Democrats to advance health care under reconciliation

[hotatlboi]

Well, the Dems have finally come to their senses and realized that there just is no working with the obstructionist Republicans on this issue. So they have started formulating an approach that could pass the Senate under reconciliation.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/02/27/health/policy/27health.html

However, it is far from certain that this will pass. As you may know, reconciliation applies only to budget related items so it cannot be used for everything that is in the health care bill.

So the proposed approach so far is this:

1. the House will pass the bill approved by the Senate in December
2. Both houses will then pass another measure of changes to it that can be approved under reconciliation in the Senate.

Now previously Speaker Pelosi stated that the votes to pass the Senate version in the House were not there, however that was if the Senate version was to be the final say. In this scenario, the Senate bill would not be signed until the amended bill was also passed, making it just a placeholder to the final version, but it's passage will be needed first to approve the measures that could not pass solely under reconciliation.

Even given that, it is not certain that the votes in the House are there. It will take some careful negotiations over the proposed changes to get majority support. But now that we have FINALLY gotten off the futility that was efforts at Republican compromise, I'm far more optimistic.

 

[chuck10x]

The Republicans may be the party of NO, But the Democrats could not pass the bill with a super majority last year.
Now they are trying to pass the Bill with a simple majority vote.
Pelosi says she does not yet have the votes to pass the Bill as it stands.
What happened to ALL the Democrats who wanted this Bill passed?
If they can not pass the Bill with a simple majority vote the Democrats can no longer blame the Republicans.

 

[gambit22121]

I was watching the Health Care Summit the other day and thought it was hilarious how the Republican Spokesperson (Mary Matalin I think) kept insisting that the democrats couldn't/shouldn't use the reconciliation process to get this done. I guess in their minds, the reconciliation process can only be used to pass Bush Tax cuts that have deepened our financial crisis by skyrocketing our deficit. They truly are the party of no.

 

[chuck10x]

Chuck,

The Democrats passed a health care bill in both houses of Congress last year.

It was approved.
We do not have Health Care Reform yet.
If the Democrats had used the super Majority last year, We would not be having this discussion.

 

[chuck10x]

The Democrats did use their super majority last year.

Conference committee just could not reconcile the differences between the House bill and Senate bill in time before the Massachusetts election.

The Massachusetts election was just an excuse for not passing a bad Bill.
The HCR Bill started out great.
The Public Option.
The Democrats just added so much crap into it that everyone was uncomfortable with it.
Requirement by law that you purchase Health Insurance.
So much has been invested into HCR, That failure is no longer an option for the Democrats.
The Democrats approved the Bill by their super majority, They did not make it law.
The Democrats can make it law with a simple (51) majority vote - Lets see if they have the balls to do it.

 

[chuck10x]

i wonder how that would hold up constitutionally? jub lawyers (construct)

being forced just because you're a citizen by govt to buy anything from a pvt company seems troublesome on many levels

car insurance isnt comparable, i dont have to drive

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's legal, And thats my main concern about it.
The Government would also decide how much you can afford according to your yearly salary.
Also, how will you pay?
Healthcare tax in your paycheck?
The article states new taxes and fees as well as cutbacks to Medicare
Medicare is non-Profit, So any cuts come at the cost of Health care.
Will you have to purchase private insurance to cover what Medicare cuts?
Too many questions and no answers from the politicians.

 

[hotatlboi]

If they can not pass the Bill with a simple majority vote the Democrats can no longer blame the Republicans.

I totally agree with you on this. If the Dems still end up letting it die, that will represent an epic failure on their part.

 

[chuck10x]

I totally agree with you on this. If the Dems still end up letting it die, that will represent an epic failure on their part.

Thank you,
Though It might not sound that way, I do want Health Care Reform.
My problem with it is that the Insurance Companies profit by forcing people to do business with them.
Of all the possible and acceptable things that could have been done,Is this the best that our politicians could do?

The politicians should have stuck to the public option-Non profit health Insurance.

 

[JB3]

I was watching the Health Care Summit the other day and thought it was hilarious how the Republican Spokesperson (Mary Matalin I think) kept insisting that the democrats couldn't/shouldn't use the reconciliation process to get this done. I guess in their minds, the reconciliation process can only be used to pass Bush Tax cuts that have deepened our financial crisis by skyrocketing our deficit. They truly are the party of no.

And with this post you show that you have ZERO understanding of what reconciliation is actually for. It is ONLY meant for budget-related bills. Tax-cuts, as you should (hopefully) be aware, deal directly with the budget.

A massive government healthcare reform program was not what reconciliation was meant for, and would be a complete misuse of the procedure.

 

[construct]

i wonder how that would hold up constitutionally? jub lawyers (construct)

being forced just because you're a citizen by govt to buy anything from a pvt company seems troublesome on many levels

car insurance isnt comparable, i dont have to drive

What is your Constitutional complaint against it? Is your problem that the legislature does not have the authority to legislate on the subject? Is your problem a takings clause fifth amendment issue?

If the legislature has the authority to regulate the insurance industry under Article 1, then I'm not sure that there is a problem with requiring people to buy health insurance unless it is viewed as a violation of the takings clause. I'd have to think about that. Is forced pooling of oil and gas at all comparable? What about vaccination requirements for school children? Of course, forced pooling and vaccination is under state law, but those state laws would still be subject to the fifth amendment.

