Coakley vs. Brown

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

The Senate Dems now only have 59 seats due to Brown, so they would have to flip a Republican (not happening) . . . .

I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that the conference committee will at least try to come up with something that Olympia Snowe would support. But I agree that the most likely scenario is that the House concurs in the Senate version.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by MysticCat

I wouldn't completely rule out the possibility that the conference committee will at least try to come up with something that Olympia Snowe would support. But I agree that the most likely scenario is that the House concurs in the Senate version.

It is my understanding that Sen. Reid blew off Sen. Snowe and this really ticked her off. She has stated that she will not agree to the bill in any of its forms but her past indicates that she will turn on a dime.

The House may well agree to the Senate version but it faces a huge uphill battle. The two bills are different in many aspects and holding the votes might be a problem for Congresswoman Pelosi.

I believe they will start over and break the bill apart and vote on individual parts. This is probably what they should have done anyway.

[MysticCat]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

It is my understanding that Sen. Reid blew off Sen. Snowe and this really ticked her off. She has stated that she will not agree to the bill in any of its forms but her past indicates that she will turn on a dime.

Somehow I missed that. But you're right -- amazing how quickly things can change up there.

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I believe they will start over and break the bill apart and vote on individual parts. This is probably what they should have done anyway.

I believe this is the least likely outcome, but I could of course be wrong.

KSigKid -- I think it's unlikely that they'll attempt to push anything through before Brown is seated. A few Dems have already sent out press releases asking for all votes on health care to be held until after he is seated, and it really goes against the nature of the Senate as a collegial body.

My sense is that the House will pass the Senate bill as it is, then simultaneously bring up a corrections bill that would incorporate deals made in negotiations over the last week. The corrections bill could be passed through reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate, or even under regular order, assuming Dem leaders find the votes.

[ADqtPiMel]

And since GC won't let me edit my post, I double post to say that in the interest of full disclosure, I work as an editor for a major DC publication that covers Congress. My expertise is Congressional procedure, not policy, and I have not read the bill in full.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

My sense is that the House will pass the Senate bill as it is, then simultaneously bring up a corrections bill that would incorporate deals made in negotiations over the last week. The corrections bill could be passed through reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate, or even under regular order, assuming Dem leaders find the votes.

I don't believe they can muster the number of votes in the house for this. There is just too much in the Senate bill that is a problem for some of the House Dems. For example, the "blue dogs" will not abide without the Stupak amendment and the Dems who are beholding to labor will be in a very tight box with the tax on "cadillac plans". Beside all this, I also think it would be political suicide for the Dems. They probably know this as well. Maybe they will decide to go out with a blaze of glory though. Stranger things have happened. Witness the election last night.

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

I don't believe they can muster the number of votes in the house for this. There is just too much in the Senate bill that is a problem for some of the House Dems. For example, the "blue dogs" will not abide without the Stupak amendment and the Dems who are beholding to labor will be in a very tight box with the tax on "cadillac plans". Beside all this, I also think it would be political suicide for the Dems. They probably know this as well. Maybe they will decide to go out with a blaze of glory though. Stranger things have happened. Witness the election last night.

I disagree. Democrats are already saddled with the political fallout, whether the bill passes or not, and it’s better for them to have a bill to defend that has tangible benefits than try to explain why they voted for something and then walked away. There's no incentive whatsoever for any Republican to vote for the bill, so they certainly won't start over unless there's absolutely no other way.

Dems have a large enough margin in the House to get a simple majority on the Senate bill. The party leaders will be sure to make the caucus members aware of the consequences of letting the main aspect of Obama's platform fail. I've seen this happen over and over in the House, and the rank and file always end up falling in line. I could be wrong, but my experience says they can do it.

[Ghostwriter]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

I disagree. Democrats are already saddled with the political fallout, whether the bill passes or not, and it’s better for them to have a bill to defend that has tangible benefits than try to explain why they voted for something and then walked away. There's no incentive whatsoever for any Republican to vote for the bill, so they certainly won't start over unless there's absolutely no other way.

Dems have a large enough margin in the House to get a simple majority on the Senate bill. The party leaders will be sure to make the caucus members aware of the consequences of letting the main aspect of Obama's platform fail. I've seen this happen over and over in the House, and the rank and file always end up falling in line. I could be wrong, but my experience says they can do it.

New info from Speaker Pelosi:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-health-house/

I understand that this doesn't mean the Senate bill will not be brought up before the House but it certainly doesn't look plausible at this time.

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by Ghostwriter

New info from Speaker Pelosi:

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010...-health-house/

I understand that this doesn't mean the Senate bill will not be brought up before the House but it certainly doesn't look plausible at this time.

Points to you on this one I think that they will step back for a while and work on other priorities and then pick health care back up when they've negotiated a way forward...which I still think will involve the House passing the Senate bill. But I honestly have no idea what will happen...just extrapolating based on my experience watching these kind of situations.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

I believe this is the least likely outcome, but I could of course be wrong.

KSigKid -- I think it's unlikely that they'll attempt to push anything through before Brown is seated. A few Dems have already sent out press releases asking for all votes on health care to be held until after he is seated, and it really goes against the nature of the Senate as a collegial body.

My sense is that the House will pass the Senate bill as it is, then simultaneously bring up a corrections bill that would incorporate deals made in negotiations over the last week. The corrections bill could be passed through reconciliation, which requires only 51 votes in the Senate, or even under regular order, assuming Dem leaders find the votes.

I thought I read that reconciliation could only be used for budget stuff so a lot of elements couldn't really be addressed. Is that not true?

[ADqtPiMel]

Originally Posted by UGAalum94

I thought I read that reconciliation could only be used for budget stuff so a lot of elements couldn't really be addressed. Is that not true?

Reconciliation can be used for any legislation affecting the budget.

[UGAalum94]

Originally Posted by ADqtPiMel

Reconciliation can be used for any legislation affecting the budget.

Doesn't almost any legislation affect the budget in a loose sense?

And yet, it seems to only be used to specifically address budgets in the past, right? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconci...es_Congress%29

It seems to me that some contested elements of health care wouldn't seem to be reconciled under the usual uses of reconciliation, like handling the differences about abortions in the two versions.

Or even that some of the rules about the length of deficits would make it hard to use:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sunset_..._the_Byrd_Rule

(I'm guessing that ADqtPiMel doesn't need the wikipedia links, but I thought other people might find them interesting.)