Democrats to advance health care under reconciliation

[NickCole]

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.

As I explained during the campaign, winning elections is not the same as governing or leading.

It's like the difference between dating and being married. Some people are really good at only one - and today's American voters haven't been voting for people good at governing and leading, they keep being seduced by dates that make their hearts flutter.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

As I explained during the campaign, winning elections is not the same as governing or leading.

It's like the difference between dating and being married. Some people are really good at only one - and today's American voters haven't been voting for people good at governing and leading, they keep being seduced by dates that make their hearts flutter.

That may be the case. But I think you'll agree that saying he isn't "clever" isn't really accurate.

 

[NickCole]

That may be the case. But I think you'll agree that saying he isn't "clever" isn't really accurate.

Droid didn't say Obama isn't clever.

He said, "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."

I agree with that sentence and I think it's really accurate.

 

[hotatlboi]

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.

If the Senate could get 60 votes to pass a comprehensive bill, I think 51 is attainable for a compromise bill. The House is less clear though, I do agree with that. However it's too early to say if the votes are definitely not there. The votes haven't been there but many moderate Dems indicated they were waiting for Obama's revised plan which he is supposed to release tomorrow before they make a decision.

 

[JB3]

If the Senate could get 60 votes to pass a comprehensive bill, I think 51 is attainable for a compromise bill. The House is less clear though, I do agree with that. However it's too early to say if the votes are definitely not there. The votes haven't been there but many moderate Dems indicated they were waiting for Obama's revised plan which he is supposed to release tomorrow before they make a decision.

The votes are not there in the house. Since the last vote, which passed by two votes, there has been a death, three retirements (all on the dem side) and the sole republican vote deciding against the bill. So no, as it stands right now, the bill would fail.

You're right though, a lot of moderate dems will be waiting to see what the president proposes. However, because its an election year, and because public scrutiny will not allow for the kind of pork used to pass the senate version, it is safe to assume that nothing the president says or does will win the moderates over.

The senate is less clear, mainly because they really have no idea what they're doing yet. If the bill is controversial, it may not even be able to pass with reconciliation. And those 60 votes won't happen again; with the very public rebuke of the pork used to pass it, no such measures will be used to get a reconciliation bill passed.

 

[hotatlboi]

The votes are not there in the house. Since the last vote, which passed by two votes, there has been a death, three retirements (all on the dem side) and the sole republican vote deciding against the bill.

This is true but also two Dems who voted against the last one have indicated they are now open to it but currently undecided.

 

[JB3]

This is true but also two Dems who voted against the last one have indicated they are now open to it but currently undecided.

Haha. So it would be a draw basically?

 

[JB3]

That may be the case. But I think you'll agree that saying he isn't "clever" isn't really accurate.

I never said he wasn't clever. I said he wasn't clever enough to pull something like that off.

 

[JasunStrikesBack]

I never said he wasn't clever. I said he wasn't clever enough to pull something like that off.

well.. we'll see.

To be honest, there's nothing that's going to make everyone happy and there are some people, as you know, who'll hate him if he walks on water and raises the dead.

 

[NickCole]

well.. we'll see.

To be honest, there's nothing that's going to make everyone happy and there are some people, as you know, who'll hate him if he walks on water and raises the dead.

Just a standard diversion, complaining about some people supposedly hating The One. What matters is what he's done and not done.

I think most people don't care about walking on water or raising the dead but would be mighty pleased if he led substantive health care reform and good potent banking regulations and jobs bills.

 

[Kulindahr]

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've said, if this is a budget bill, then just about anything is a budget bill -- all it has to do is contain something that involves spending money. That makes the hate-crimes bill a budget bill, ENDA a budget bill, a DADT repeal a budget bill....

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.

That's sheer sophistry.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.



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.

Let's see if I can get this straight.

Let's say the bill has fifty parts, and when we go through we find that seven are budgetary. So you want the Senate to pass those using reconciliation, so that the result is a half-assed pile of nonsense because it isn't part of a whole? Then that mess goes to the House, which... does what, exactly? passes the same mess?

Doing it that way would make it a spending bill, and those have to start in the House. So now we have the House passing the confused pile of excerpts from a larger bill, and sending it to the Senate? And then what????

 

[hotatlboi]

As I've said, if this is a budget bill, then just about anything is a budget bill -- all it has to do is contain something that involves spending money. That makes the hate-crimes bill a budget bill, ENDA a budget bill, a DADT repeal a budget bill....

Those are the rules for reconciliation, it just has to change the budget.

That's sheer sophistry.

That's the law.

 

[JB3]

Those are the rules for reconciliation, it just has to change the budget.
.

Actually no, those are not the rules. There are a very strict set of requirements for reconciliation to be used (see the link I posted above) none of which this bill fulfills.

 

[Kulindahr]

Those are the rules for reconciliation, it just has to change the budget.

And if that's all it has to do, then the items I listed all count: anything that takes federal employees or contractors to implement changes the budget.

 

[Kulindahr]

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.

I hope they're screwed regardless, because I haven't seen anything yet our of either party that is really reform. Both parties seem to be set on giving the insurance companies profit numbers that will dwarf those of the oil industry, or most other companies for that matter -- the only difference lies in the approach they're using to enrich them. No one seems interested in actually helping people out.

 

[hotatlboi]

Actually no, those are not the rules. There are a very strict set of requirements for reconciliation to be used (see the link I posted above) none of which this bill fulfills.

AGAIN, the comprehensive bill is not going to be passed under reconciliation. how many times do I have to say this?

A supplementary bill would be passed that way. We haven't even seen that bill yet. That bill could change budget related items in the main one.

 

[MystikWizard]

AGAIN, the comprehensive bill is not going to be passed under reconciliation. how many times do I have to say this?

A supplementary bill would be passed that way. We haven't even seen that bill yet. That bill could change budget related items in the main one.

[Text: Removed by Moderator], because as you've stated several times, they are not passing the entire Health Care reform through reconciliation.

They will use reconciliation to pass budgetary measures which will affect the Senate bill.

[Text: Removed by Moderator] ... period and as a result, he has to take the Glenn Beck approach to incite mass hysteria in as many places as he possibly can.

 

[NickCole]

... period and as a result, he has to take the Glenn Beck approach to incite mass hysteria in as many places as he possibly can.

[Text: Removed by Moderator] inciting mass hysteria???



Better alert the mods!!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

AGAIN, the comprehensive bill is not going to be passed under reconciliation. how many times do I have to say this?

A supplementary bill would be passed that way. We haven't even seen that bill yet. That bill could change budget related items in the main one.

Then what are they talking about using reconciliation to pass it for???

And how will they pass the actual bill?