|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952
Legend
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952 |
Sorry, I can't help it - this needs to be seen. From the article: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to shield lawmakers from having to vote directly on the Senate-passed health care bill because it's unpopular with House Democrats. "Nobody wanted to vote for the Senate bill," Pelosi, D-Calif., explained in a round-table meeting with liberal bloggers Monday." And: "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed." http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaulSo, we have the speaker of the house saying no one wanted to vote for the senate bill............but then we hear they are going to do it one way or another? Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, right?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Well look at the brightside ... If there's one thing that can get Pelosi voted out of office ... this might be it. Plus this won't take "effec"t until Obama is past the re-election point ("You know, so Americans won't feel the full brunt of it until he's already been re-elected") ... so there's still plenty of time to make a new bill to cancel it out. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
When is she up for re-election? This fall?
I'm moving to Cali,...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
"House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed."
THE WASHINGTON MONTHLY
March 16, 2010
THE IOKIYAR RULE, PROCEDURAL EDITION.... For a while, Republicans were awfully worked up about using the reconciliation process to pass a health-care related budget fix, despite the GOP's repeated use of the same procedure. Now Republicans are headed for the fainting couch over use of the self-executing rule, despite the GOP's repeated reliance on the same procedure.
After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.
Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.
The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill.
We talked yesterday about how this would work. In a nutshell, the House would vote once -- approving the sidecar measure and "deeming" the Senate bill as having passed. The Senate bill would then head to the White House for a signature, while the budget fix would head to the Senate.
As expected, the responding tantrum is nearing full force. The WSJ editorial page is outraged; Rep. Michele Bachmann (R-Minn.) is suggesting laws approved through the self-executing rule aren't laws that Americans have to follow; and assorted GOP voices, on and off the Hill, are characterizing the deem-and-pass approach as unconstitutional.
Of particular interest were complaints from Rep. David Dreier (R-Calif.), the ranking member on the House Rules Committee, who called use of the self-executing rule "very painful and troubling." It's interesting -- Dreier found the rule neither painful nor troubling when he used it in 2006.
Indeed, while the deem-and-pass approach used to be rare, its use became far more common 15 years ago -- right after Republicans took over Congress. Don Wolfensberger, former chief of staff for the House Rules Committee under Republicans, explained in a column a few years ago, "When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.)."
It's a familiar pattern -- Republicans open doors, and then whine incessantly when Democrats walk through them.
web page
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Right-wing media attack "Slaughter solution" as unprecedented, but GOP "set new records" for its use
March 15, 2010 6:23 pm ET
Media conservatives have falsely characterized a legislative proposal reportedly being considered to finalize health care reform in the House as unprecedented, undemocratic, and unconstitutional. But the rule in question is an accepted part of House procedure, and Congress repeatedly used the rule under GOP leadership, according to a former GOP staff director of the House Rules Committee.
CRS: "Self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House." In a 2006 report, as Time's Karen Tumulty pointed out, the Congressional Research Service defined the self-executing rule as part of the House rulemaking process:
Starting about twenty-five years ago, in response to developments such as increased partisanship and uncertainty with respect to how long or controversial the amendment process on the floor might be, the Rules Committee began to issue more procedurally imaginative and complex rules.
Definition of "Self-Executing" Rule. One of the newer types is called a "self-executing" rule; it embodies a "two-for-one" procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the "self-executed" provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule.
Republicans "set new records" for use of rule
Wolfensberger: Republicans "set new records" for using self-executing rule.
Also in his 2006 Roll Call column, Wolfensberger stated that the Republican Party "set new records" for its use of the self-executing rule:
Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.
When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority's preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O'Neill's (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright's (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
On April 26 [2006], the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule.
web page
Arch...If all you do is listen to the RW talking heads, one might be lead to believe the "stuff" they are attempting to spread about Pelosi's use of House rules.
Some on the RW want to claim Pelosi and the Dems are using the rules of the House in a way that the rules have never, ever, been used before.
BUT...when we check the facts, these particular House rules have not been used since the GOP used them in April, 2006.
Last edited by mac; 03/16/10 06:06 PM.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952 |
Do you have a link to what the "republicans" passed under "deem and pass"? You know, where no one actually votes, but a supposed bill passes anyway?
