No, the House passed “a” universal healthcare plan, and then later the senate passed their own. THEN, and I don’t remember the details, but to get around the filibuster the House had to pass the exact bill the senate had passed. THEN it went back and the Senate was able to change it. Or something.
Yes, you are right. I recall that scenario. But I thought the Senate was just revising the original ‘universal plan’ that came out of the house.
“THEN it went back and the Senate was able to change it. Or something.”
There were 2 bills: the Senate-passed bill and a “reconciliation” bill that made “fixes” to that monstrosity because if the House had made those fixes to the Senate-passed bill, it would have had to go back to the Senate and passed with 60 votes to surmount a filibuster. But the reconciliation bill wasn’t subject to filibuster, hence House made the necessary changes and Senate passed that 2nd bill with under 60 votes.
The way they end-arounded the requirement that revenue bills be initiated in the House is that the Senate took up an innocuous House bill that had been approved previously on a completely different issue, but that had some tax provision in it. They then “amended” this by deleting literally all the bill’s language and then substituting the Senate language as an amendment. Thus, technically, the final bill was a revenue bill that “originated” in the House. That the whole process entirely violated the spirit of that constitutional restriction appears to have bothered no one on the Democrat side of the aisle.