Health Care Bill Clears Second Senate Vote

(CBS/AP)  Updated at 10:30 a.m. ET

President Barack Obama's health care overhaul easily cleared its second 60-vote test in the Senate early Tuesday morning.

Senate Democrats remained united in their goal of passing the legislation by Christmas, and Republicans were steadfast in opposition.

Tuesday's critical vote involved a procedural move - a motion to shut off debate on a package put together by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid. It passed 60-39.

The final 60-vote hurdle, which would end debate on the bill itself, is expected Wednesday afternoon, starting a 30-hour countdown to a night-before-Christmas vote on the bill, which needs only a simple majority to pass.

CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

CBS News correspondent Kimberly Dozier reports there's a mandatory waiting time between the votes, pushing the schedule right up to the evening of Christmas Eve. But essentially, it becomes an exercise in calling attendance - as long as all 60 senators in the Democratic voting block show up, and keep saying "aye".

Still, the final outcome remains unpredictable because the Senate measure must be reconciled with a starkly different and more liberal bill already passed by the House of Representatives. That is likely the most difficult step before Obama can sign the legislation into law.

The 10-year, nearly $1 trillion plan before the Senate would extend coverage to some 30 million uninsured Americans, with a new requirement for almost everyone to purchase insurance. Subsidies would be provided to help lower-income people do so, and businesses would be encouraged to cover their employees through a combination of tax breaks and penalties.

Unpopular insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with existing health conditions would be banned. Uninsured or self-employed Americans would have a new way to buy health insurance, via marketplaces called exchanges where private insurers would sell health plans required to meet certain minimum standards.

The Senate has been voting at odd hours since Monday because Republicans have insisted on using all the time allowed them under Senate rules to delay the bill. Not to be thwarted, Reid has refused to postpone action until after the holidays. Hence the unusual schedule.

On Tuesday, they started voting at sunrise.

With long hours getting in the way of family obligations, frustration has been mounting in the Senate. As the schedule stands, a vote on final passage would not come until late Christmas Eve day.

Reid appealed to senators Tuesday to set aside acrimony and personal rancor and reach for some holiday spirit.

"I would hope everybody will keep in mind that this is a time when we reflect on peace and good things," he said. If Republicans agree, the schedule could be shortened and senators would go home earlier.

The legislation will make a "tremendous difference for families, for seniors, for businesses and for the country as a whole," Obama said Monday.

Democrats prevailed 60-40 over Republican opposition on the first test early Monday, voting to block a threatened Republican effort to try to sink a last-minute package of Democratic amendments.

Republicans vowed to fight on.

"I am willing to stay here. The flight that I have is Christmas morning, and I don't plan on changing that reservation," Sen. Bob Corker told reporters after a meeting of Republican senators. "We potentially are getting ready to pass a bill that there's no question in my mind is going to lead to huge deficits down the road."

Meanwhile, Republican Senator Lindsey Graham said on Tuesday morning that the deals Democratic leaders have cut to round up the votes they need to push the measure through the Senate have been "sleazy."

Speaking Tuesday on NBC's "Today" show, the South Carolina senator cited concessions won by Nebraska Democratic Sen. Ben Nelson, whose support gave Democrats the 60th and final vote they need. Among other things, Nelson won an agreement that the federal government will pay to expand Medicaid services in Nebraska.

Said Graham: "That's not change you can believe in. That's sleazy."

Democratic Sen. Tom Harkin of Iowa defended the concessions on CBS' "The Early Show," saying: "The one that's being talked about for Nebraska, it also benefits other states. It's not just Nebraska."

He also said he would vote for the package even if it didn't contain concessions for Iowa. "The principle of this bill overrides everything," Harkin said. (Watch the Interview with Tom Harkin here)

More on Health Care:

Senate's Deal: Compromise or Corruption?
Tallying the Health Care Bill's Giveaways
What's Next for the Health Care Bill?
Comparison of Senate, House Health Care Bills
Obama: Health Care Vote a "Big Victory"
Some Seek to Kill the 60-Vote Filibuster
Unplugged: Stupak Opposes Senate Abortion Compromise
CBSNews.com Special Report: Health Care

[bankersvox]

Question ? For people who chose to lead risky and health costly life styles of jobs - such as professional football players - who get plenty of MRIs physical therapy examples - why should I be paying for all this stuff ???
There will be a lot of animosity, this as just one example.

