WASHINGTON – Senate Democrats on Wednesday defeated a bid by Republicans to repeal last yearfs sweeping health care overhaul, as they successfully mounted a party-line defense of President Obamafs signature domestic policy achievement.
Challenges to the law, however, will continue both on Capitol Hill and in the courts, with the United States Supreme Court ultimately expected to decide if the health care law is Constitutional.
The vote was 47 to 51, with all Republicans voting unanimously for repeal but falling 13 votes short of the 60 needed to advance their proposal.
Lawmakers in both parties joined forces, however, to repeal a tax provision in the health care law that would impose a huge information-reporting requirement on small businesses. That vote was 81 to 17, with 34 Democrats and all 47 Republicans in favor.
Senators Joseph I. Lieberman, independent of Connecticut, and Mark Warner, Democrat of Virginia, were absent.
Republicans said after the votes that they would persist in their efforts to overturn the law. Rejecting assertions that the repeal vote was a gfutile act,h Senator John Cornyn of Texas, the chairman of the Republican Senatorial Campaign Committee, declared, gThese are the first steps in a long road that will culminate in 2012.h
Senator John Thune, Republican of South Dakota and a potential presidential candidate in 2012, noted that Republicans had just 40 votes when they opposed the health care bill last year, but had 47 as a result of winning seats in November.
gElections do have consequences,h Mr. Thune said.
The vote to eliminate the tax provision offered a brief moment of consensus on a day otherwise characterized by angry partisan disagreement. In the latest reprise of last yearfs fierce debate over the health care law, senators cross rhetorical swords for hours of floor debate.
Republicans denounced the overhaul as impeding job creation and giving the government too big a role in the health care system. Democrats highlighted the lawfs benefits, especially for the uninsured, and noted that the nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office has projected that the law would reduce future federal deficits.
Senator Rand Paul, Republican of Kentucky, who is an ophthalmologist, cited the lawfs requirement that nearly all Americans obtain insurance as evidence that it was unconstitutional and overly intrusive.
gIf you can regulate inactivity, basically the non-act of not buying insurance, then there is no aspect to our life that would left free from government regulation and intrusion,h Mr. Rand said. He added, gFrom my perspective as a physician, I saw that we already had too much government involvement in health care.h
Copyright 2011 The New York Times Company