Democrats to advance health care under reconciliation

[Kulindahr]

That said... although people didn't necessarily like the second bill, they sure did like the first. People want a public option, they want affordable care. They want reform and the Republicans don't seem to.

The Republicans want reform, they just don't agree with any of the Democrats' definition of what "reform" means.


BTW, I'm not in favor of a public option -- I'd rather see the FedGov provide the groundwork to encourage the formation of fraternal health insurance under not-for-profit associations. Let every large group in the country form its own insurance 'company' -- the Elks, AARP, the NRA, the Methodists, whatever. If we're going to do this bill, an effort should be made to see that just about every American has the opportunity to join one of these fraternal societies and have insurance that doesn't carry a fifteen percent surcharge to hand out to stockholders.

Oh -- while we're at it, how about making sure there's a good medical school in every state? and increase the supply of doctors by at least 20%? Not so far back, every GP was also effectively an immediate care clinic. To be sure these new doctors go GP, provide a 10% rebate per year of all college and med school loans, so if they stick with it they only pay a small amount.

What gets me about the whole debate is that foundational issues such as these aren't addressed. If the present insurance system doesn't work, establish a new one. Since there aren't enough GPs at all, fix it so we get more. If emergency rooms are crowded, provide seed money for clinics which would take some of the pressure off. If there aren't doctors where people live, that's another time to establish clinics.

All Congress seems able to conceive of is tinkering with the corporate system. Where are the proposals to change the entire system?



BTW -- if we're going to establish a federal bureaucracy for this, I'd like it to also deal with all the private insurance plans and make sure they work; I'm tired of dealing with three different companies for one lab visit.

 

[NickCole]

What I would like to see is Democrats taking the Senate Bill and jamming that one through.

That's not going to happen.

Not enough Democratic votes in the House to get that piece of shit bill passed. Thank goodness.

Do you even know what's in that bill that you want jammed through?

 

[hotatlboi]

That is not the plan...(come on man, keep up with the news if you're going to argue about this)

Um, that IS the plan. Maybe you are the one that should keep up.

Here is an updated article.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9E6ITLO1

because it requires a massive amount of trust in the senate

No it doesn't, it simply requires that enough House Dems like the altered version. The Senate can pass the altered version before the House passes the original one.

 

[JB3]

Um, that IS the plan. Maybe you are the one that should keep up.

Here is an updated article.

http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5jlMpJGn28kqCcgU-aGcYE_ZHW-ywD9E6ITLO1



No it doesn't, it simply requires that enough House Dems like the altered version. The Senate can pass the altered version before the House passes the original one.

The senate cannot pass the altered bill first, since the fixes are all financially related. (by law spending bills must originate in the house) Sen. Kent Conrad has made it very clear the senate will not do ANYTHING until the house passes the senate bill.

 

[hotatlboi]

The senate cannot pass the altered bill first, since the fixes are all financially related. (by law spending bills must originate in the house)

The House can pass it, then the Senate. That CAN happen before the House passes the first bill, since it does not matter what order bills are passed, only the order they are signed into law.

Spending bills originating in the House simply means that the House would pass the updated bill before the Senate under reconciliation. But that can all happen before the House passes the first bill if the Senate leadership is open to that.

Sen. Kent Conrad has made it very clear the senate will not do ANYTHING until the house passes the senate bill.

Other senators were more open to various options, ultimately it is up to Reid.

 

[Kulindahr]

The House can pass it, then the Senate. That CAN happen before the House passes the first bill, since it does not matter what order bills are passed, only the order they are signed into law.

Spending bills originating in the House simply means that the House would pass the updated bill before the Senate under reconciliation. But that can all happen before the House passes the first bill if the Senate leadership is open to that.


Other senators were more open to various options, ultimately it is up to Reid.

Reconciliation is a legislative process in the United States Senate intended to allow consideration of a contentious budget bill without the threat of filibuster.

Health care is not a budget bill -- and that's the only kind of bill reconciliation covers. So it can't be passed by reconciliation; the subject of reconciliation has to be a budget bill.