How about people who want to "get a tan" and put thus down the way get skin cancer - they knew the risks, the GOVT allowed them on the beaches ?? Why do I have to pay the same to support their RISKY behavior ????


Perhaps we can have a National Touch Football League ? Or taxed permits to go to the beach, and wear "radiation" cards to see how much UV light, via a GOVT program ???? Utopians are you listening ??? Good job.

The American people will come to hate all of this, and vote you out of office,

[vista8635]

"[The U.S.] does not have a health care system, you have a market."

Money talks; democracy walks.

[Mortar-29]

Silly.

[slownewsday___]

"Silly" is Mortimer's response to anything when he can't think of an intelligent response.

It happens a lot.

[Illya8642]

by Mortar-29 December 22, 2009 2:21 PM EST
And by the way...who can I appeal a decision of the SCOTUS to?

-----------------------

In terms of CONSTITUTIONAL issues the Congress and the States must both have super majorities in concurrence. Neither being likely in the near term; I return to the premise that until the Supreme Court makes a very unpopular interpretation that unites members of BOTH parties it is unlikely we will be seriously considering many amendments to the Constitution.

Requiring an affirmative vote by 2/3 of each House of Congress (has happened) or 2/3 of the state legislatures for a convention to craft amendments(has never happened) then requiring 3/4 of the states for ratification (either convention or legislatures). What are the odds in the current or any near term future Congress for 2/3 of either House to support a substantive amendment to the constitution. Which 2/3 of the states would be willing to gamble on some unused national convention process to craft amendments not to interfere in areas the state's would rather control themselves?

Checkout the exact language concerning the 2/3 of the states calling a convention -- I fail to see any definition of the mechanism for allocating delegates to said convention; would it be by congressional district, by state or some combination thereof, I submit if this were to be attempted it could be tied up almost forever in litigation to determine the appropriate model for representation of the various states. Imagine the nightmare if the 2/3 of the states proposing the national convention had to also agree in their resolutions on the method of representation for each state -- even more unlikely (impossible). Which large state would concede equal representation to smaller states -- like the Senate two representatatives per state. Which smaller states would permit the larger states to require proportional representation based on population? The convention route seems highly improbable at best.

"The Congress, whenever two thirds of both Houses shall deem it necessary, shall propose Amendments to this Constitution, or, on the Application of the Legislatures of two thirds of the several States, shall call a Convention for proposing Amendments, which, in either Case, shall be valid to all Intents and Purposes, as Part of this Constitution, when ratified by the Legislatures of three fourths of the several States or by Conventions in three fourths thereof, as the one or the other Mode of Ratification may be proposed by the Congress; Provided that no Amendment which may be made prior to the Year One thousand eight hundred and eight shall in any Manner affect the first and fourth Clauses in the Ninth Section of the first Article; and that no State, without its Consent, shall be deprived of its equal Suffrage in the Senate."

[Mortar-29]

I agree with much of what you wrote. The issue is, that the Founders even stated that, there is no need to vote on acts of the Federal government that are unConstitutional. They are automatically void and of no force.

So, the issue is the States would just ignore unConstitutional laws, because again, they are void and of no force. That doesnt require any other State to join in, or even votes in Congress. Just ignore the unConstitutional actions of the Federal government.

Then, if the Federal government presses the issue in order to force compliance with their illegal actions, States could put the Federal government in place by issuing laws, regulations, etc that help to constrain illegal actions by the Federal government in the States.

The proposal by Colorado was a great one, where the State legislature would hold onto Federal tax money (after mandating that the citizens of the State send Federal tax money to the State) and only dole out to the Federal government what it is Constitutionally allowable.

And that is just one way to reign them in.

