes this to Republican obstructionism, and that may well be the answer. I was only pointing out that there could be another reason, that being lack of strong public support. It is simply an observation that politicians, when faced with this much public opposition (how ever you slice and dice it), might elect to go down the path of least resistance.
Happy new year.
Who cares?
Who cares?
There will be both strong public support for 30 million more of us being covered and no pre-existing conditions. There will also be a lot of anger, as we move to more of us being covered and more of us being underinsured. With many of us covered with actuarial values of 60 and 70%, we'll be mandated to pay for premiums to for profit companies when healthy and still having to pay for 30 to 40% of our health care when we need it. Hundreds of thousands of us will still be going bankrupt due to medical expenses, even with insurance. Will that anger translate into a demand for a single, not-for-profit system of financing our health care. With for for-profit insurance having even more of the Golia ... view full comment
There will be both strong public support for 30 million more of us being covered and no pre-existing conditions. There will also be a lot of anger, as we move to more of us being covered and more of us being underinsured. With many of us covered with actuarial values of 60 and 70%, we'll be mandated to pay for premiums to for profit companies when healthy and still having to pay for 30 to 40% of our health care when we need it. Hundreds of thousands of us will still be going bankrupt due to medical expenses, even with insurance. Will that anger translate into a demand for a single, not-for-profit system of financing our health care. With for for-profit insurance having even more of the Goliath status that current reform gives them, that may not be possible.