The New Health Dialogue

...We'd say the wheels are back on the train leaving the station.

Lots of movement on the Hill, with the House Budget Committee likely to start work on the reconciliation package Monday or Tuesday. (You can read about the likely calendar on Congress Daily or Politico or any of the other usual suspects, but read fast, because it may all change yet again.)

For those of you outside of Capitol Hill, here are some thoughts. Getting the votes in the House is a chicken and egg process. Speaker Pelosi can't call a floor vote if she doesn't have the 217 votes (we think that's the magic number at the moment, it's fluctuated a bit with retirements, deaths, sex scandals etc) -- but she won't get the 217 votes unless she starts the process that leads to the House floor vote. So Pelosi is probably within reach of 217 -- but not there yet. And of course the not unexpected Senate parliamentarian ruling that the House does in fact have to vote directly on the Senate bill whether they like it or not -- and they don't like it one bit -- makes it harder. To throw in some cliches to our mixed metaphors, it's not over until it's over. But even with all the parliamentarian wrangling, it's sure looking a lot better than it did.

In the Senate, the timetable isn't as clear. But Harry Reid was clear in his letter to Mitch McConnell. It's reconciliation time, baby. 

“As you know, the vast majority of bills developed through reconciliation were passed by Republican Congresses and signed into law by Republican Presidents -- including President Bush’s massive, budget-busting tax breaks for multi-millionaires.  Given this history, one might conclude that Republicans believe a majority vote is sufficient to increase the deficit and benefit the super-rich, but not to reduce the deficit and benefit the middle class.  Alternatively, perhaps Republicans believe a majority vote is appropriate only when Republicans are in the majority.  Either way, we disagree.”

“At the end of the process, the bill can pass only if it wins a democratic, up-or-down majority vote.  If Republicans want to vote against a bill that reduces health care costs, fills the prescription drug ‘donut hole’ for seniors and reduces the deficit, you will have every right to do so.”

Senate moderates seem more resigned to the process. When South Carolina Republican Lindsey Graham offered to try some bipartisan bridge-building, he didn't get a warm embrace. "It's not the same as it was before," centrist Democrat Ben Nelson said. Too much troubled water flowing under that bridge.