Thanks.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Mac ... do you ever have an opinion for yourself ... or do you just post whatever article you can find from Liberalally-biased webite X that can roughly make your point for you? Weren't you the one on here a few weeks ago telling people to "think for themselves"?  And you are completely ignoring the point. Yes the Republicans have used this in the past ... that doesn't mean anyone here that may be conservative actually SUPPORTED the Republicans use of it. And nobody is certainly in favor of use the rule to circumvent a vote that adds close to a trillion dollars worth of additional debt onto the budget, because they KNOW it won't pass ... and despite the fact that Americans overwhelmingly don't want the measure.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952 |
The first thing we need to do is find out what the bill says - Pelosi herself said "we need to pass it before we find out what's in it"........hmmmmm, that's encouraging.
The second thing that needs to be done is exactly what O himself has repeatedly said over the last months - let's have an up or down vote on it.
So let's do it O. Pelosi can do that - she can mandate a vote on it - a simple up or down vote. Why don't they do it? Is it because they don't have the votes? Is it because they think with a little bit more "sugar" they can get the votes they need?
I say vote on this non existent bill today.
Do it. Vote on this bill that no one knows much about - vote on it today - up or down. Just as O wishes. Why wait in order to buy votes with money you don't have???????
Vote today. The time for talking is over - as O himself has said many times over the last year.
Vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
Mac ... do you ever have an opinion for yourself ...
Excel...I have an opinion...I think some Republicans are being "hypocrites" when it comes to the use of the House rules...pretending that the rules have never been used in this way.
Excel...so I post the "truth" about the history of the RW's use of these House rules when they controlled the House....what is wrong with that?
I seriously doubt that you or Archie knew the history of GOPs use of these House rules. I hope I have posted information that helps you understand the History behind the use of the House Rules "now" and "in the past".
It really shines a different light on the subject when we take the time to educate ourselves on the History and Use of these House Rules, doesn't it?
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
I cannot believe that with something as big as this, rather than working together to come up with something that is actually Good, they are just going to resort to crap tricks to ramrod through legislation that not even they want.
It's beyond asinine at this point. These people have GOT to be stopped!
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Quote:
Excel...I have an opinion...I think some Republicans are being "hypocrites" when it comes to the use of the House rules...pretending that the rules have never been used in this way.
So basically you are deflecting then? Who cares what the Democrats are trying to do ... because the Republicans did it too. Who cares that when the Reps did it, people didn't agree with it either. Lets just forget that Democrats are trying to force an unprecedented budget killer down the throats of Americans ... because well, the Republicans circumvented a vote in a similar way years before.
I suppose you would of been cool with George Bush invading Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt ... you know, so long as circumvented the vote in a manor that Democrats had done previously. 
Who gives a crap what Republicans, Whigs or anybody have done previously?? He's trying to shove a massive, unwanted, bloated governement program down the throats of America ... and nobody outside of liberal america WANTS it. Do you realize the Democrats are being huge hypocrits by doing this too?? Or is it only bad when Republicans do it? 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
It's beyond asinine at this point. These people have GOT to be stopped!
Prp...should Gingrich and Hastert have been stopped when they used the same rules and procedures when they took power in 1995?...
...When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively.
Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
web page
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
I suppose you would of been cool with George Bush invading Iraq, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Jordan and Egypt ... you know, so long as circumvented the vote in a manor that Democrats had done previously
Excel...what Bush did to start his war was far worse than what the House GOP did in the 1990s and the Dems are doing today.
W.Bush simply lied like hell and took advantage of the American people after this country had suffered it's worst attack ever on our homeland. Bush simply made up his own rules, in the name of terrorism.
Last edited by mac; 03/16/10 06:38 PM.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 14,248 |
Why?? Lying is something the Democrats had done before to get something passed ... they would be such "hypcrits" to complain about Bush doing that to get something passed. 
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 4,753 |
Quote:
And nobody is certainly in favor of use the rule to circumvent a vote that adds close to a trillion dollars worth of additional debt onto the budget, because they KNOW it won't pass ... and despite the fact that Americans overwhelmingly don't want the measure.
Real quick comment. First of all, I think use of this rule is BS regardless of who uses it for whatever purpose it is used for.
Second, HJ Res 47 in the 109th congress passed the house via this special rule - it increased the allowable national debt from 8.184 trillion to 8.965 trillion, and increase of 781 billion. Not the same for sure, but close $-wise. I only spent about 10 minutes reseaching it, so there may be holes in it, just responding to your reply...
link: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=hj109-47
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952 |
Quote:
Do you have a link to what the "republicans" passed under "deem and pass"? You know, where no one actually votes, but a supposed bill passes anyway?
