If Coakley loses, steel yourself DU for some PingPong. The Senate Bill may become Law.

[Perky]

PingPong is a legislative approach in which the lower house passes a bill and the upper house passed a different bill and rather than going to conference and facing a second vote in the upper chamber, the House simply approves the Senate version.

No one here, likes the Senate Bill I get that. But losing the MA senate seat means no chance for passage at all. They would lose the Stupak coalition but would likely pick up some bluedogs in the House who could not swallow the House Bill.

If you note The President has moved up the SOTU to next week. On health Care hec ould say basically say to the House: "Sixty Senators voted for this bill. but there is time to improve the bill with it longer ramp up and the American people want us to get this done and move on after a year of arguing to oyhrt thingd that are important to them like jobs, financial re regulation, getting the banks to pay back the TARP money and sensible immigration reforms. Shift to a real populist message that resonates with moderates and independents and tie the "Party of NO." up in knots ad we head into the mod terms


Look a Coakley defeat dooms healthcare not just because of the 60th vote but because it is going to be a shock the the Dems political psyche to lose Teddy's seat. It would be a defining moment certainly for the coming midterms, if this bill languishes in conference and sucks up all the oxygen in the room the environment it going to get more toxic. We need to get this done and couch it as part of a bigger set of populist programs that moderat voters can get behind.

People around DU are saying if we lose HCR, We lose the mid-terms and Obama is a one Termer. I am not sure of either of those two. but the way to save the party is not to loooygag on Heathcare for another 2 months, its to pass it (fixing it later) and move on to other things that need fixing.

[jefferson_dem]

1. The least bad of several bad options.

Pass the Senate bill and fix what you can later and/or via reconciliation. Dems know that the dye is cast. They will get slammed whether the bill becomes law or not. So they must finish it - muscle the through - for the good of the nation and let the chips fall where they may. Pelosi floated this idea (in principle) yesterday.

[Perky]

2. Actually there would be no recociliation

The House imply passes the Senat Bille and changes noting. Reconcilation means it has to go back to the Senate for re-vote and probable death. This is not the least bad option... I think it may be the only option if Coakley loses. I am not sure they even have 60 if she wins.

[jefferson_dem]

3. I mean, they could use reconciliation to fix certain parts of the Senate Bill...

Once it's voted on by the House. Of course, these must be "budget-related" elements for it to be germaine for the reconciliation process.

Actually, there are other options such as:

1. Letting health care reform die.
2. Scrapping the current bill and doing whatever you can via reconciliation only.
3. Fast-tracking the conferenced bill through the Senate before the new Senator (Brown, if he wins) is sworn in and seated.

[Clio the Leo]

4. Fixing it later via reconciliation seems to be the notion of the moment...

read..
http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/01/plan-b-democrats-consider-how-to-pass-health-care-if-coakley-loses.php?ref=fpblg

..... if you haven't already.

Apparently the things the House has a problem with are all budget related (the Union compromise for example) and could be added in later with only 51 votes.

[DCBob]

10. Its a different kind of reconciliation -- "budget reconciliation".. once the main bill is passed.

Changes imparted during "budget reconciliation" only need 51 votes to pass. At least that is my understanding. But still very confusing.

[TankLV]

15. Yep - this sounds like the best course for now...

[customerserviceguy]

5. You're dreaming

If Coakley loses what should have been a sure-thing election in MA (it sure looked that way a month ago, didn't it?), then shock waves will reverberate throughout Congress. Anything Martha Coakley touched, including the President, will be avoided by congresscritters desperate to keep their seats in November.

The Senate bill, as is, with Cadillac tax on health plans, is dead. The unions won't let the deal they made last week get pulled out from under them.

[Perky]

18. So then it is dead altogther?

The only way I see a positive outcome is possible to get it back through the Senate a second time is if Coakley blows out Brown.

[JVS]

22. This could be a perfect excuse to shelf the issue until 2011 or even 2013.

The reform wasn't scheduled to take effect until 2013 anyway.

[customerserviceguy]

23. That's what I've said all along

If the economy recovers, we will have a good shot at 2013. If it doesn't, then the Rethugs will undo anything passed now, anyway.

[last1standing]

6. That should take Democrats out of the majority for a generation or two.

I have to say that if they're stupid enough to do it then they probably deserve the consequences. Personally, I think they'll wise up quickly whether Coakley wins or not, but then I'm an optimist.

[dccrossman]

8. This makes me really laugh

Nothing either party does will ever take them out of the majority for a "generation or two". The public has no memory, and in general is good with the notion of "throw the bums out", no matter which set of bums happen to be in there.