So as I said, if the Democrats corrupt the reconciliation law by dragging this bill into it, they'll just be showing that they have little or no regard whatsoever for the law, that they think they are so above the law that they can pretend it says what they want, regardless of what it does say.

Nor can this be considered a "reconciliation bill", which is a bill subsequent to a budget bill being passed by reconciliation, directing changes to existing law in order to meet budget requirements: these is no budget bill which contains health care provisions, so none can be passed thus requiring reconciliation.

Even suggesting this shows that Congress regards the law as a toy for them to play with, misuse, and/or ignore to suit their whims.

 

[hotatlboi]

Health care is not a budget bill

Many of the provisions in the health care bill are budgetary. This includes changes in taxes, medicare payments, medicaid payments, insurance subsidies, etc.

So it can't be passed by reconciliation; the subject of reconciliation has to be a budget bill.

Reconciliation bills can include anything that changes the budget. They can't just be pure policy. There are many provisions in the health care reform bill that meet that test.

directing changes to existing law

As I said, it does not matter what order bills are passed in, only the order they are signed into law. Both Houses could pass an updated bill changing the first before the House passed the first if that's what it takes. The first bill would be signed into law first, making the subsequent bill that changes it perfectly valid.

 

[JB3]

Many of the provisions in the health care bill are budgetary. This includes changes in taxes, medicare payments, medicaid payments, insurance subsidies, etc.


Reconciliation bills can include anything that changes the budget. They can't just be pure policy. There are many provisions in the health care reform bill that meet that test.


As I said, it does not matter what order bills are passed in, only the order they are signed into law. Both Houses could pass an updated bill changing the first before the House passed the first if that's what it takes. The first bill would be signed into law first, making the subsequent bill that changes it perfectly valid.

SOME of the provisions ARE budgetary related. However, that does not mean they can pass the entire bill using reconciliation. If they wanted to JUST pass those sections using it, you would get no argument from me. (this was what the democratic leadership originally proposed after the MA election, mainly because they CANNOT pass any insurance regulation changes using reconciliation)

The HCR bill meets NONE of the requirements for use of reconciliation. Chief among them is that it MASSIVELY increases federal outlays. As a matter of fact, the bill currently considered fails ALL of the requirements for use of reconciliation. http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/byrd_rule.htm

And you're still wrong about the order of the bills being passed. Kent Conrad, THE senator that would be charged with carrying out the reconciliation procedure has said publicly that he will under no circumstances consider ANY reconciliation provision until the house has passed the senate's bill. Even then, he has said that it will be extraordinarily difficult to bring the measure up using the reconciliation procedure, and that it might not even be possible in these circumstances.

 

[hotatlboi]

SOME of the provisions ARE budgetary related. However, that does not mean they can pass the entire bill using reconciliation.

Correct, this is why they need the House to pass the pervious Senate bill in addition. That is how the non-budgetary items would be enacted.

And you're still wrong about the order of the bills being passed. Kent Conrad...

No I'm not. Senator Conrad has said he does not want to take up another measure until the House passes the original one. That is his preference, which other senators might share. However that would not be a legal requirement. That's all I'm saying. Pelosi stated that she would prefer another measure be passed first, since that would allow her to more easily get the votes to pass the Senate version. Either way would work. It will depend on the negotiations between the houses that will determine what will happen.

What you are seeing that both houses want to be in the reactionary position and don't want to make the first push (which will be harder). The House wants to see something it likes coming out of the Senate to more easily convince everyone to approve the previous Senate bill. The Senate wants to see that the House is serious and is on board by passing the Senate bill first.

 

[JB3]

Correct, this is why they need the House to pass the pervious Senate bill in addition. That is how the non-budgetary items would be enacted.


t.

Except they don't have the votes for the senate or any other bill right now. Their only option is for the house to pass the senate bill, because there is NO WAY a different bill will make it through the senate. I mean, forget reconciliation, they're screwed regardless.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

president obama claims will put forth 'his bill' tomorrow (wednesday)

OK but yesterday Droid was all on my jock about how Obama put out his bill just before the summit and how it was the same as the senate bill... so... was he wrong?