Thanks.
Haven't answered this question yet macie. Or is it masey?
Answer a damn question there macie. Can you do that? You haven't in countless other threads - so here it is point blank: answer the question.
Can you do that macie? Can you? Or will you defer to another article????????
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952
Legend
|
|
OP
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 30,952 |
Lemme see if I have you understood - let's see - someone else did it for things that don't hardly matter, so it's okay for someone else to do it on things also. It's okay for there to not be a vote on what probably is the biggest issue facing this country - well, aside from the wars which O said he'd end, and aside from Gitmo, which O said he'd close, aside from all the things O said he'd do.........he's stuck on this one.
And most of the country doesn't support it - he can't even get the democrat controlled house to support it without tossing out freebies to buy votes......okay - I understand why that's okay in your opinion.
So, let's say I'm elected president next term - does that mean it's okay for me to ram through whatever I want, regardless of whether the people want it or not? After, someone else did it, right?
Actually, I would prefer to hear your answer on exactly what items the republicans passed under the "deem and pass"......you know, where no one knows what's going on.
Show me the bills passed under "deem and pass".
Once again, thanks in advance. (this is getting tiresome - asking you questions about what you post and having you ignore them)
Can you answer one question?
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 1,317 |
Quote:
The first thing we need to do is find out what the bill says - Pelosi herself said "we need to pass it before we find out what's in it"........hmmmmm, that's encouraging.
I would go with scary, or perhaps terrifying even.
In my opinion in this past decade the Democrats have held on to the title of the lesser of two evils, but they are very quickly taking over the top spot. Can't we just throw em all in prison and start over?
"All I know is, as long as I led the Southeastern Conference in scoring, my grades would be fine." - Charles Barkley
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
It's beyond asinine at this point. These people have GOT to be stopped!
Prp...should Gingrich and Hastert have been stopped when they used the same rules and procedures when they took power in 1995?...
...When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively.
Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
web page
I dunno, how about instead of whining "well, THEY did it!" like a spoiled 3 year old that hasn't had her nap, try actually showing what it was used for and then try drawing an intelligent, rational comparison between the magnitude of what the GOP used it for versus the magnitude of what it is now being used for? Wouldn't that be neat? How about showing a precedent for using this tactic for something as sweeping that affects every person in the nation so highly? How about showing WHY this tactic SHOULD be used - other than Pelosi's insane need to ram a Bill that NOBODY wants down our throats?
As for the GOP, if what they did compares in severity, then YES, ABSOLUTELY they should have been stopped - and shame on the Dems for not stopping them!Christ, they've got the freaking media on their side... if it was an issue, they should have raised hell over it!
This isn't a matter of passing some trivial Bill simply to buy new toilet paper for the Congressional Toilets... this is something that will drastically alter, in some way, every damned life in this nation for decades and beyond, and yet it is being treated as haphazardly and flippantly as any menial Bill that has ever been passed.
They show absolutely no concern whatsoever as to whether or not the Bill will be damaging, they appear to simply want it passed so that they can give themselves a gold sticker.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
You know, where no one actually votes, but a supposed bill passes anyway?
This is a misrepresentation of this process. In your original post:
"Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed."
So in essence, the vote will be 2 for 1. If the rule passes (the fixes), the bill passes. On the flip side, if someone wants to vote against the bill, they will simply vote against the rule. If the rule fails, the bill fails. There is no situation under which the bill just becomes law without some kind of vote.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
How about showing WHY this tactic SHOULD be used - other than Pelosi's insane need to ram a Bill that NOBODY wants down our throats?
I keep hearing this, but a recent Gallup poll showed the country more or less divided down the middle. Nothing like 10% want the bill, 90% don't. Many do want this.
http://www.gallup.com/poll/126521/Favor-Oppose-Obama-Healthcare-Plan.aspx
A more important question deals with the merits of the bill. What is actually in it? I think there is a lot of good in the bill.
1. Small businesses will not be forced to provide coverage, but will be provided tax credits for doing so. I'm no expert on business, but won't this help small companies that aren't always able to offer health benefits compete with larger companies for workers?
2. Cost sharing subsidies for people with income near the poverty line as well as requirements for insurance. Very important. People earning near the poverty line will get a subsidy, but will still have to share in the cost of insurance. If people are forced to share costs and participate in their own health care, they won't be using the ER for every little sniffle 30 times a year.
