Healthcare Bill will Pass in House. How Many Votes Do We Currently Have in the Senate?

[Bullet1987]

If you guys had to guess right now, how many votes would you say Obama has in the Senate for the healthcare bill? I've always thought it would pass the House. The fights always come down to the Senate though because there's less votes. How many votes are needed to pass by the way? 60?

[Leo The Cleo]

1. 51

If this thing can't pass, then it better be a terrible bill. If it doesn't pass and it's a good bill, then these elected dems aren't worth their salt.

[Laelth]

2. Not enough, I hope.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.


:dem:

-Laelth

[DesertFlower]

5. i have mixed feelings about

forcing people to buy insurance. i have a friend who works temp -- makes about $25.00 an hour and does not want to buy health insurance. i don't think the rest of us "responsible" people should have to pay his medical bills if he's in an accident or gets really sick.

[Laelth]

7. If we could afford insurance, we would have bought it.

Or at least, I think it's fair to say that logic applies to about 80% of the uninsured.

Unfortunately, we're fighting against the attitude that it's better for us to die than for our superiors, the "better" Americans who have insurance already, to have to pay more taxes.

So, we see the abysmal propositions now being floated in Congress, the ones that place the burden of "universal coverage" squarely on the shoulders of the uninsured who will have to pay a whopping, new tax of between 1.5% to 11.5% of their gross income every year to buy insurance that they probably still can't use because they can't afford the co-pays. If they don't pay the tax, however, they're criminals.

Great. Canada is looking better all the time.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DesertFlower]

12. for those who can't afford it,

it should be free or at least subsidized (maybe a sliding scale). my friend makes almost $1,000 a week and is single with no bills. i think he can afford to purchase a basic plan. he's a legal secretary, had a great job paying $63,000 a year plus benefits and he quit in this economy because "he was losing his soul".

i just paid almost $900 out of my pocket for a visit to the emergency room. the doctor saw me for less than 5 minutes. his charge was $598.00 which i had to pay because my deductible was not satisfied. had it been, my insurance would have paid it. that's an awful lot of money for 5 minutes. i know i was paying his fee for those who can't pay, but this shouldn't happen. we should have single payer.

i agree with you about canada. my sister has lived there since 1974. both her children were born and raised there and she has never complained about the health care, but she does pay high taxes. bottom line, it's gonna get paid for by higher premiums or taxes. i personally would rather pay a little more in tax and have everyone covered.

[Laelth]

20. It will be subsidized.

And the portion paid by the uninsured will equal 1.5% to 11.5% of gross income. This will be perceived as a massive new tax by those 40+ million uninsured people, and it will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves.

Pass this bill and you're inviting a Republican Congress in 2010.

Consider yourself warned.

:dem:

-Laelth

[quantass]

8. Logic says it should be a tax across the nation

a la single-payer. I am being taxed here in Canada and i have NEVER gone to the doctor for an illness of any kind. And you know what...i am not grumpy about having to pay a bit more for others to be covered and helped....sure i am losing out but lets face it...heaven forbid i DO get sick and i wasnt covered...then what? And i just dont mind spreading the wealth out to help each other in terms of healthcare...it just is the only humane thing to do.

I think when America grows up it will see the same what every other developed nation has realized.

[DesertFlower]

13. i wouldn't be grumpy either

if we had a canadian system. my friend would be paying his fare share in taxes for health care.

[quantass]

6. Sadly i can see where you're coming from but...

being lucky enough for me being Canadian in a single-payer nation i actually think for America and its hard-wired politics that the only true path to single-payer is for it to go through Public Option. Public Option is really just an experiment for America...a foot in the water if yuo will. Ultimately though the only true savings and peace of mind is single payer but knowing how things are in that gigantic nation of yours there are too many obstacles for it to pass through easily.

So although i understand your logic it is suicide for anyone to try REAL healthcare reform in the manner of single-payer. The U.S. will get true reform but the path that paved the way will be this year under Obama. My prediction is that it will be the next democratic president after 12-16 years (assuming Obama lasts 2 terms -- and if history repeats a republican will take over after that) will introduce single-payer which will gather a lot more traction but still the same kind of resistance we see today for public option.

Its funny because ultimately America will join the rest of the world and go single-payer...it is inevitable. It is like denying science in the face of facts..ultimately facts win out. Its just a matter of time....and thats the problem...how long will it take? 5,10, a lifetime? Possibly.

