Tweet
The Senate has voted on the last of the many amendments to the reconciliation bill, none of which have passed. Kent Conrad spoke about the two technical changes to the bill cited by the Senate parliamentarian, and the presiding officer (in a surprise appearance, Vice President Joe Biden) confirmed that there would be no further points of order risen.
So, the reconciliation bill will get a final vote in moments, and it is highly likely to pass with 57 votes, including all Senate Democrats except for Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Democrats offered no perfecting amendments to the majority vote legislation, despite having a free shot to do so without the prospect of a filibuster.
After the vote, the House expects to pass the reconciliation bill, with changes, this evening. The President will sign the bill, and changes to the health care law will be made, along with sweeping legislation altering the student loan program and ending bank and lender subsidies.
Max Baucus is now praising the work of Liz Fowler, who wrote lots of the bill. Fowler is a former WellPoint VP.
…Harry Reid is calling for a minute of silence in honor of the late Ted Kennedy, in advance of the vote.
…Joe Biden just sustained the two points of order about the two Byrd rule violations in the reconciliation bill. He was never going to overrule the advice of the parliamentarian, but it’s worth noting.
…Biden is calling for the Yeas and Nays. The Senators will answer from their desks. Evan Bayh just voted Aye. This will end up 57-43, in all likelihood.
…Lieberman officially votes Aye on the changes, and Lincoln officially votes No, against removing bank subsidies and transferring the money to students.
…Democrats have over 50 votes, so this will pass, they’re just wrapping up the final voters. In a surprise, Mark Pryor votes No (covering for Lincoln?).
…The tally right now is 56-40, only four Republicans are left, and they may not bother with the vote. (Mark Pryor, Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln were the only No votes)
…OK, the final tally will be 56-43, the reconciliation bill has passed, and it will pass the House with the technical changes this evening. You can put a lid on this stage of health care reform, because it’s done.
38 Comments
Support this site!
Subscribe to the newsletter
Advertise on Firedoglake
Send
us your tips
Make us your homepage
About FDL News Desk
What, it’s going back to the House anyway and they still didn’t pass a PO amendment??
I’m SHOCKED!!
SHOCKED I tell ya!!!
I hope THIS EVIDENCE finally puts to bed any more of those fantasies that any Democrats wanted a PO.
Please.
See ya in November, you little shmucks.
done for them, far from done for us
anyway, I believe I saw olberman say the final version of the mandate had no teeth, no fine
is this true or false?
False. Why would it be there if they didn’t intend to use it?
Well, at least that would be an improvement.
I thought it still had the % income fine, but maybe it did change. Wish Jon or David or someone could answer that.
Hell, at this point I’ll take any improvement I can get.
Obama and Congress: HOPE KILLERS
I just do not see how the naked dems can say they represent what’s best for the people. And I thought the repubs were amazingly unashamed of all their blatant lying. This even tops THAT for me. Unfriggin believable (to me). Please don’t scream at me for my shock if you have seen it coming for a long time. For some reason I thought the dems would be forced to have a vote when there was absolutely no reason not to. Well other than the obvious, unspoken, protect our benefactors reason…
And I’ll not be voting for a single Democrat this year.
If the Republicans win so be it, I no longer care. Easier to replace Republicans with real progressives.
The mandate it still in so of course the fines are still in. The mandate is the fines.
I still want to know what happens if you don’t buy the insurance and don’t pay the fine. Is the penalty spelled out in the bill?
Now its time to focus on “fix it later.”
Not because there’s any substance to the promise, of course, but because elections are coming up, and we need your vote to remain in power so we can continue using you like a blow-up doll.
Maybe you get to go to jail where health-care is provided at tax-payer expense. Hey, looks like we may be on to something!
Well. That was depressing. I guess we’re not done yet. At least we found out who our friends are. LOL
Well, if it hasn’t changed (see above), I THINK I can answer that. I’ll try until someone smarter corrects it.
But I THINK the penalty then was basically whatever the penalties are for non-payment of taxes, because that’s the “law” you’d be violating. So, whatever sanctions can possibly result from non-payment of income taxes are the sanctions that could result from non-payment of the penalty.
I think.
Anyone care to bet the first “Fix” to HCR is increasing the fine?
Hey, good idea!
We should start a pool on what the first changes will be to the bill (after this reconcilliation act) and WHEN.
I’ll say 2015, and the subsidies reduced.
Rather petulant.
I think the political calculus in play says that as long as The Bill (any bill) passed it would be the “HealthCare” shiny that keeps the Important Incumbents in power. And that the portion of the electorate who might be sufficiently informed to regard this Bill as embarrassingly insufficient won’t matter in poll tallies.
