Dem: If Coakley loses, health reforms may pass by reconciliation

By Stephen C. Webster
Saturday, January 16th, 2010 -- 1:21 pm

chrisvanhollen Dem: If Coakley loses, health reforms may pass by reconciliationCould a special election in Massachusetts completely derail President Obama's health reforms? Not if Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-MD) has his way.

Massachusetts voters will decide on Tuesday whether to elect Republican Scott Brown or Democrat Martha Coakley to serve the remainder of the late Senator Edward Kennedy's term. Should Brown be elected, the Democratic super majority in the U.S. Senate would be broken, endangering passage of the health reform bill.

Van Hollen, who chairs the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee, stressed during a recent Bloomberg television appearance that if Brown wins, Democrats may yet pass the health overhaul through the process of reconciliation.

Reconciliation is a parliamentary tactic most often reserved for budgetary matters. It clear way for the majority to pass its legislation with a mere 51 votes, as opposed to the 60 needed for the traditional legislative process.

"Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation," Van Hollen said. "Getting health-care reform passed is important. ... Reconciliation is an option."

Story continues below...

Recent polls in Massachusetts show the race between Coakley and Brown to be dead even, even leaning slightly toward Brown. Rep. Barney Frank (D-MA) predicted that Brown's election would "kill the health bill," according to the Associated Press.

White House Press Secretary Robert Gibbs announced Friday that President Obama would make a campaign stop in Boston on behalf of Coakley. The election takes place on Tuesday.

Should Democrats in Congress use reconciliation to pass the package of reforms, they risk losing measures "that had no budgetary, or fiscal, relevance," according to The Financial Times.

Other tactics Democrats could use to pass the legislation include pushing the House to vote in favor of the Senate bill that passed by a razor-thin margin on Christmas eve, or temporarily delaying certification of the Massachusetts election results in order to clear the final legislative hurdles with their present majority intact.

Republicans have criticized the threat of using reconciliation to pass the health reforms as a type of "Chicago politics." However, the GOP utilized budget reconciliation to pass their own legislation in 1980, 1982, 1983, 1985, 1986, 1987, 1989, 1990, 1993, 1995, 1996, 1997, 1999, 2000, 2001, 2003 and 2005, according to MSNBC host Keith Olbermann.

Share this article:
  • Print
  • email
  • Digg
  • Reddit
  • StumbleUpon
  • Twitter
  • Facebook

  • mattpaintball
    Its time for better health care and great security out with the old and in with the new why have politicians like Barney Frank they dont do anything for our goverment except cause corruption and drama within our goverment. Besides President Obama and his stupid healthcare raid will have this nation go no where just for confusion at hospitals. Oh and for the banks, I feel bad for a few banks and their employees I feel bad for them because they are told to give loans and houses to people who cant afford them we can thank Barney Frank for that one as well. If Massachusetts has a hope in recovery for its people I pray that people vote Scott Brown.
  • jbinphilly
    Reconciliation may be a moot point.

    Here is something to remember: the House bill has a public option (albeit a rather watered down one) and is considerably more palatable than the Senate bill. It only passed by a 220-215 margin. Most of the Blue Dogs voted against it, and only one Republican - Joseph Cao, who represents a D+28 district - voted for it. Even if the Senate could pass a more robust bill through reconciliation, would that bill be able to pass the House?
  • mannapat
    I'm getting very tired of all this. If we can't vote out incumbents who no longer represent us in the primaries, then I'm voting green. No Republican lite incumbent will ever again get my vote. And you know what? That includes Obama if he doesn't get the public option and stop these terrible wars. No amount of $$$ spent to change my mind will work. Only deeds.
  • Middleager
    Weren't there many more commenrts here? There are so many ads that maybe Rawstory didn't have room for our comments.
  • Gay Johnson
    Go for it dems! time to give the neo-cons the finger and do what's right for the good of the american people!
  • Art Vandelay
    It's a shame that healthcare reform has come to this. If Congress had put together a bill that people were actually excited about (e.g. one with a robust public option at worst, and single payer at best), Massachusetts progressives--a subset of the people who put Obama in the White House in the first place--would very likely line up to support Coakley in this election. As it stands, the healthcare bill is such a piece of shit that nobody's motivated to get out and defend it, even if it means another crooked Republican gets added to the mix.

    Part of me thinks it would be a great wake-up call to the spineless Democrats if they lost this election and were forced to realize that they stand to lose even more seats in the next round. Maybe then they'd start listening to the people who elected them. Wishful thinking, I know.
  • todd432
    This is what happens when you SELL OUT your base on Health Care and let the media talk you into thinking all those issues comprised off for Lieberman and Nelsons support were only beloved by liberals. It became obvious to me that when the public option was in the senate bill it had 61% support but as time went on and more and more was taken out the support TANKED. How can these fools run a country when they cant even understand polls.
  • JPMP
    "The Democratic super majority in the U.S. Senate." !?!?!
    That's simply a factual and functional error.
    There be NO need for this article if it were true.