Dems are going to lose Senate seats. There's really no way around it. Just by the numbers. After winning seats in the last 3 election cycles, it's inevitable. Ones leaning mildly to the side that has been gaining seats get complacent, ones to the opposite get a little more energized. And back, and forth.

[last1standing]

12. You're right, "the public has no memory". At least some don't.

Republicans were put out of effective power for a couple of generations after they botched the Great Depression and we just experienced a generation of Democrats being out of effective power from 1981 till 2006 (with brief respites of Dem control) before winning two (not three) election cycles.

Yes, it does happen and it happens when a generation of voters believes that the party in power does not have its best interests at heart.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

7. If Reid decides to quash a cloture vote....

And if the "new" magic number is 51, I think the Senate REALLY needs to consider moving toward the House version. Screw Lieberman. Screw Ben Nelson and Blanche Lincoln. Screw Olympia Snow and bi-partisanship.

If we can get some kind (even if not a perfect kind) of Public Option in the new legislation, eliminate the more objectionable portions (i.e., the Excise Tax) and toss the concessions made to people who were never going to vote for this bill anyway, Obama and the Democrats would have a HUGE win going into the mid-term elections.

[dccrossman]

9. Seems highly unlikely

After all the noise Dems made when Rethugs wanted to change the cloture rules?

In both bills, it takes way too long for the changes to go into effect. HCR will not positively impact this year, except to say that something major got done. We need a jobs bill that actually makes an impact on people and creates buzz and newstories, in order to actually impact getting people to the polls.

[Jeff In Milwaukee]

11. It's hard to tell...

I know that's why Reid has been hesitant to pull the trigger. But that being said, there's going to be a LOT of pressure put on him to do it. I mean, how does Healthcare Reform (or anything else, for that matter) get through the Senate if Republicans filibuster everything to death?

And I think you're wrong about the "pipeline" for the changes. Many of the worst abuses by the insurance companies (annual lifetime limits, dropping coverage, etc.) are supposed to take effect upon passage. But you're right that many of the other features will take several months to kick in.

[The Wizard]

13. Reality dictates

the Democrats don't have 60 votes. The 60 vote threshold is a cover for not doing anything that would interfere with lobbyist donations. Liebermann provides cover for corrupt Democrats more concerned with being on the take than doing the work the voters expect and deserve.

[Gman2]

14. Bunch of demoralizable wimps

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

16. No, ping-pong reconciliation is something different.

It is odd that Nate Silver could be clueless about something this basic, but he is. (He is a baseball statistician... he is great with numbers but not unusually well informed about process.)

I cannot account for how all people use all words but "ping-pong" entered the HCR lexicon with a speciffic meaning.

The ping-pong concept is a kind of informal method to merge two bills without a formal conference.

The House passing the Senate bill as written is not ping-pong. (I think it's called engrossment, but am not sure on that) In fact, it's the opposite of ping-pong. There is no back and forth at all... no interaction between House and Senate.

Think of "conference" as being like formal peace talks and "ping-pong reconciliation" as being like "shuttle diplomacy."

The House accepting the senate bill is completely different. That requires no senate input and involves no negotiation at all since not one comma of the senate bill can be changed.

The senate has acted. If the House accepts what the senate did then the senate does not get another crack at it... their first offer is accepted. In that scenario it goes from the House right to the president so it doean'y matter how many votes we have in the senate; 59 vs. 60.

(In the preceding 'reconcilliation' means reconciling the two bills, not the budget rules process of a similar name.)

[Perky]

17. Right in all respects K&H

I used the wrong term.. but we talking about the House voitng to pass the Senate bill with no changes and then the President signing the bill. Might be the only path even if Coakley pulls it out.

[Kurt_and_Hunter]

19. Yes, that is seeming likely

As discussed here ( http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=433x134247 ) this path actually leads to a slightly stronger bill, though at the cost of pissing off some blue-dogs.

[grahamhgreen]

20. The fact is if we pass CRAP HCR, we lose the midterms - a PO, or Medicare buy in, or SP is popular.

[Perky]

21. I think you are way insider the HCR bubble

You confuse the left with the majority of the electorate which is far more focused on kitchen table issues than whether or not the bill has a public option or not.

[grahamhgreen]

27. You could not be more wrong. The public is far in advance of the media and the leadership.

[jenmito]

24. K&R. The House would pass the Senate bill and

then change some things through reconciliation as reported on MSNBC.

[themaguffin]

25. If that's where we are, then the House WILL do it.

[bigwillq]

26. I thought the game was chess.

:shrug: :evilgrin: