Democrats Could Turn to Reconciliation to Pass Healthcare
The controversial practice is the last resort if Baucus can't get bipartisan agreement
September 15 has long been Sen. Max Baucus's deadline for his Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" to complete its work on a bipartisan healthcare bill. Based on comments today, Baucus may just meet that deadline.
But if there's no agreement tomorrow or, for that matter, later this week, Senate Democrats will almost certainly have to consider using partisan tactics to pull off health reform this fall.
Democrats still have some hope of winning over Maine Sen. Olympia Snowe, a moderate Republican. But there also is growing talk that Senate Democrats may have to resort to an obscure but powerful parliamentary tactic known as "reconciliation" to pass a bill. The choice, which hasn't been made, presents risks and rewards.
"With a bill like healthcare, reconciliation is not the ideal way to do it," says Jim Horney, a policy director at the nonprofit Center on Budget and Policy Priorities. But given Sen. Ted Kennedy's death—reducing the Democrats' majority to 59—and cracks within the Democratic coalition, it may be the only way. "From the beginning [of the debate], reconciliation was preserved by Democrats out of the fear that at the end of the day it wouldn't be possible to get 60 votes" for healthcare reform, Horney says.
Put simply, reconciliation is a special procedure that would allow Senate Democrats to pass a bill with only 51 votes. Usually, the party in power in the Senate needs 60 votes to override minority opposition. But reconciliation sets up an alternative, "fast-track" route that prohibits filibustering, so that a simple majority of 51, not 60, is the magic number.
Both parties have used reconciliation before: the Democrats in 1993 to pass President Clinton's first budget, the Republicans in 2001 and again in 2003 to pass President Bush's tax cuts.
But trying to use reconciliation to pass a massive healthcare bill could prove problematic. Reconciliation evolved in the early 1980s in the Senate as a tool to cut the federal deficit by making spending bills easier to pass. Accordingly, Senate rules say reconciliation can be used only for bills that affect spending, revenues, and taxes.
Does the healthcare bill fit that definition? Well, parts clearly do, experts say. But other provisions could be challenged by Republicans, potentially creating a scenario in which Democrats pass a scaled-back bill that contains only portions of their original proposal.
Things like subsidies to help low-income Americans buy health insurance are probably safe, because they clearly affect federal spending. But other big elements, like a government-run insurance plan or the insurance exchanges that would let Americans comparison shop for health plans, could be subject to debate because their direct impact on government spending is either minor or unclear.
The final decision, it turns out, rests with an obscure figure known as the Senate parliamentarian, who will basically give a thumbs up or thumbs down if Republicans claim that certain parts of the bill don't fall under the reconciliation rules, as they are almost certain to do. The current parliamentarian is Alan Frumin, who's served in both Republican- and Democratic-controlled Senates. For most duties, the Senate parliamentarian isn't viewed as a political figure. But if Democrats pursue reconciliation, Frumin could be one of the most politically influential figures of the year.
- See photos of anger at town hall meetings.
- See a gallery of political cartoons.
- See photos of Ted Kennedy throughout his life.
Reader Comments
Health Care
I am all for reconciliation to pass Health Care Reform with a Public Option. That is the only way we can get costs down, have insurance companies compete and cover more middle class and poor people. There are evil forces from the rich corporations who will never want health care that is affordable offered. President Obama has to do what he knows is right. Giving health care to people is not like making war because you want to. It is about us and about the best we can do.
sheep
The partisan republican can't back the democrats because they are for big business and big business has a lot to lose if this bill passes. So they must resort to rumors which is popular with gossipers and lies and half truths which works with the uninformed and gossipers of course gossipers have there own method of scrambling the facts without even trying and big business is going to take advantage of that.
So it seems Democrats will have to go it alone. But if enough people write there Senators as groups or individuals. It is possible we will make a difference, If you send an email to the president with your concerns or support that will let him know what we are thinking (http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/)
if the democrats have to go it alone I hope they stick together, Hopefully not because they are partisan but because they are doing what they think is right.. People who are partisan or superfans cannot think for themselves and must go where the sheep dog sheep dog leads them.
If you need a little to read or you want to research the great depression to see how we survived that I suggest you look at presidents 31,32,33,34 at this link (http://www.whitehouse.gov/about/presidents/) or you can Google your own sites. Or I use http://www.ask.com
Do not let anyone make up your mind, you are to smart for that, Research and if you have a family make a family project out of it and see who can get the most useful information.
Don D. Brock
White house response page http://www.whitehouse.gov/contact/
Key Facts About The Great Depression http://students.umf.maine.edu/~nielsemj/thegreatdepression/d1.html
Public Broadcasting service http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/rails/timeline/
Someday we all will realize how important health care is? Hopefully.
UK, Canada and other 1st world countries have GOVT provided health care system that works. That doesn’t make them socialists. I have lived in Canada for 1/2 of my life, even though I didn't really like their HIGH tax system. Now after living in US and experiencing this horrible health care system, I thank the Canadian GOVT and pioneers of Canada for adopting such a system, where peoples' lives/deaths are not controlled by the Insurance policy (Hence Insurance Co).
First I want to clear out few points about myself. If the GOVT passes this healthcare bill and impose fine on people without healthcare, my income level will force me to buy health coverage out of my pocket (I work as a consultant). So I have nothing to gain from this.
You may or may not agree with me, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Health care is should be a basic human right (It's not a privilege; a privilege is you having a choice between FORD and BMW. NOT between death and life). And it should be provided to citizens of a developed country by any means necessary. Otherwise you might as well be a citizen of a 3rd world country (where most of the people) can't afford to have health care or their GOVT can't provide it to them, they don't (can't) do it NOT because they will become a socialist country, but rather because they can't afford to. It's neither a crime nor a choice to be poor; it's unfortunate. What’s more unfortunate is though, when 45 Million (almost 15% of a 1st world country (USA) doesn't have (for whatever the reason maybe) health coverage.
When you live in Canada; it's true you pay more taxes, but is it worth it? EVERY PENNY. It doesn't matter whether you get fever or an open heart surgery. YOU won't have to worry about whether your Insurance plan will cover this or that? Was that a pre-existing condition? Will the Insurance Co will approve the surgery? And none of the fine prints of insurance company policies, that gives them the RIGHT to be GOD and decide on peoples' lives.
I don't have a problem with, nor care about the insurance companies. But from what I see and hear from people, that most of the times they suffer because their insurance policy won't cover this surgery or that medication. Why do I need an insurance plan, that won't be there when it’s needed the most, when people are dwelling for their lives?
Like I mentioned before I am not advocating for any groups. I am advocating for the cause. The way I see it, there are two groups of people who opposes the universal healthcare plan. 1.Insurance co. and their friends 2.People who have no idea what it is?
62% of America's Bankruptcy related to health care costs? We are talking about $1Trillion over 10 years. How much do you think the health premiums will go up in 10 year? How much did the Iraq war costs and why? You have to start thinking for yourself, your future, don’t just believe what they show on TV. THINK PEOPLE, THINK about it.
advertisement