3. Creation of exchanges. Provides competition in health insurance markets. Exchanges can operate in many different states or regionally, the only requirement being that every region in the country must have access to at least one exchange. There is no public option.
4. Restructuring Medicare to bring costs under control. It is well known that Medicare is rapidly approaching bankruptcy (even faster than Social Security is). It is already paying out more than comes in from Medicare payroll taxes.
5. Establishes guidelines for transparency. As of right now, there is little to no transparency in health care. It is not easy to find pricing lists for procedures, nor is it easy to get statistics on providers' and insurance plans' performance. Will allow consumers to make informed decisions.
6. Provides grants to encourage tort reform by the states. Makes sense, because state to state laws can be quite different.
7. Provides funds for comparative effectiveness research. The single biggest driver of skyrocketing health care costs is widespread adoption and implementation of new medical technology that has no documented benefit over older, cheaper technology.
CBO estimates $132 billion will be shaved off the deficit over 10 years. All while insuring more people, helping bring Medicare costs under control, and providing competition and transparency to the health care field.
The Medicare cuts/taxes that provide the funding for this bill will start right away, but many of the things that will cost the government substantial amounts of money won't be started until the money is in place. Thus, the bill is done in a fiscally responsible manner as well.
Please feel free to read the bill comparison below and disagree. Maybe I'm missing something, but I just don't see why so many are in such an uproar over this bill.
Health care bill comparision:
http://www.kff.org/healthreform/upload/housesenatebill_final.pdf
Last edited by tjs7; 03/17/10 06:31 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
Quote:
So in essence, the vote will be 2 for 1. If the rule passes (the fixes), the bill passes. On the flip side, if someone wants to vote against the bill, they will simply vote against the rule. If the rule fails, the bill fails. There is no situation under which the bill just becomes law without some kind of vote.
So, in essence, when this health care disaster becomes law, dem congressmen have no accountability for voting for the bill. Do you seriously think that all the yes votes for the backdoor rule are going to admit support for the healthcare bill?
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
So, in essence, when this health care disaster becomes law, dem congressmen have no accountability for voting for the bill. Do you seriously think that all the yes votes for the backdoor rule are going to admit support for the healthcare bill?
Doesn't matter if they admit it. Because of the media coverage of this tactic, we now know that a vote for the rule constitutes a vote for the bill.
Do you really think that a Congressman is going to tie his/her name to a bill this big in any way (be it direct vote or indirect vote) if they have deep fundamental problems with the bill? The only reason a tactic like this will work is if a rep agrees with most of the bill but doesn't want to be tied to small individual things (pork) like the Cornhusker kickback. This tactic allows the rule that is voted on to set the framework for the reconciliation vote, thus to outline getting rid of pork. Thus, a rep will be able to say, "I voted for the rule (the bill), but only b/c reconciliation will be getting rid of the pork." not "Technically, I didn't vote directly for the bill."
Also, what points of the bill make you think it will be a disaster?
Last edited by tjs7; 03/17/10 07:32 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 15,015 |
Quote:
Sorry, I can't help it - this needs to be seen.
From the article: "House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wants to shield lawmakers from having to vote directly on the Senate-passed health care bill because it's unpopular with House Democrats.
"Nobody wanted to vote for the Senate bill," Pelosi, D-Calif., explained in a round-table meeting with liberal bloggers Monday."
And: "House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer said that no final decision had been made on the complex parliamentary strategy, which would allow House Democrats to pass the Senate's health care legislation without voting on the bill itself. Instead House members, who dislike the Senate bill, would vote on a rule for debate that would deem the bill passed once a smaller package of fixes also had passed."
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
So, we have the speaker of the house saying no one wanted to vote for the senate bill............but then we hear they are going to do it one way or another? Damn the torpedos, full speed ahead, right?
You sure you posted the right article link, this is from the link you posted.
I can't find either of the lines you reference in this article.
Quote:
By RICARDO ALONSO-ZALDIVAR, Associated Press Writer Ricardo Alonso-zaldivar, Associated Press Writer – Tue Mar 16, 7:06 pm ET
WASHINGTON – With time and tempers short, everyone's playing hardball in the drive to pass — or stop — President Barack Obama's massive health care legislation by the weekend.
Business groups are spending $1 million a day to depict the bill as a job killer in television ads in the home districts of 26 wavering House Democrats. A new ad barrage from supporters of the legislation went up Tuesday in 11 districts, some overlapping. And unions are threatening some of those lawmakers to come through for Obama — or pay the price in the fall elections.