I really need you to flesh out your argument a bit more.

 

[hotatlboi]

I'm not a lawyer, but I don't think it's legal, And thats my main concern about it.
The Government would also decide how much you can afford according to your yearly salary.
Also, how will you pay?
Healthcare tax in your paycheck?
The article states new taxes and fees as well as cutbacks to Medicare
Medicare is non-Profit, So any cuts come at the cost of Health care.
Will you have to purchase private insurance to cover what Medicare cuts?
Too many questions and no answers from the politicians.

I simply don't understand how you can require coverage of preexisting conditions without making it a requirement to have insurance. Otherwise everyone can just go without insurance until they get a serious illness, then just sign up and have it covered. That would drive costs for existing policyholders way up.

 

[chuck10x]

I simply don't understand how you can require coverage of preexisting conditions without making it a requirement to have insurance. Otherwise everyone can just go without insurance until they get a serious illness, then just sign up and have it covered. That would drive costs for existing policyholders way up.

Thats why they are making it mandatory for you to purchase Insurance.
The young healthy people are specifically targeted to cover less healthy people.
Your Quote is why this bill is being passed-It will keep costs from rising.
When the Bill is passed, We start paying into it, However, Coverage does not kick in for 3 or 4 years allowing for the money to build up.
In the mean time, If you require hospitalization, The money you paid in means nothing.

 

[JB3]

I simply don't understand how you can require coverage of preexisting conditions without making it a requirement to have insurance. Otherwise everyone can just go without insurance until they get a serious illness, then just sign up and have it covered. That would drive costs for existing policyholders way up.

Well, one requires something of a multi-billion dollar company that the government regulates. The other requires something from an every day citizen, something that congress quite plainly does not have the authority to require. This is essentially congress saying 'you have no choice but to buy insurance', which is something that they have never attempted. I would have a hard time seeing that stand up to any significant constitutional challenge, and I would wager that there are already significant efforts being readied to do so should the bill pass.

 

[Kulindahr]

I was watching the Health Care Summit the other day and thought it was hilarious how the Republican Spokesperson (Mary Matalin I think) kept insisting that the democrats couldn't/shouldn't use the reconciliation process to get this done. I guess in their minds, the reconciliation process can only be used to pass Bush Tax cuts that have deepened our financial crisis by skyrocketing our deficit. They truly are the party of no.

And if the Democrats use reconciliation to pass this, then they are truly the party of no law.

Reconciliation is for budget matters. A brand new piece of legislation to establish a brand new government function has nothing to do with the budget. Taking this to reconciliation is corruption of power at its finest, a pretense at following law by making the law mean what you want it to mean, not what it says.

Using reconciliation for this is just like using the commerce clause to do any bloody thing the government wants: it's making the law mean nothing by making it mean everything. The only way to get this under reconciliation is to pretend that any bill which could require the government to spend money is a budget matter. Do that, and anything at all can be done under reconciliation.

We're to the point that I could wish Tom Clancy's book, where someone flies a 747 into the capitol when all of Congress is there, would really happen. Except that what we'd get then would be a couple of Congresses before it was all back to normal -- and why? Because the lobbyists would corrupt the new people just like the old, because the corporate campaign contributions would buy the new people as effectively as it has the current ones, because the bureaucrats would tell the new people "this is how it's done". And that would prove what anyone with sense should be able to see, that Congress is a wholly owned subsidiary of Corporate America.

 

[hotatlboi]

And if the Democrats use reconciliation to pass this, then they are truly the party of no law.

Reconciliation is for budget matters. A brand new piece of legislation to establish a brand new government function has nothing to do with the budget.

Please see my first post in this thread. Yes, reconciliation is only for budget matters. The current plan is to have the House pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill that was passed in December. That is perfectly fine and would enact the full measure into law. THEN, budget related items of the measure could be changed in another bill passed through reconciliation.

 

[Kulindahr]

Please see my first post in this thread. Yes, reconciliation is only for budget matters. The current plan is to have the House pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill that was passed in December. That is perfectly fine and would enact the full measure into law. THEN, budget related items of the measure could be changed in another bill passed through reconciliation.

That's not passing it through reconciliation.

 

[JB3]

Please see my first post in this thread. Yes, reconciliation is only for budget matters. The current plan is to have the House pass the Senate version of the health care reform bill that was passed in December. That is perfectly fine and would enact the full measure into law. THEN, budget related items of the measure could be changed in another bill passed through reconciliation.

That is not the plan. The house won't go along with it, because it requires a massive amount of trust in the senate, trust which rank and file democrats quite simply do not have. (come on man, keep up with the news if you're going to argue about this)

 

[iman]

The President of the Senate makes the final ruling on what is a budget matter.

Go Joe!

 

[JB3]

The President of the Senate makes the final ruling on what is a budget matter.

Go Joe!

Yes, Go Joe. Abuse the system to get your flawed legislation passed. Then the world will know once and for all what a spineless, opportunistic little twit you are.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I would be against the whole "jamming it through" part if a single Republican had come up with a single idea other than "death panels" or "let's just start over?"

As it is, I say let's jam it through and anyone who doesn't like it can kiss Nancy's boney ass.