The fix is in the student loan section and according to reports it fixes some technical language to be acceptable to the Senate Parliamentarian’s reading of the Byrd amendment.
Well, they certainly dodged a bullet there, didn’t they? Senate Democrats didn’t have to go on the record, voting up or down on a public option amendment…an amendment that would have provided something so many of them cynically insisted that they desperately wanted.
How many of the Senate Democrats who signed on to a public option in the days leading up to the House vote on the Senate health care reform bill would actually have voted for it?
Thanks to the White House, Harry Reid, and the AFL-CIO (among others too numerous to list)…we’ll never know.
I can almost hear the sighs of relief.
Hypocrites.
Some Democrats indeed wanted the public option in this bill, but not enough in the House did. The Senate pretty much obscured how many actually wanted a public option. Plus Obama did bargain it away for the silence of the American Hospital Association and for some cost breaks for Medicare.
The statement that no Democrats wanted the public option is true only because some Democrats wanted a single-payer system but settled for the public option in this legislative effort — and then settled again for passing the bill. Of course none of the Blue Dogs or Republicans wanted at public option; heck they wanted the status quo.
Most Mercans want their bling now. Come October it’s going to be “Where’s my bling?” and the dem’s sales spiel is going to be the same old same old “you need us now, more than ever, look at the eeevil republicans.” Trouble is, they will have nothing real to show for two years of majorities and the presidency. Will America fall for it again? Not I.
so, instead, we get status quo in spades.
Grrrrreat!
The mandates are there. They were there from the beginning and the only thing that remained constant, except the amount of the fine/tax.
It went from 2% to 2.5% of ADJUSTED income.
I don’t think they’re in the process of hiring upwards of 16,000 additional IRS agents if didn’t plan to enforce it.
http://www.factcheck.org/2009/11/imprisoned-for-not-having-health-care/
I think Keith said that to give himself cover for that Special Comment he gave a while back, in which he pledged civil disobedience regarding the mandate, and encouraged his viewers to do the same.
They all didn’t want a public option, because any one of them could have proposed it and forced a vote on the amendment. It wouldn’t have killed the bill if they’d lost.
Not one Senator called for a vote. As far as I’m concerned, that means they are all against it.
Just got a call from Planned Parenthood. The poor man probably had to take a break when I got through with him. Too bad.
“We’ll fix it later…Trust Us”.
LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL LOL
That’s only on this plane of reality in the 11 dimensional game of chess. On one of the other planes, bizarro I think it’s called, not voting for something means you’re FOR it.
Fixed:
Fowler is a
former WellPoint VPfuture Health Insurance Company CEO.It’s the Senate. They cover for each other. That’s why Ensign is still there and Massa is gone.
That remains to be seen. But if we did, the political pressure for reform does not go away and next time it might be the public pushing for Medicare For All. Instead of folks having to sell the public on a public option — which by the way the public did eventually understand and support.
Inquisitr won’t be the only one staying home and you may call us petulant if you like, at least we will not be played by the democrats for chumps again.
Precisely and exactly
I’m reading the linky’s to say that if it’s the IRS codes in play for penalties for failure to pay, then the IRS can dun you, imprison you, attach to your paychecks, seize your assets, and more.
Because those things are what they do to tax scofflaws now . . . . . . not just the huge fine, or imprisonment, but take your stuff and attach your paycheck if you have one.
Any Pups differ?
You know, we were discussing the options for names for a third party the other day, and thinking about that now I could see calling it the Petulant Party. Rude, even obnoxious, but dammit, at least we’re not pretty talking two-facers.
Join the Petulant Party, it’s way better than a Pity Party, and beats the Republicrat party by miles. The mascot could be a rabbit, I’m thinking Bugs Bunny.
Sec. 1002. Individual responsibility. Modifies the assessment that individuals who choose to remain uninsured pay in three ways: (a) exempts the income below the filing threshold, (b) lowers the flat payment from $495 to $325 in 2015 and from $750 to $695 in 2016 and © raises the percent of income that is an alternative payment amount from 0.5 to 1.0% in 2014, 1.0 to 2.0% in 2015, and 2.0 to 2.5% for 2016 and subsequent years to make the assessment more progressive.
Yup, they do that to people whose names are not Tim Geithner or Tom Daschle.
That would be us.
Oops! this was supposed to be a reply to Larue @34
Yup, they do that to people whose names are not Tim Geithner or Tom Daschle. That would be us.