Obama has summoned members to the White House one by one for private, face-to-face persuasion, and also met larger groups. White House aides said he plans at least one more public health care event this week, including remarks in Fairfax, Va., on Friday. Diverse administration resources are being employed: Even the Navy secretary is in the game.
"We here in Congress are giving a new meaning to March madness," Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, an opponent of the legislation, said Tuesday.
At stake is a bill that would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with a pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide. The comprehensive legislation could affect nearly every American, from those undergoing annual checkups to people facing major surgery.
Activists on both ends of the political spectrum are energized. Tea party volunteers, who rallied Tuesday in Washington, are planning to flood congressional offices with e-mails opposing the legislation as a step toward socialism. And some on the political left have joined in calling for the bill's defeat because it leaves out a federal insurance option.
The sought-after Democrats — mainly moderates, but also a few liberals — are mostly trying to stay out of sight. They include 37 who voted against the bill last year and a smaller number who are having second thoughts after supporting it the first time. Walking briskly, lawmakers duck in and out of the House chamber during votes, avoiding eye contact with reporters.
Moderate Rep. Mike McMahon, D-N.Y., is feeling the push and pull. Elected with strong labor support two years ago, he voted against the bill in November, pleasing constituents in his Republican-leaning district on Staten Island who saw it as a government power grab.
Last week, McMahon received a visit from Mike Fishman, president of the Service Employees International Union's local 32BJ. The blunt message: If you can't support health care reform, we can't support you.
The union is threatening to switch its allegiance if he votes against the bill. "Everyone will be looking very, very closely at this vote," Fishman's spokesman, Matthew Nerzig, said with understatement.
At the White House on Tuesday, Obama met with health care executives, including Sister Carol Keehan, head of the Catholic Health Association. In a break with other abortion opponents, the Catholic hospitals are advocating for the bill.
"We think the bill as written now meets the test of no federal funding for abortion," Keehan said in an interview. She's letting anti-abortion Democrats know her position announced over the weekend.
An estimated $200 million has been spent for political advertising on health care since the beginning of last year, with groups favoring Obama's overhaul holding a slight edge. In the final stretch, however, opponents have gotten the upper hand and supporters are rushing to catch up.
A coalition of business groups led by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce went up with ads last week. The group is now spending an estimated $1 million a day, enough for 25 to 40 television ads, said Evan Tracey, president of Kantar Media-CMAG, which tracks political advertising. The ads frame the health care bill as a drag on the economy, raising taxes and saddling companies with expensive new mandates.
Liberal groups are hoping they won't be too late. Health Care for America Now and several labor unions have announced a $1.7 million ad buy focusing on the districts of 17 undecided Democrats. Their ads portray the health insurance industry as a profit-hungry predator.
"The ads are designed to get people fired up, so that members feel it coming back from their districts," said Tracey. "Members are on notice that they may be voting on this now, but their constituents will be voting on it in November."
House Democratic leaders are still short of the 216 votes they need. While broad outlines of the $1 trillion, 10-year measure are well known, critical final details are still being ironed out. Lawmakers are awaiting a cost report from the Congressional Budget Office on compromises worked out with Obama to reconcile versions passed earlier by the House and Senate.
Democratic leaders are considering using a legislative procedure that would allow them to pass fixes to the Senate bill without taking a direct vote on the underlying legislation. The maneuver is a kind of legislative fig leaf to spare House Democrats from directly voting to approve a Senate bill many of them had bitterly criticized. While Republicans also used the tactic when they controlled the House, they are indignant that Democrats would employ it on legislation of such significance.
The crucial group of some three-dozen House Democrats is split roughly into two camps: those who possibly could switch their earlier "yes" votes to "no," sinking the legislation, and those who might switch from "no" to "yes," salvaging it.
Then there's Rep. Bart Stupak of Michigan, who says he has a dozen lawmakers ready to vote against the bill unless it incorporates a tougher firewall against taxpayer-subsidized abortion coverage, although his numbers seem to be dwindling. Stupak said Tuesday he has received only gentle overtures from the White House so far.
Democratic leaders have assigned House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Henry Waxman, a California liberal, to negotiate with Stupak, and the two men talk daily. Stupak said a few of his anti-abortion colleagues have been called by high-ranking administration officials. Ohio Rep. Marcy Kaptur, who backed the bill in November but is undecided now, said she has heard from several Cabinet secretaries.
