Democrats Hope to Finish Writing Health Bill This Week

[Scottbrown2012]

March 3, 2010, 7:01 p.m.
By Emily Pierce
Roll Call Staff


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

House and Senate Democratic leaders are working to finalize the language of a health care reconciliation bill by the end of this week in order to tee up the measure for passage in both chambers before the Easter break.

Several Democratic sources said the goal is to get a completed bill to the Congressional Budget Office for an official cost estimate by Friday, with a hope that CBO could score the bill within a week or so.

That would give Democrats time during the week of March 15 to vet the measure with the Senate Parliamentarian, who will be the final arbiter of whether the entire bill meets strict reconciliation rules that require all provisions to have a direct budgetary impact. Provisions that the Parliamentarian rules out of bounds can be stricken by a budget point of order, and 60 votes are needed to keep such language in the bill.

Senate and House Democrats are also expected to use the week of March 15 to float the measure among the rank and file to ensure there are enough votes for passage.

Once Senate leaders feel confident that the bill will not be subject to potentially crippling budget points of order raised by Republicans, the House would likely move forward with the health care reform bill approved by the Senate in December. Once the Senate measure has gone to the president, both chambers would be free to move forward with the reconciliation measure, which is intended to address several problems House Democrats have with the Senate bill.

Leaders hope the floor process in the House can begin by the week of March 22. The Easter recess is expected to begin March 29.

Though Senate debate on the measure is limited to 20 hours, voting on amendments is not limited, and Republicans have hinted they could stretch the process for weeks.

President Barack Obama largely endorsed the complicated process Wednesday. Sen. Scott Brown’s (R-Mass.) special election win in January eliminated the Senate Democrats’ filibuster-proof supermajority, and unanimous GOP opposition in the chamber made it impossible for Democrats to pass a House-Senate conference report. The reconciliation bill is intended to replace the need for such a conference report.

http://www.rollcall.com/news/43806-1.html

[GetAClue]

Lets hope some of the Dems come to their senses before this things comes to a vote. Once implemented, it will be impossible to reverse. However, I don't see enough Dems willing to commit political suicide at home to support this latest government over-reach.

[Lazarus]

Lets hope some of the Dems come to their senses before this things comes to a vote. Once implemented, it will be impossible to reverse. However, I don't see enough Dems willing to commit political suicide at home to support this latest government over-reach.

I think (no, I'm not sure) they are being pitched this way "You are damned if you do, and damned if you don't. So, why not be on the right side of history and vote for this health care."

[kres24GT]

A big victory for insurance companies.

[MintJulep]

A big victory for insurance companies.How so? Begin regulated and dicated to by the government is no win for them.

[kres24GT]

How so? Begin regulated and dicated to by the government is no win for them.

This keeps them in business. The current model would have collapsed if left alone. This keeps a failed system failing instead of dying while costing billions for the Chinese taxpayers. Good news for insurance co's. Bad for us.

[MintJulep]

This keeps them in business. The current model would have collapsed if left alone. This keeps a failed system failing instead of dying while costing billions for the Chinese taxpayers. Good news for insurance co's. Bad for us.No, it puts them out of business. What do you think happens when there are more claims than premiums? The premium rate is based on medical costs, not just a random number.

You appear to be in favor of government regulating a private company out of business. Not a libertarian position in the least.

[Scottbrown2012]

No, it puts them out of business. What do you think happens when there are more claims than premiums? The premium rate is based on medical costs, not just a random number.

You appear to be in favor of government regulating a private company out of business. Not a libertarian position in the least.
I dont see him being in favor...in fact he has been against this BUT I believe what he is actually saying is its better to temporarily prop up a failing system, good or bad than to just let it collapse or implode in on itself..cant say I really agree but do see his point.

[kres24GT]

No, it puts them out of business. What do you think happens when there are more claims than premiums? The premium rate is based on medical costs, not just a random number.

You appear to be in favor of government regulating a private company out of business. Not a libertarian position in the least.


No, I am not in favor of it, I am in favor of letting failed systems fail. Yes, the costs go up, and we borrow more form China to pay for it. As I said, it's bad for everyone except the insurance companies.

[kres24GT]

I dont see him being in favor...in fact he has been against this BUT I believe what he is actually saying is its better to temporarily prop up a failing system, good or bad than to just let it collapse or implode in on itself..cant say I really agree but do see his point.


No, I am saying to let it collapse. I am saying borrowing billions form China to pro up a failed system is bad.

[MintJulep]

No, I am not in favor of it, I am in favor of letting failed systems fail. Yes, the costs go up, and we borrow more form China to pay for it. As I said, it's bad for everyone except the insurance companies.You don't seem to understand. It is bad for the insurance companies. When the government dictates to a private business the amount they can charge and whether or not they can assess risk, it will lead to bankruptcy.

Again, when the claims come in but the premiums don't break even, they will be out of business -- thanks to the US government. The insurance companies don't "win", that is a fallacy.

[kres24GT]

You don't seem to understand. It is bad for the insurance companies. When the government dictates to a private business the amount they can charge and whether or not they can assess risk, it will lead to bankruptcy.

Again, when the claims come in but the premiums don't break even, they will be out of business -- thanks to the US government. The insurance companies don't "win", that is a fallacy.


What would be bad for insurance companies is having to compete in a free market as their rates continue to climb, they would go out of business. This ensures they stay in business, subsidized with money borrowed form China.

[MintJulep]

What would be bad for insurance companies is having to compete in a free market as their rates continue to climb, they would go out of business. Competing in the free market would keep them in business. If one company couldn't compete with the others, it would go out of business -- not ALL of them, as would be the case with CommieCare. Leaving the citizens with NO option except the bottom-of-the-barrel government.

This ensures they stay in business, subsidized with money borrowed form China. The government dictating how much a private company can change ensures they go OUT of business. You don't seem to understand what is going on here.

[MarkMiller]

Competing in the free market would keep them in business. If one company couldn't compete with the others, it would go out of business -- not ALL of them, as would be the case with CommieCare. Leaving the citizens with NO option except the bottom-of-the-barrel government.

The government dictating how much a private company can change ensures they go OUT of business. You don't seem to understand what is going on here.
A: You'r logic is not sound. Level paying fields in the Insurance industry will not make them go out of business. That is a fallacy. Some say that these industries are not meant to collect a profit and that in allowing them to do so have created a capitalistic, predatory elite group.

B: Bottom of the barrel? Again, your logic is not sound.....well maybe sound bite....but not sound. First of all our Government is the greatest in the world...is it not? Bottom of our barrel is quite generous to those WITHOUT!

C: The Government dictates private companies EVERYDAY. Take a look at the labor laws posted in your personnel dept.. You seriously have no understanding of even the most basic part of this subject.

[kres24GT]

Competing in the free market would keep them in business. If one company couldn't compete with the others, it would go out of business -- not ALL of them, as would be the case with CommieCare. Leaving the citizens with NO option except the bottom-of-the-barrel government.

The government dictating how much a private company can change ensures they go OUT of business. You don't seem to understand what is going on here.


I understand that the current system is not sustainable and should be allowed to fail. This plan will borrow money from China to make sure that doesn't happen.