I mean, it's almost like you're saying people are united against a bill that doesn't exist yet.

 

[JB3]

OK but yesterday Droid was all on my jock about how Obama put out his bill just before the summit and how it was the same as the senate bill... so... was he wrong?

I mean, it's almost like you're saying people are united against a bill that doesn't exist yet.

He did. This 'new' bill tomorrow will be identical, but will include tort reform and some other provisions republicans asked for. It still won't address the fundamental issues republicans and some dems have with it though.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

jasun, it's ver 2.01

And are they united against that too?

 

[JB3]

And are they united against that too?

Yes because it is the senate bill with Harry reid's name scratched out and obamas written in instead.

 

[hotatlboi]

Except they don't have the votes for the senate or any other bill right now. Their only option is for the house to pass the senate bill, because there is NO WAY a different bill will make it through the senate. I mean, forget reconciliation, they're screwed regardless.

Huh?

You're STILL not getting it.

A new bill WILL have to make it through the Senate. It will not be a replacement bill, it will be a supplement. It will change some things in the previous bill.

They need this supplement bill to pass through reconciliation to get the votes in the House to pass the original bill, since that being the final say is not acceptable to the House.

Reconciliation WILL be used to pass this supplementary bill.

1. The original bill passed by the Senate (and now the House)

+

2. A new bill of changes passed by the House, and the Senate by reconciliation

will make up the final package. Obama will sign the original bill, followed by the supplement bill.

Does this make sense now?

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Yes because it is the senate bill with Harry reid's name scratched out and obamas written in instead.

And you know this how?

You haven't read it yet.

See, there's the problem... people just pick a side and root for it, right or wrong. You're already against a bill that hasn't been released yet.

 

[JB3]

Huh?

You're STILL not getting it.

A new bill WILL have to make it through the Senate. It will not be a replacement bill, it will be a supplement. It will change some things in the previous bill.

They need this supplement bill to pass through reconciliation to get the votes in the House to pass the original bill, since that being the final say is not acceptable to the House.

Reconciliation WILL be used to pass this supplementary bill.

1. The original bill passed by the Senate (and now the House)

+

2. A new bill of changes passed by the House, and the Senate by reconciliation

will make up the final package. Obama will sign the original bill, followed by the supplement bill.

Does this make sense now?

I'm aware of that. I was referencing the fact that the house does not have the votes to pass the senate bill, nor does the senate have the votes to pass a new non-reconciliation bill. (which is something that Pelosi has suggested.) And, at this point, its becoming clear that the democrats don't yet even have the votes to pass a bill through reconciliation either.

 

[JB3]

And you know this how?

You haven't read it yet.

See, there's the problem... people just pick a side and root for it, right or wrong. You're already against a bill that hasn't been released yet.

Because the President has already said the 'new' bill will be the same as the bill he released before the summit, but with some added provisions to appease republicans.

Unless (and I really doubt this), the President surprises us all by introducing a supremely stripped down package that removes everything extraneous. Obama isn't that clever though.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

Obama isn't that clever though.

Yeah, because any idiot could become the first black president, running as a relatively unknown, inexperienced candidate against one of the most politically powerful women in American History.

 

[JB3]

Yeah, because any idiot could become the first black president, running as a relatively unknown, inexperienced candidate against one of the most politically powerful women in American History.

He seemed to be clever then. (with the help of some good old fashioned dumb luck, which even he'll admit he had in the primaries) However, since he got into office he's been about as clever as a 90 year old geriatric with an oxygen tank attached to his back. If he was actually clever, he'd put forth a drastically smaller bill that addresses only the core issues (leaving much of the financing out), and have the financial issues addressed and added into the bill using reconciliation. For example; the cutting of $500 billion in medicare? There's no reason to include that in this bill, when it would be easier to do that through reconciliation.

Obama seems to be all about using a sledgehammer when he could get away with using something much, much smaller. (or as he was fond of criticizing McCain for, using a hatchet when he needs a scalpel) A smart (and clever) president would split this bill up into smaller packages which would make this entire process much easier.