Another one, a member of the House Armed Services Committee, was surprised to hear from Navy Secretary Ray Mabus, said Stupak, who declined to identify the lawmaker.
Stupak said the members of his group have politely told administration officials they need to negotiate through him.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100316/ap_on_bi_ge/us_health_care_overhaul
We don't have to agree with each other, to respect each others opinion.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
I think congressmen will vote for the rule with bribes and coercement.....and then say they didn't vote for the bill. I could go on and on why I think this bill is a disaster, but just look at the healthcare system in Massacheusetts....which is being touted as a success by those pushing the bill. Why is Obama propping this up with federal dollars if it's such a success? Boston Herald
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
I believe it was Michele Bachmann, on the radio last night saying this nearly borders on legal violation of the Constitution and will end up in the courts. She indicated many of her Dem colleagues are absolutely frightened of this thing passing, especially in this manner, and there is a lot of in(Dem)house bickering with Pelosi because of this tactic.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I could go on and on why I think this bill is a disaster, but just look at the healthcare system in Massacheusetts....which is being touted as a success by those pushing the bill. Why is Obama propping this up with federal dollars if it's such a success?
The reason why Massachusetts is being propped up is because the system is only funded by individual and employer taxes/fees for not providing coverage. The problem with this type of funding is that as more and more people become insured, revenue dwindles. Also, it is largely just a universal health system without many of the cost cutting benefits of the proposed federal system.
This federal bill doesn't rely only on these fees for funding; instead it largely relies on streamlining of Medicare to cover costs (in other words, cutting govt. expenditures elsewhere to justify these expenditures). The federal bill also contains many cost cutting measures (exchanges, transparency, tort reform by states, comparative outcomes research) that weren't in the Massachusetts bill.
Last edited by tjs7; 03/17/10 08:20 AM.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798
All Pro
|
|
All Pro
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 798 |
Quote:
I could go on and on why I think this bill is a disaster
Don't take this as a personal attack, but do you have any specifics? This kind of blanket statement doesn't really help me understand your position on the specifics of what the bill would legislate.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Op-Ed: Patient's plea makes the best case for health care reform
Wed Mar 17, 4:25 am ET
web page
By Health and Human Services Secretary Kathleen Sebelius
If you want to understand why we need to reform our health insurance system, you need to know about Americans like Natoma Canfield. Natoma is a 50-year-old cancer survivor from Medina, Ohio, who wrote to President Obama last December. Like a growing number of Americans, she's self-employed and can't get health insurance through her job. But until this January, she always made sure to maintain a policy for herself on the individual market. It was the responsible thing to do.
(Join a live chat with Secretary Kathleen Sebelius at 5:15 pm ET today. Please email your health care questions ahead of time to news-editorial@yahoo-inc.com and then click here to join the chat at 5:15 pm ET.)
Her insurance company didn't make it easy for her. Year after year, she'd pay higher premiums or have to switch to a plan with a higher deductible. Last year, they hiked her monthly bill by 25 percent, and Natoma ended up spending more than $6,000 in premiums. She also spent more than $4,000 out of her pocket for co-pays and other expenses. But because she never hit her deductible, her insurance company only spent $900 on her care. So she paid more than $10,000 for $900 in benefits.
At the end of last year, she finally hit her breaking point. She got another letter from her insurance company. This time, her premium was going up more than 40 percent. It was too much. She couldn't afford her insurance. So she gave up her coverage and, like a lot Americans, hoped for the best. In her letter to the president, she said she worried that she was now just one health emergency away from losing her family home, which her parents built in 1958.
Then her worst fear came true. Two weeks ago, while she was working, she collapsed. When she went to the hospital, they diagnosed her with leukemia. Now she’s facing more than a month of chemotherapy and has the added worry of how she's going to pay for it.
What's remarkable about Natoma’s story is how unremarkable it is. She was unlucky enough to get sick. But that was just chance. It could have happened to any of the tens of millions of Americans who don't have health insurance. Or to any of the tens of millions more who are underinsured. Some of them have caps on their benefits, which means their coverage can disappear in the middle of a hospital stay or a round of chemotherapy.
Those of us who work for large employers that can negotiate better insurance rates have slightly more security. But the share of Americans under 65 who get health insurance through their job has been going down every year since 2000. And as soon as any of us change jobs or retire or decide to start our own business, we're facing the same risks as Natoma. Even if we keep our jobs, our health care premiums are rising three times faster than wages, eating up a bigger chunk of our paychecks every year.
