Senate Republicans lose vote on health law
WASHINGTON
The vote was 47-51.
Moments earlier, the Senate agreed to make one relatively minor
change in the law, voting to strip out a paperwork requirement for
businesses.
President Barack Obama, who has vowed to veto any total repeal
of his signature legislative accomplishment, has said he would
accept the change. It does not directly affect health care.
Republicans conceded in advance their attempt at total repeal
would fall short, but they accomplished an objective of forcing
rank and file Democrats to take a position on an issue that
reverberated in the 2010 campaign and may play a role in 2012.
Senate Republican leader Mitch McConnell said the vote marked an
opportunity for Democrats who voted for the bill last year "to
listen to those who have desperately been trying to get your
attention."
"To say, yes, maybe my vote for this bill was a mistake, and
that we can do better," McConnell said.
Democrats worked to minimize any political repercussions, a
concern for a party already acutely aware it must defend 22 seats --
and its shrunken Senate majority -- in the 2012 elections.
Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., said the Republican repeal
movement would "take away a child's right to get health insurance
and instead give insurance companies the right to use asthma or
diabetes as an excuse to take away that care."
"It would kick kids off their parents' health insurance," Reid
said. "It would take away seniors' rights to a free wellness
check."
Democrats also countered with the proposed repeal of the law's
requirement that businesses, charities, and state and local
governments file income tax forms every time they purchase $600 or
more in goods.
It was approved 81-17, after Republicans said it had originally
been their idea.
Across the street from the Capitol, Democrats convened a
Judiciary Committee hearing to solicit testimony on the
constitutionality of the law they passed and Obama signed months
ago.
"Many who argue the Affordable Care Act is unconstitutional are
the same people who condemn judicial activism," said Sen. Dick
Durbin, D-Ill., who presided. "They are pushing the Supreme Court
to strike down this law because they could not defeat it in
Congress."
Republicans were scathing in response.
"The sensible process would have been to have . held a hearing
on the law's constitutionality before the bill passed, not after,"
said Sen. Chuck Grassley of Iowa. "Like Alice in Wonderland,
sentence first, verdict afterward."
Two federal judges have ruled the law it is unconstitutional,
partially or in its entirety, citing a requirement for individuals
to purchase coverage and pay a penalty in taxes if they fail to do
so. Two other judges have upheld the law.
The controversy has yet to reach the Supreme Court, but it is
widely expected to, and Sen. Bill Nelson, D-Fla., announced he
would file legislation urging the justices to act quickly.
The maneuvering occurred around a law as ambitious as any in
recent years, and as controversial. According to the Congressional
Budget Office, it would expand coverage to tens of millions who
lack it, crack down on insurance industry abuses and cut federal
budget deficits. At its core, the bill would require most Americans
to purchase insurance, a so-called individual mandate that has
become one of the principal points of opposition among Republicans
and the tea party activists who propelled them to gains last fall.
The bill's critics argue the law gave government too large a
role in the health care system, will harm Medicare and raises taxes
and fees that will burden the economy. They also sharply dispute
the CBO estimate that deficits will fall once the bill takes
effect, arguing that the forecasts rest on spending cuts to
Medicare and other programs that will not materialize.
Either way, the day's events shaped up as the latest maneuvering
in a struggle that has spanned more than two years.
Republicans said a proposal by Sen. Debbie Stabenow, D-Mich., to
eliminate the reporting requirement to the Internal Revenue Service
was legislative pilferage, noting that Sen. Mike Johanns, R-Neb.,
filed a bill to that effect last year.
The measure calls for $44 billion in spending cuts to offset the
revenue loss from the change, but unlike Johanns' earlier measure,
Stabenow's specifies that none of the funds can come from Social
Security.
Under federal law, Social Security benefits are generally
guaranteed. As a result, the provision Stabenow advanced assures
merely that no administrative costs can be cut at the agency.
No similar protection was included for the agency that oversees
Medicare.
The House approved legislation repealing the health care law
last month on a party-line vote, ignoring a veto threat from Obama
and Reid's blunt statement the bill would never see the light of
day in the Senate. McConnell responded quickly that he would look
for an opportunity to force a vote.
The law that passed a year ago had the support of 58 Democrats
and two independents aligned with them. All 40 Republicans voted
against it.
Democratic ranks have been thinned since then, and their current
majority is 53-47.
Of those 53 seats, 23 are on the ballot in 2012, including
several that Republicans are targeting. One on the list, Sen. Ben
Nelson of Nebraska, said in advance he would oppose the Republican
repeal proposal.
"There are a lot of good parts in the bill and some that I will
work to improve," Nelson told reporters in his home state. "The
repealers already have health care. But they're ready, willing and
eager to take it away from hundreds of thousands of Nebraskans."
At the same time, Nelson has said he favors replacing the
individual mandate and accompanying penalties if a viable
alternative can be found.