The biggest problem here is that the reconciliation bills passed by the House and Senate are almost certain to differ, and setting up a conference report would subject the fixes to the filibuster that the reconciliation process was designed to circumvent. One way or another, the House will have to eat some bad provisions, unless the Senate installs major party discipline on everything not already worked out by agreement.
|By: David Dayen Monday March 8, 2010 2:35 pm|
|By: emptywheel Saturday January 23, 2010 1:22 pm|
To those clamoring for progressives in the House to cave: think responsibly. What you do now can result either in real reform, in expansion of care with minimal reform. Passing the Senate bill, based on the excise tax alone, may have been a significant factor in Coakley’s loss. Health care reform is important–which is why we shouldn’t accept just the Senate bill, because (except for the Medicare changes) it is not health care reform.
|By: Jon Walker Saturday January 23, 2010 12:35 pm|
It appears that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Reid are both currently on board with the reconciliation sidecar strategy to fix the Senate bill. This could be a good thing. It would allow them to fix many of the bill’s problems while re-inserting extremely popular provisions like the public option and the Medicare buy-in. Unfortunately they are thinking about using the reconciliation sidecar to make a very unpopular Senate bill pure political poison.
|By: Jon Walker Tuesday January 19, 2010 12:20 pm|
Today, House Democratic Majority Leader Steny Hoyer indicated possible support for the rush strategy to pass health care reform, requiring would require Democrats to rush to finish all negotiations on health care and pass the new merged bill through both chambers in the small window of time before the Secretary of State of Massachusetts could officially certify Scott Brown.