I was attached to law enforcement for one of my duty stations in the military. While there, I watched a local sheriff basically threaten to arrest and detain two DEA agents, who thought they could come in and say "we are the Feds, we are in charge." They tried to tell the sheriff he couldnt bust a local drug lab, as they had an ongoing investigation in another state also linked to this one. The problem was, the DEA agents were being arrogant and instead of working with the sheriff, they tried to tell the sheriff what to do.

The sheriff basically told them "I am elected by the people of this county. I answer to them, not you. Because you are acting so arrogant, I am going to take down this lab tomorrow. Now, if you get in my way, I will have you arrested and detained for obstruction of justice."

The sheriff took down the meth lab the next day!

Even on small scales, there are ways to tell Washington to get back in the box it was designed to be in!

[Illya8642]

But what is unconstitutional is still a province of the courts and not individuals. Ignoring issues an individual concludes to be unconstitutional is always at the peril of the interpretation of the courts. As Thoreau wrote of Civil Disobedience; however, if not upheld by the courts acts of civil disobedience will incur the consequences imposed by the court.

By the way read the 16 amendment some time -- most if not all of the assertions about Congress' limitations in effecting policies with the income tax are clearly allowable -- the income tax is on any income Congress chooses and the assessments of income specifically do NOT have to be apportioned by state or by population. Clearly there are virtually no limitations as far as I can see for the Congress to use income tax policy for various purposes as has been done since the ratification of this amendment and even before -- until it was challenged in court.

"The Congress shall have power to lay and collect taxes on incomes, from whatever source derived, without requirement for apportionment among the several States, and without regard to any census or enumeration."

[BeckieBest]

To illustrate how concerned Republicans are about the skyrocketing cost of health care and how it's hurting the country, I've compiled a list of all the health care reform legislation that they've put forward in the last 40 years:




















That's right, nothing!

The GOP is fighting for your right to pay more and get less.


lol!

[Mortar-29]

Silly.

[slownewsday___]

"Silly."

As are you, Mort.

[vinnyb5]

These democrats have no shame. The nerve to slip in language so that future congress' cannot amend or change part of this bill. These people are sneakier the the GOP EVER was.



Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:


there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

[Mortar-29]

Yeah. This is the stuff of tyrants.

[bajajohn1]

What are you quibbling about? The Republicans have not heard you one bit and the Democrats had their own house fight. So what are you quibbling about? Merry Christmas

[BeckieBest]

The last time Republicans killed health care reform, they sat by and watched as prices doubled.


Now, as then, they want you to believe that doing nothing is the best option.


Fool me once.....................

[Mortar-29]

Your being fooled again. Doing nothing is the only option they have. They have no power to do this! Breaking the law should be wrong, no matter why they are trying to do it!

[Mortar-29]

Dr. Robert Higgs, senior fellow at the Oakland-based Independent Institute, penned an article in The Christian Science Monitor (2/9/2009) that suggests the most intelligent recommendation that I've read to fix our current economic mess. The title of his article gives his recommendation away: "Instead of stimulus, do nothing -- seriously."

