Senate Can Pass Health With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says

[BP2]

Source: Bloomberg

Jan. 15 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator Tuesday, Congress may still pass health-care overhaul through a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, said.

“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”

Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules.

He also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.

Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was “pure hallucination.”

Read more: http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087&sid=aPg2UfFaCh9c&pos=9

---

If they can pass it using reconciliation, then why haven't they done it yet?!

[pnwmom]

1. Because critical parts like banning preexisting conditions and rescission

would be the kind of things that would have to be "scaled back."

[ramapo]

8. Democrats are stupid

It should take all of an hour and two pages to write a bill outlawing rescission and banning the exclusion of coverage based on medical history.

Put it up for a vote and let the f'ing Republicans vote against it. I can't think of a better campaign issue to beat them over the heads with.

[Mithreal]

18. Shaming Republican stupidity is so uncivilized

Imagine how uncomfortable the socials would be and they share so many of the same corporate friends.

We gave them too much carrot, now they need the stick.

[treestar]

20. No, it's a lot of work and and takes a lot of time

Amendments to the U.S. code which is volumes and volumes of material.

[wordpix]

21. i'm with you

I'm sick of it on the local level, too. Dems just bow to the repukes, sit on their hands and then wonder why they're losing elections.

[Ian David]

2. Because "bipartisanship" is camouflage for selling-out to corporate interests. n/t

[groundloop]

4. NO - Read the previous post.

The way I heard it explained was that the only things that can be done under reconcilliation are those related to the budget. Rules like banning denial of claims based on pre-existing conditions obviously isn't budget related, so that needs to get past a repuke (and Lie-berman) fillibuster.

[Ian David]

7. Ahhh... I see now. Thanks. n/t

[Mithreal]

19. Public option or medicare for all ARE budget related though

so would need only 50+1 to pass.

[Lionel Mandrake]

3. What if the House votes to pass the Senate version?

Then wouldn't that version go to the President for signature?

[groundloop]

5. YES, but the Senate version definitely needs work.

[regnaD kciN]

6. I think that would be the strategy...

Just have the House pass the Senate bill (which would include the non-reconcilable things like insurance regulations), then pass a second bill dealing with funding issues (including the places where the current House bill is better) through reconciliation.

We might even be able to restore a public option and/or Medicare buy-in that way. But we need to pass the Senate bill's regulations first, and that would require 60 votes if we go for a new bill instead of passing the Senate bill first.

[defendandprotect]

9. As many times as GOP has tried to destroy simple majority....it still exists -- 51 VOTES ....

[pleah]

10. K&R

[Honeycombe8]

11. If they could've, they would've. They don't have the balls for it. nt

[Unvanguard]

12. It's right there in the article:

"Should Democrats take that route, the legislation would have to be scaled back because of Senate rules."

They would have to get rid of the regulatory component. It would have to be just the subsidies and the taxes.

[BP2]

16. Worst case scenario, do you think Harry and the rest would do it with 51, or would they be

too afraid if something crazy happens in Mass. and Brown wins?

[Unvanguard]

17. I think they'd do it. They're not going to stop now.

And it would in at least some ways be a more politically palatable bill: without the prohibitions on insurance discrimination, for instance, there would probably be no mandate.

[PFunk]

13. I think this will become the fallback plan if the dems lose MA.

In fact I'll bet on it since it seems that Obama (and the DLC/DINO dems) want a win at any cost now.

[dflprincess]

14. I really wish they'd stop calling this scam a "health care overhaul"

or health care "reform". This bill has very little to do with health care and everything to do with protecting the insurance companies and the status quo.

[creeksneakers2]

15. They should be working all weekend on deadline

Then schedule votes for Monday and Tuesday. Pass it quickly.