    As to the Democrats having 51 vote to prevail in any reconciliation process, I would NOT assume that is automatic. IF the reconciliation miracle comes to pass, which so many posters here, justifiably, desire, there are many DINOs that have already caused grief on this bill or are easily expected to do so when prodded by generous donations from the healthcare industry. (Coakley, herself, was seen at a fund raising dinner in DC heavily attended by industry lobbyists!)

    The Dems have 58 seats plus a reliable Independent Sanders = 59 votes.
    Here's the countdown.

    58 - Lose Kennedy's seat
    57 - Nelson
    56 - Lincoln
    55 - Landrieu
    54 - Baucus
    53 - Conrad
    52 - Bayh
    51 - Begich
    50 - Johnson (SD)
    49 - McCaskill
    48 - Pryor
    47 - Tester
    46 - Webb
    45 - Bennet (CO)
    44 - Bingaman

    The "Dems" have worked too hard at this already to allow themselves to snatch real victory from the jaws of an insulting, empty PR triumph.
  • overdoneputaforkinit
    Then if they only need 51 votes, they can drop the votes that want payoffs and absurd conditions. Can we get single-payer now???
  • shane_b1968
    If it means a better, more progressive, more liberal bill they should abolutely do it. If not, then no. There is a large majority of people who either support the bill or think it doesn't go far enough. Those who want health care killed and the status quo preserved are firmly in the minority.

    But the cynical right wingers will tell you all day long that the american people don't support this bill by lumping in the liberals and progressive who want single payer or a strong public option or expanded medicare buy ins with the 22% of knuckleheads that still think Bush was a great leader. What more do you need to know about the dishonesty of the right.
  • Marco
    Once this gets out to progressives that the Dems can use reconcilliation and bring back the public option and drug importation this will cause a FIRESTORM in the base. SPREAD THE WORD!
  • natebarton
    According to the New York Times, President Obama has the highest disapproval rating, after one year in office, of any President in the past 32 years. See:

    http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/16/opinion/16blo...
    and
    http://www.nytimes.com/imagepages/2010/01/16/op...

    Obama failed to lead to pass health care legislation. Obama failed to persuade voters to re-elect Governor Jon Corzine in New Jersey. Obama has failed to stand up for equal rights in California, Maine, New York and New Jersey.
  • disappointedvoter
    "President Obama has the highest disapproval rating"

    Obama could take a lesson from Bush, Reagan, etc. They SUCKED - but they kept their campaign promises, and their supporters.
  • BRouse
    I really enjoy reading these comments. It helps me understand exactly what I do not like regarding left-wing liberals. It is left-wing liberals and right-wing radicals that keep most of the sane folks near the middle. Thanks, you folks bumped me back from the left. I like the view in the middle, and BTW, the middle is the majority.
  • Eyeball_Kid
    Looks like you're a winner. Does your majority have a name? You know, like the "Moral Majority?", or the Frightened Majority?

    If you're in the majority, that may not be something for which to be proud. The majority always don't get their way... like the majority who wanted either a public option or single payer. Have you noticed how, all of a sudden, you turned your head away from the national will?

    We are being impoverished because of corporatism. That's what's happening. Please pay attention.
  • BRouse
    No name, just mathematically the majority.

    It comprises the middle of the left to the middle of the right. We get pushed to the center from both sides.

    If you haven't figured it out yet, the group I am referring to actually can do something. Don't get me wrong, we are sometimes fooled or we lose focus, but before long we get pushed back in to focus by the liberal left or the radical right.

    How about another little shove so that I really get it right.
  • Eyeball_Kid
    Michael C. Ruppert: Collapse.

    Watch the film, corroborate his statements. Then wonder if what he's saying has relevance. Just wonder. No need to commit.

    You see, Ruppert really is giving it his best shot. Give a listen.
  • johntwodogs
    The Dems NEED to use reconcilliation no matter what, and make sure a public option is included in the Senate/House convergence. There is no reason why the BEST of both bills aren't included in the final draft. The Repubs no longer need to be included, nor have they been for the whole process. If Single Payer had a hope of passing then HR 676 and SB 703 could be merged, but that isn't going to happen.
  • pjamala
    I'm a lawyer for a state legislature. In my opinion, if each house of Congress passes the same bill with a majority (or 50 plus the VP in the Senate) voting yes, and the President signs it, it's the law (protests of the Senate parliamentarian notwithstanding.) Senate rules are not part of the constitution, and it's none of the Court's business how the Senate rules are changed. The only thing that gives me pause is that the US Supreme Court was willing to ignore 400 years of well settled law of injunctions (in Bush v. Gore), and therefore might be willing to ignore well settled law of legislative procedure.
  • S in PA
    "therefore might"?!?!? So very cushioned. You know very well that they will absolutely ignore well settled law. Just wait until the illegal and unconstitutional unfunded mandates on the people to buy health "insurance" gets to the high court - when that decision comes down (on the side of the health "insurers", of course) that giant sucking sound will be Americans fleeing to countries with single-payer health care.
  • BigBearCO
    Well if they lose the seat to the GOP I have a feeling they might start fearing for their jobs. This might mean real health care reform Medicare for Everyone or at the very least a strong public option. If they start paying attention to people over corporations they will lose the House and Senate in November.
  • reyrey
    A deal was made with the devil. Obama brought pharma and the drug companies to the White House to plan the sell out and pay them back for the 20 million in campaign "donations."