Our health insurance system is failing at the very job it is supposed to do. It's supposed to protect people against exorbitant health costs, yet many Americans who have insurance still spend tens of thousands of dollars a year on health care. It's supposed to soften the financial blow that comes with getting sick, yet the Americans who are most likely to have serious health problems often can’t get insurance. It's supposed to give families peace of mind, but it’s hard to think of any other issue that causes as many worries.
President Obama's health insurance reform plan will make our insurance system work for families, small business owners, and individuals like Natoma by making three significant changes.
First, it will protect families by ending the worst insurance practices. It will outlaw the practice of arbitrarily canceling someone’s coverage and eliminate caps on benefits. It will also forbid insurance companies from denying you coverage because of a pre-existing condition like high blood pressure. So for the first time ever, every American will be able to get an insurance policy.
Second, it will give self-employed workers and small business owners the same private insurance choices as members of Congress by creating a new, consumer-friendly insurance marketplace called an exchange. Because this marketplace will allow consumers to band together to negotiate lower rates, it's estimated that premiums for many consumers will go down 14 to 20 percent for comparable coverage. And it will provide tax credits to help middle-class Americans and small business owners buy insurance.
Third, the president's plan will bring down costs for families, businesses, and government with the broadest package of health care cost-cutting measures that has ever come before Congress. A report from the Business Roundtable (an association of CEOs from leading U.S. companies) says these reforms could lower costs by as much as $3,000 per employee. According to the Congressional Budget Office, the president's plan will lower the federal deficit by about $100 billion over the next 10 years.
Collectively, these changes will help give Americans control of their health care choices. Under the president's plan, no insurance company would be able to turn Natoma away because of her cancer diagnosis. If one company raised her premium, it would be easy for her to find a new plan in the exchange. The plan's wide range of cost-cutting policies would help ensure she could find affordable coverage.
Natoma wants us to tell her story in the hopes that it will lead to reforms that will protect others from what happened to her. That's what we're going to do. But we also want to hear your health care story. That's why I'll be answering your questions in a live, online video discussion today at 5:15 ET. To participate and find out what reform will mean for you, email your questions ahead of time to news-editorial@yahoo-inc.com and then click here to join the chat at 5:15 pm ET.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Quote:
Quote:
How about showing WHY this tactic SHOULD be used - other than Pelosi's insane need to ram a Bill that NOBODY wants down our throats?
I keep hearing this, but a recent Gallup poll showed the country more or less divided down the middle. Nothing like 10% want the bill, 90% don't. Many do want this.
Ok, perhaps saying "nobody" was overstating things. I'm certain that there are people that do want this - I'll be damned if I know why, but they do.
I was speaking of recent quotes stating that nobody in the Senate wants to vote for the thing.... yet they keep putting it up there to ram it through.
But aside from that, it IS incredibly unpopular and if anything approaching 50% of the population is against something, there's a pretty darned good chance that there's something significantly wrong with it.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
But aside from that, it IS incredibly unpopular and if anything approaching 50% of the population is against something, there's a pretty darned good chance that there's something significantly wrong with it.
prp...But the polls are so deceiving and misdirected...
GOPers are against the bill because they follow the Party line/strategy, which has become so obvious...be against "everything" Obama and Dems try to do.
Repubs have said they want to stall, slow down or stop the Obama agenda and they have done a damned good job of doing so with this bill.
Obama has been a fool, trying to extend a hand of bi-partisanship to a bitter, hate filled GOP Congress/party that wants nothing to do with bi-partisanship.
On the Dem side...when asked if Dems support this particular bill, many will say no, because it does not go far enough or the bill does not have exactly what the individual wants.
But if we ask...does this country need to do something about the unaffordable premiums, skyrocketing healthcare costs and the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?...
.....I have little doubt that a majority of American would say "yes.
With the status or politics in America, we are never going to have a vast majority that agree on anything.
This bill is a start...and far better than doing nothing ...
...or allowing the GOP to stall the process hoping they can gain power and insure "healthcare" never comes up again.
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
Quote:
Quote:
I could go on and on why I think this bill is a disaster
Don't take this as a personal attack, but do you have any specifics? This kind of blanket statement doesn't really help me understand your position on the specifics of what the bill would legislate.
First and foremost, it's another entitlement program when we can't afford the ones we already have.