[Laelth]

10. If it were a public option like the UK's (paid for out of general revenues), I'd love it.

The current proposals before Congress, however, place the burden squarely on the uninsured (the people who already can't afford to buy insurance). This plan is insane, and it will create great resentment. It will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves.

Besides which, a similar plan is already failing in Massachusetts. This plan simply enriches insurance companies. It would be better to do nothing than to pass a law that orders Americans to buy insurance.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DesertFlower]

14. in the UK it's paid

for in taxes. someone from UK posted about it a few months ago.

[Laelth]

21. Exactly. General Revenues.

NOT a specific tax on the uninsured that's equal to between 1.5% and 11.5% of their gross income.

The bills currently being considered are political suicide for the Democratic Party.

:dem:

-Laelth

[DesertFlower]

29. and you're covered from pre-birth

to death. so there's no worrying if you're unemployed or retired.

[Mass]

26. There is a hardship exemption and it is highly subsidized...

I do not like the mandatory aspect, but the problem would be with people who come to be insured when they are sick and have been freeloading before, not because of those who cannot afford it.

Also, MA is not that bad. It is still by far one of the best state for healthcare in the country. The reason it is failing is largely because Romney vetoed payment by companies who do not insure their employees and the current administration is too shy to impose it now. Otherwise, it is far from being bad, and it is sad that both sides (RW and single payer people) have joined forces to bash the plan rather than seeing how it can be improved.

[Laelth]

28. I can't afford the premiums.

I am glad you feel that the Mass. system is working well, but if I get slapped with a new tax equal to between 1.5 to 11.5% of my gross income, I am going to be furious.

Be advised that the uninsured who make between 133% of poverty and 88K/year (for a couple) are the people who can't afford insurance now, and we will deeply resent being forced to buy insurance. If we could afford it, we would have bought it already. We are the struggling middle class. The Democratic Party would do well not to alienate us.

I don't know how to make this point more clear. Passing this bill will be political suicide for the Democratic Party. If you want universal coverage (and I do too), we'd better find another way to do it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mass]

31. I clearly prefer to live in MA than GA, and healthcare is one of the reasons...

I would largely prefer a single payer, though I suspect you would have to pay more taxes than you think for that, but it is not going to happen. So, the choice is between doing nothing and doing something that is far from perfect. I prefer the second solution, as I hope my kids would either be able to opt in a public option or get an insurance where preexisting conditions do not matter.

[Laelth]

36. I have no access to health care.

Nor would I have access in Mass. I can not afford insurance premiums. I would have to violate the law in Mass. I may have to violate the law we're discussing, if it becomes law.

I hope it does not. I do not want to have to violate it. I could be disbarred.

I am glad you like the single payer system. I look forward to seeing you fight for it.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Mass]

44. Not here. This would be a loss of time.

[Uzybone]

34. so how should it be funded?

your complaining about raising taxes and about mandates. So how should it be funded?

[Laelth]

35. Out of general revenues ... just like it's done in the U.K.

And how did we fund the Iraq War? How did we fund the big Bush tax cuts? We printed money. We went into debt. So, now that we want to do something really good for the American people, all of a sudden we have to come up with a funding strategy? Why?

I tell you now. A massive new tax on the uninsured will seriously wound the Democratic Party. Ignore that warning at your own peril.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Uzybone]

37. General revenues come from taxes in the UK

so you are in favor of tax increases right?

[Laelth]

39. Absolutely.

Good, progressive taxes. An increase in the income tax would be fine. Increased gas taxes would be a good idea too. What I am opposed to is a specific tax on the uninsured that's equal to 1.5% to 11.5% of their gross income.

:dem:

-Laelth

[SpartanDem]

42. It might help if you understood what you were talking about

those are caps that doesn't mean everyone is going be forced to pay that amount yearly.

[Laelth]

43. It would help if you weren't rude.

But you can't always get what you want, now can you?

:shrug:

:dem:

-Laelth

[opihimoimoi]

3. All in all, me thinks Bill will pass...Pubs and Blue Dogs trying to water down

but in the end...49 Million should get their coverage which is better than no coverage...

[Laelth]

23. It will pass because the Republicans want it to pass.

And very few people will "get" coverage. Millions of Americans will be forced to buy coverage, and those people are the ones who can't afford insurance already.