The stimulus package debate was over how much money should be spent, whether some should given to the National Endowment for the Arts, research sexually transmitted diseases or bail out Amtrak, our failing railroad system. Dr. Higgs says, "Hardly anyone, however, is asking the most important question: Should the federal government be doing any of this?" He adds, "Until the 1930s, the Constitution served as a major constraint on federal economic interventionism. The government's powers were understood to be just as the framers intended: few and explicitly enumerated in our founding document and its amendments. Search the Constitution as long as you like, and you will find no specific authority conveyed for the government to spend money on global-warming research, urban mass transit, food stamps, unemployment insurance, Medicaid, or countless other items in the stimulus package and, even without it, in the regular federal budget."
By bringing up the idea of constitutional restraints on Washington, I'd say Dr. Higgs is whistling Dixie. Americans have long ago abandoned respect for the constitutional limitations placed on the federal government. Our elected representatives represent that disrespect. After all I'd ask Higgs: Isn't it unreasonable to expect a politician to do what he considers to be political suicide, namely conduct himself according to the letter and spirit of the Constitution?
While Americans, through ignorance or purpose, show contempt for our Constitution, I doubt whether they are indifferent between a growing or stagnating economy. Dr. Higgs tells us some of the economic history of the U.S. In 1893, there was a depression; we got out of it without a stimulus package. There was a major recession of 1920-21; though sharp, it quickly reversed itself into what has been call the "Roaring Twenties." In 1929, there was an economic downturn, most notably featured by the stock market collapse, after which came massive government intervention -- you might call it the nation's first stimulus package. President Hoover and Congress responded to what might have been a two- or three-year sharp downturn with many of the policies President Obama and Congress are urging today. They raised tariffs, propped up wage rates, bailed out farmers, banks and other businesses, and financed state relief efforts. When Roosevelt came to office, he became even more interventionist than Hoover and presided over protracted depression where the economy didn't fully recover until 1946.
Roosevelt didn't have an easy time with his agenda; he had to first emasculate the U.S. Supreme Court. Higgs points out that federal courts had respect for the Constitution as late as the 1930s. They issued some 1,600 injunctions to restrain officials from carrying out acts of Congress. The U.S. Supreme Court overturned as unconstitutional the New Deal's centerpieces such as the National Industrial Recovery Act and the Agricultural Adjustment Act and other parts of Roosevelt's "stimulus package." An outraged Roosevelt threatened to pack the Court, and the Court capitulated to where it is today giving Congress virtually unlimited powers to tax, spend and regulate. My question to my fellow Americans is: Do we want a repeat of measures that failed dismally during the 1930s?
A more fundamental question is: Should Washington be guided by the Constitution? In explaining the Constitution, James Madison, the acknowledged father of the Constitution, wrote in Federalist Paper 45: "The powers delegated by the proposed Constitution to the federal government are few and defined. Those which are to remain in the State governments are numerous and indefinite. The former will be exercised principally on external objects, as war, peace, negotiation, and foreign commerce." Has the Constitution been amended to permit Congress to tax, spend and regulate as it pleases or have Americans said, "To hell with the Constitution"?

[bajajohn1]

The problem with your good doctor is that without a stimulus package and a bailout we would be in the midst of winter in a full-blown economic depression. Maybe dummies like you would resort to burning the constitution to keep yourselves warm.

[Mortar-29]

Sorry, no we wouldnt. Try again!

[mjlewis6]

As I read some of this legalized baloney about the 10th Amendment, I am reminded of the technical legal arguments for the American Civil War.

It was NOT about slavery. It was about taxes. Slavery became the institution that was put aside and had to be legally closed LATER. After the war it TOOK the 13th, 14th and 15th Amendments to the USC to make it stick, and STILL the states refused, using JIM CROW laws to subjugate the newly freed citizens. The American Civil War forever ended the ideal of a participatory and voluntary union of States in a Federal System as being democratic. All state legal acts tending towards DISUNION were political in nature and thus were ILLEGAL and affirmed so AFTER the military use of force dictated the result.

If you wish to wave the state flag and get a lot of people killed over the idea that Colorado has a right to be independent...you will lose in Federal Court.

Texas runs a kind of three legged chair of democracy: !) Full time Governor, Lt. Governor, and Speaker of the House (whenever the legislature is not in session for 120 days every 2nd year) balanced with 2)a Supreme Court and Criminal Court of Appeals.........and 3) Lifetime Federal Judges whose jurisdiction covers Texas...

You finally get your rights protected in Texas ONLY when you run it past a Federal Judge to issue an order restraining this Police State.

So, without taxes....government WITHERS....Just remember that while you are smoking that big cigar of state's rights. Seen any Colorado money minted by the State of Colorado recently? Not hardly.

[Mortar-29]

You have absolutely NO IDEA what you are talking about.

[Mortar-29]

And by the way...just standby. The States are coming to reign in Washington. Since Washington cant get its act together and obey the law, the States will get to the point where they have had enough. Many have reached that point!!

So, you can rant about this all you want. Its coming.

[troutfishyman]

Mortar-29


Guess you enjoy the Don Quixote role....

[Mortar-29]

Maybe