I work in the healthcare field, and I've seen the effects that government has in mismanaging medicare, medicaid and SS. WTF makes anyone think they will be able manage something of this magnitude?
The trickery and tomfoolery needed to get this passed.
4-5 WSJ articles about the projected cost of this plan from now to 10yrs down the road.
I truly despise Pelosi and Reid.....and I sincerely do not trust their motives. The apparent desperation they are exhibiting to get this passed is disturbing.
This article by congressman Paul Ryan.
WSJ
This article from the Cato Institute:
web page
Like I said, I could go on and on.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224
Dawg Talker
|
|
Dawg Talker
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 2,224 |
Those aren't specifics. The only one that has any leverage to support your statement that, "I could go on and on why I think this bill is a disaster" is the cost 10 years from now. The Cato Institute (nevermind the bias) is obsolete in that it's from late November. How much has the bill changed since then? Everything else is opinion and anecdotal and as such holds no special weight unfortunately. Quote:
Like I said, I could go on and on.
Please do. I haven't made up my mind one way or another yet as to how i feel about this bill. So far Tjrs has listed a few reasons why they think this is a good thing. On your side I only have opinion that sounds more contrarian than anything else.
There are no sacred cows.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 28,445 |
Quote:
But if we ask...does this country need to do something about the unaffordable premiums, skyrocketing healthcare costs and the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?
And if you ask me that same question, my answer will be generally be "Yes" (I don't think we need to do anything about the uninsured - I believe that that is their own job).
But, like the poll, if you ask me if this Bill is what we need to address it, my answer is a resounding "Hell No!".
That tells me that the Polls are not skewed.... you just don't like the answer that they are giving.
Browns is the Browns
... there goes Joe Thomas, the best there ever was in this game.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 9,955 |
 Agreed that we need to do something....but this bill isn't it. Not even close.
#gmstrong #gmlapdance
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Oct 2006
Posts: 9,149 |
According to my source, Natoma Canfield could walk into Riverside Radiology/Oncology and get her chemo free.
Without a universal health care bill.
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 43,561 |
Not for nothing, But they do have a Bill Pay Section on thier website http://www.ohiohealth.com/bodyriverside.cfm?id=3710I didn't call them to check,, But I'm absolutly sure it's not as easy as you make it sound...
#GMSTRONG
“Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not to his own facts.”
Daniel Patrick Moynahan
"Alternative facts hurt us all. Think before you blindly believe."
Damanshot
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 14,143 |
Quote:
Quote:
But if we ask...does this country need to do something about the unaffordable premiums, skyrocketing healthcare costs and the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?
And if you ask me that same question, my answer will be generally be "Yes" (I don't think we need to do anything about the uninsured - I believe that that is their own job).
But, like the poll, if you ask me if this Bill is what we need to address it, my answer is a resounding "Hell No!".
That tells me that the Polls are not skewed.... you just don't like the answer that they are giving.
prpl...you realize you are contradicting yourself?
The question is...does this country need to do something about the unaffordable premiums, skyrocketing healthcare costs and the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?
You answered "YES" ...then said uninsured people can go to hell, it's not your problem!
So your answer is "NO" this country doesn't need to do anything about unaffordable premiums, skyrocketing healthcare costs and the growing number of "uninsured" in the USA?
I hope you understand why thousands of Americans are being added to the list of "uninsured" everyday in this country?
Also, the trend toward more and more uninsured is growing very fast as HMOs recently increased premiums by 40% and higher.
Prpl...you can't sit the fence and try to answer "YES" when you really mean "NO".
GM strong...
Home of the Free, Because of the Brave...
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256
Legend
|
|
Legend
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 19,256 |
Quote:
Those aren't specifics.
Maybe not specific enough for you? Damn good reasons in my book. Read the 1100+ pages of the bill if you want the minute details of how the government will manage your healthcare. We've seen how they manage lesser endeavors.
And into the forest I go, to lose my mind and find my soul.
- John Muir
#GMSTRONG
|
|
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405
Hall of Famer
|
|
Hall of Famer
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 3,405 |
Quote:
Obama has been a fool, trying to extend a hand of bi-partisanship to a bitter, hate filled GOP Congress/party that wants nothing to do with bi-partisanship.
Of all the hilarious posts I've read on this board, this is the most recent. 
"My signature line goes here."
|
|
|
DawgTalkers.net
Forums DawgTalk Tailgate Forum Health care "bill"
|
|
