Tweet
Max Baucus admits that it’s nearly impossible to design a bullet-proof reconciliation bill where every line passes the Byrd rule, and that “minor changes” are expected.
Senate Finance Committee Chair Max Baucus told reporters today that there may be “one or two” changes to the health care reconciliation bill, meaning it could be sent back to the House for another vote.
“Anything is possible. We’ve constructed this thing so well … maybe one or two but they’re so minor they’re almost not even worth mentioning,” Baucus said.
Any single change in the reconciliation bill, however minor, would force it to go back to the House for another vote. While if the changes are indeed minor, getting 216 votes on it again shouldn’t be too heavy a lift, the entire premise of the Senate leadership whipping against amendments was predicated on the idea of avoiding another House vote. But here’s Max Baucus saying that’s unlikely.
In this case, whipping against amendments that may make the bill more popular seems like a terribly short-sighted strategy.
7 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
very short sighted indeed
It’s only short sighted if you believe leadership has any desire to make the bill better. It’s obvious after the last year that “improving” the bill was never a priority
And if it goes back to the House, Grim thinks Pelosi could then insert the public option.
But I don’t see how given Obama’s opposition to it because such would blow his deals made with the ‘stakeholders’.
I want to toot my own horn and mention that I personally asked Obama about the deals with stakeholders BEFORE Grim’s seminal article on the Pharma deal, back in July:
http://d-day.blogspot.com/2009/07/obama-blogger-conference-call-on-health.html
Re: the public option, I could see a few Blue Dog House Dems who agonized over their vote flipping over having to add the public option in. I think that’s a somewhat legitimate concern. Doesn’t mean I don’t want to see a vote, however.
Thanks DD; I don’t mind anybody tooting their own horn when it’s well deserved.
BUT this part from your link is ,well, disturbing. “and if he wants certain elements of the policy included in the final bill, provided that there is a final bill, I wouldn’t bet against them getting in there.”
And then further on regards your questioning “There is a bright spot, however. Obama went pretty far in support of a public option, a fairly tangible reform effort, on the call. He doubted the evidence that a co-op plan like that pushed by Kent Conrad would work, citing past experience that showed them having trouble getting off the ground.”
And his response “What I think is that we can get a framework where reform begins, one with an insurance exchange, and a robust public option,” ; so WTF happened?
If they open the bill for changes — and they must, to satisfy the parliamentarian — then they can’t stop Public Option. Just seeing Ezra Klein poo-poo the idea to Lawrence O’Donnell on Countdown makes me realize how afraid they are that this might happen.
Public
Option
Please
So it looks like the goal posts will have to be moved again. ‘Cause when I argued for trying to get the PO inserted in reconciliation at dkos, I was told no way because it would have to go back to the House. I said so what, the House approved a PO. “But this will jeopardize things!”
“we need 60 votes”
“the House passed but the Senate can’t”
“We don’t have 50 votes”
“The House can’t pass it”
“The Senate can’t do it”
“You can’t send it back to the House”
What freaking next?
“Uh, I have a headache?”
Damn it, we bought you dinner and gave you jewelry. Give a lousy peck on the cheek.