    He put Baucus in charge of the Finance Committee mark up so it was guaranteed that no representative from single-payer could make their case and then the fix was in place.

    Now they're soiling their drawers because of Massachusetts. That wasn't in the plan. So they're scrambling for any means necessary to pass this pile of steaming cow manure they conjured together.

    How interesting. They could talk about reconciliation for this Xmas payoff to the insurance companies but they couldn't pass a GOOD fucking bill of universal Medicare for all which would have passed easily by the same 51 Democratic senators if they gave a rats ass about what the people wanted and weren't running around like republican meerkats trying to find reasons to brown nose Obama instead of listening to their constituents who pay their fucking salary.

    I almost have to cover my eyes as I type this but I hope Brown creams Coakley in Massachusetts and paves the way for Reid to take his long overdue early retirement.

    He's been nothing but a pussy from day one.
  • Eyeball_Kid
    Isn't it fascinating how the Dems frame success around the 60 vote majority? It's a straw man!! Sixty votes is a false watermark. It's 50 plus 1! That's how reconciliation works, and the Constitution also says that bills are passed in the Senate by a simple majority.
  • spinnikerca
    I see no way an insurance mandate could possibly fit into the narrow box required for reconciliation.

    Thank goodness.
  • S in PA
    Logically, you're correct. Really, though, it's just wishful thinking. Reid will find a way to put a mandate into a reconciliation bill. He's up for reelection, he needs those health "insurance" bucks.
  • sonny
    This is a toothless wolf crying out once again. Stop it! Put up or shut up.
  • douvie
    With all that we have experienced with the Democratic party, I doubt that they could pass a bill outlawing abortion, with reconciliation or without. The Republicans, however, can get what they want with the slimmest of minorities.
  • S in PA
    Yes, so true. If the Republicans had only one member in the senate and one in the house, Obama would STILL insist on "bipartanship", i.e., whatever the Republicans want.
  • Tom H.
    Amen!! It is long past time to rid ourselves of the corrupting stench of the health insurance industry. They corrupt our politics and let citizens die by economic rationing; .all in the name of the bottom line. This industry no longer serves the public interest.
  • disappointedvoter
    It's a perfect opportunity to completely rewrite that bill. Drop all the crap, make Medicare universal, put the bullshit medical insurance racket out of business for good!
  • George
    Then they should improve on it. How about single payer? Then leeberbum could go to
  • Hot Rod Harrry
    This is the opportunity to throw overboard Ben Nelson, Mary Landrieu, Blanche Lincoln & Joe Lieberman and pass the Health Care Reform with reduction in Medicare eligibility age and a robust Public Option, using Budget reconciliation.
  • KingCranky
    Absolutely, use the threat of reconciliation to let those Senators you named, plus Bayh, that every single aspect they support will be yanked out of the final bill if reconciliation is necessary.

    And if some Senator wants to introduce legislation abolishing the pensions-and all other taxpayer-funded perks-of all current elected officials at the federal level, that would be appreciated as well.
  • starvapor
    Hopeful thinking , but unfortunately, the "medical insurance racket" consists of the health insurance gods that control whoever votes in either direction in this charade so you can go ahead and bet your money that whatever comes out will favor their interests.
  • S in PA
    I'm with you!
  • lapdogd
    And make the legislation effective immediately - not effective some three or four years out.

    The Republicans may have control by then and they can rip it apart and make sure it never becomes effective.

    Once people see what the legislation is like - and if they like it, it will be tougher to remove it - just like Social Security etc.
  • anothergreenbus
    You are so rught.
  • Vince J
    Reconcile with the American people who is demanding a public option!!!! I live in Australia and I don't pay a cent for health care!!!! Not a cent! Health is a right not a comodity! Vote those who opose this notion out!
    PS. don't forget that the War Criminal Obama has received millions from the health insurance companies!!! You should remember that everytime he pretends to be on the side of a public option.
  • SailingJudy
    Vince J --- you obviously have no understanding of what this "health reform bill" will do. I have traveled in Australia and utilized the wonderful Australian public system (at minimal cost for tourists and no legal consent forms to sign because the doctors and hospital cannot be sued for malpractice in the public system in Australia.), but the vast majority of Americans do not trust the US Government to be in charge of health care. Our government manages to bureaucratize every program they initiate. What this bill was calling public option was merely a government backed insurance program -- no medical facilities provided and all medical practitioners and medical facilities would remain liable for medical malpractice lawsuits, which is BIG BUSINESS in the USA. Until the US is willing to stop allowing these lawsuits and willing to build public health facilities, there will be no true public option -- just word games.
  • Marco
    Medicare's worked fine for millions. Social Security's worked fine for millions. Those are government programs. Attacking lawyers (or tort reform as you rethugs call it) will do NOTHING to make more available or stop insureres from lowering rates. A government run healthcare system available to as many as possible would, undeniably do that. The public option is just a band-aid, what we really need is universal medicare.
blog comments powered by Disqus