Passing this bill is political suicide for the party. It will cause massive resentment, and it will drive people away from the Democratic Party in droves.

Get ready for a Republican Congress in 2010. Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth


Edit:Laelth--sloppy proofreading.

[tavalon]

4. We had damn well better have 60 or Reid needs to be fired

Come to think of it, Reid needs to be fired.

[quantass]

9. FIRE HIM Already -- No need to wait nt

[cleveramerican]

11. 13 short of 60

last i heard

[Laelth]

24. This is one time I hope Reid fails (as he usually does).

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Clear Blue Sky]

15. It should pass the Senate. We have a filibuster proof majority.

[quiller4]

16. 51 needed to pass and I'd say there are 49 confirmed now

and probably another 8 persuadable

[karynnj]

32. I think just 50 are needed - Biden breaks any ties

or is there a special rule under reconciliation. (There are so many claims of 51, that I figured I should ask if there is a reason it is 51 not 50)

If you are right, that is better than I would expect from all the pessimism. They should be able to get the one or two persuadables needed.

[backscatter712]

38. Veep breaks ties in the Senate.

So yes, under reconciliation rules, where filibusters are ixnayed, the vote can be 50+Biden to 50.

[RememberWellstone]

17. Pelosi has been vasilating

She does'nt seem to have her mind made up...she has said 3 different things , this week. I think she needs to be relieved asap.

[salguine]

18. Refresh my memory. Is this the bill that mandates that everybody buy insurance?

[Laelth]

25. Yes, of course, and it's a BAD idea.

I would rather Congress do nothing.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dawgs]

45. Why is it bad?

Can you point to anything that shows how it will hurt people?

[Mass]

19. At the latest count, 14 senators had not signed the pledge for a public option.

Kennedy and Byrd may or may not be up to vote the day the vote is scheduled.

60-14-2 = 44 senators.

This means they would need 7 senators among the 14 to change their minds.

Of course, this also means the bill coming out of the Senate is not too distorted by Baucus's manipulations. Otherwise, who knows how many votes it would lose on the other side.

[harun]

22. If it passes in the House the Senate will cave to the pressure to pass it.

No way they can go against the House, the President and the majority of the American people who support this.

[Better Believe It]

27. You need 50 votes to pass (Biden casting the tie breaker) with or without reconciliation

[MarjorieG]

33. Read somewhere, so don't know if true, that 50+ route imperils public option (budget rules?)

[Better Believe It]

41. No. That isn't true. Some raised that issue regarding passage of the stimulus package.

But I've read nothing indicating 60 votes are needed for passage of healthcare legislation due to budgetary rules.

[Peacetrain]

30. We are going to pass this if we have to do it with 50 plus one..

[Laelth]

40. I hope to goodness you are wrong, but I fear you may be right.

Forcing people to buy insurance is no more the solution to a failed health care system than forcing people to buy houses is the solution to homelessness.

:dem:

-Laelth

[Dawgs]

46. Again. You keep saying that, but don't explain why.

I'm fine with people being for single payer, and against the public option, but being against something without explanation does not help your point.

[Laelth]

47. Perhaps you missed some of my previous arguments, better explicated in other threads.

On the other hand, if you favor a national mandate that says all homeless people should buy houses, i.e. if that seems logical to you, I may be wasting my time.

But, in the hopes that you're actually interested in what I have to say, I will try to explain.

My main argument is that I, and a lot of people in my position, simply can not afford to buy insurance. If the current proposals before Congress become law, I will probably become a criminal unless my finances turn around very quickly--an unlikely prospect in this economy. Most of the uninsured will deeply resent being forced to pay between 1.5% and 11.5% of their gross income for insurance that the probably won't be able to use (because they still can't afford the co-pays) and that no doctor and no hospital will ever be forced to take (as per the terms of the House bill).

What's being proposed is virtually useless and places an enormous, new burden on the uninsured. I think it will be political suicide for the Party to pass a law with mandates. In fact, I would rather do nothing than to enact Romney-care (which has enriched the insurance companies but done little to actually improve the health of the people of Massachusetts). Turning poor people into criminals (if we were rich we could afford insurance, most of us) can not be the right way to achieve "universal" coverage. Such a plan strikes me as immoral and very unwise.

Thanks for listening.

:dem:

-Laelth