Healthcare reform

[bmags]

I believe it's not 1.3 tril over twenty but rather in the years ten thru twenty. But the cbo states those predictions arenunreliable. But the point is when all mechanisms are in place they see big savings.

[Balta1701]

I believe it's not 1.3 tril over twenty but rather in the years ten thru twenty. But the cbo states those predictions arenunreliable. But the point is when all mechanisms are in place they see big savings.

Hell, the 10 year predictions are pretty unreliable too, the CBO is typically very conservative (lower case c) in their estimates. They'd rather have greater savings appear than have cost-overruns appear, with good reason. Either way, the deficit reduction numbers are better than either the House or the Senate bills, and it covers 1 million people more than the Senate bill, as calculated by them.

[Rex Kickass]

You people who want to defend the Slaughter rule as something that is "just part of the game" are f***ing nuts.

 

Deem and pass is another way to vote on legislation. It represents a vote on the legislation. It's also been around for about 80 years.

 

Between 1994 and 2007, when Republicans held majorities in the house and senate, the Republican speaker of the house used the rule 172 times to pass legislation.

 

Funny, I didn't see you b**** pissing and moaning about it then.

 

If the self-executing rule didn't mean a vote, why is Kucinich's flip to a Yes vote such a big deal? Why is the house and the President spending weeks trying to whip yes votes on the bill?

 

If you don't support the bill, you would vote against the self-executing rule (the deem and pass, or the Slaughter rule - because clearly the current Congresswoman made up the 80 year old rule). Just like if you want to stop a bill in the Senate, you call for cloture. Except the difference is, majority rule applies in a self-executing rule vote as well as in a vote on the actual bill itself.

 

So, yes I support the Self-Executing Rule, because it still requires a vote - its about how the vote is phrased and how quickly the vote is taken. It can be a useful legislative tool when used properly, like in the case of giving the final vote to pass a bill that has been debated for nearly 12 months. And the current Speaker of the House is using it properly, if they even choose that route to pass it.

 

But it's bulls*** you'll claim, because that's what the Fox News talking points that you constantly parrot tell you to say.

[StrangeSox]

DEMOCRATS ARE DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTION IN THE NAME OF COMMUNISM!

[Balta1701]

MSNBC's First Read reports, "We’re told that the White House and House Dem leaders are fewer than five votes away from 216." I have always thought that the key is to get within four or five votes. Once you're there, you're very likely to win. Why? Because then the White House and Democratic leaders can concentrate all their attention on a few holdouts. And they can make an irresistible argument: If you don't vote for this bill, you will be responsible for the political and moral disaster that ensues. I just don't think anybody is willing to be the person who kills health care reform. They may hold back, they may want to see if the bill is going to die anyway, and they may want somebody else to go first. But when the finish line is in sight, they won't say no.

Link

[southsider2k5]

Or if they learned anything from the "Nebraska Deal" now is the time to get PAID!

[Balta1701]

Or if they learned anything from the "Nebraska Deal" now is the time to get PAID!

I could be wrong, but I'm about 75% sure that there's no room for re-writes at this point, now that the CBO score is out.

[Balta1701]

Anyway, back to insurance company bashing.

When Angela F. Braly, the chief executive of insurance giant WellPoint Inc., came to Capitol Hill last month to defend the company's recent rate hikes in California, she told lawmakers that her company supported "responsible, sustainable healthcare reform."

 

It was not the first time the nation's largest insurer cast itself as an agent of change. In 2007, just as Democrats took control of Congress, WellPoint pledged that its charitable foundation would spend $30 million over three years as part of a "comprehensive plan to help address the growing ranks of the uninsured."

 

But according to tax filings, company promotional material and former executives familiar with the initiative, WellPoint never came close to fulfilling that pledge. A company spokeswoman disputed that Wednesday.

 

However, WellPoint's public records indicate that from 2007 to 2009 the foundation gave less than $6.2 million in grants targeted specifically at helping uninsured Americans get access to coverage and care -- barely one-fifth of what was promised and just 11% of the charity's total giving over the last three years.

 

"It was just not something that the company really wanted to do," said one former executive, who, like others interviewed for this story, asked not to be identified out of concern that discussing WellPoint could have adverse career consequences. "So it went by the wayside."

Seriously, does that strike you as that hard of a commitment to keep?

[Cknolls]

Deem and pass is another way to vote on legislation. It represents a vote on the legislation. It's also been around for about 80 years.

 

Between 1994 and 2007, when Republicans held majorities in the house and senate, the Republican speaker of the house used the rule 172 times to pass legislation.

 

Funny, I didn't see you b**** pissing and moaning about it then.

 

If the self-executing rule didn't mean a vote, why is Kucinich's flip to a Yes vote such a big deal? Why is the house and the President spending weeks trying to whip yes votes on the bill?

 

If you don't support the bill, you would vote against the self-executing rule (the deem and pass, or the Slaughter rule - because clearly the current Congresswoman made up the 80 year old rule). Just like if you want to stop a bill in the Senate, you call for cloture. Except the difference is, majority rule applies in a self-executing rule vote as well as in a vote on the actual bill itself.

 

So, yes I support the Self-Executing Rule, because it still requires a vote - its about how the vote is phrased and how quickly the vote is taken. It can be a useful legislative tool when used properly, like in the case of giving the final vote to pass a bill that has been debated for nearly 12 months. And the current Speaker of the House is using it properly, if they even choose that route to pass it.

 

But it's bulls*** you'll claim, because that's what the Fox News talking points that you constantly parrot tell you to say.

 

 

Please cite an example where the GOP used the "Gephardt Rule" to pass two bills with one vote.

[kapkomet]

Deem and pass is another way to vote on legislation. It represents a vote on the legislation. It's also been around for about 80 years.

 

Between 1994 and 2007, when Republicans held majorities in the house and senate, the Republican speaker of the house used the rule 172 times to pass legislation.

 

Funny, I didn't see you b**** pissing and moaning about it then.

 

If the self-executing rule didn't mean a vote, why is Kucinich's flip to a Yes vote such a big deal? Why is the house and the President spending weeks trying to whip yes votes on the bill?

 

If you don't support the bill, you would vote against the self-executing rule (the deem and pass, or the Slaughter rule - because clearly the current Congresswoman made up the 80 year old rule). Just like if you want to stop a bill in the Senate, you call for cloture. Except the difference is, majority rule applies in a self-executing rule vote as well as in a vote on the actual bill itself.

 

So, yes I support the Self-Executing Rule, because it still requires a vote - its about how the vote is phrased and how quickly the vote is taken. It can be a useful legislative tool when used properly, like in the case of giving the final vote to pass a bill that has been debated for nearly 12 months. And the current Speaker of the House is using it properly, if they even choose that route to pass it.

 

But it's bulls*** you'll claim, because that's what the Fox News talking points that you constantly parrot tell you to say.

 

Okay, again, I don't give a f*** that a ®Repubelican (spelling on purpose) did this. It's not constitutional. And FYI, I don't watch even one minute of TV anymore. So Faux yourself.

 

Re: the filibuster - it cracks me up how this is the "same thing", when CLEARLY it's not. I spelled it out for you, but you all want this to be something it's not so bad you can justify anything.

 

And, the UFO-Kucinich is a "big deal" because they are trying to pass this with real votes so they don't have to be unconstitutional and actually pass a real bill. And ALSO as I've said at least three times now, I may not like that outcome, but at least it's legit.

[StrangeSox]

Kap, we're poking fun because you use the "it's the same thing!" response to plenty of cases where it clearly is not or the "it's always different" to cases that are strikingly similar. This is, as far as I can tell, just another dubious-but-legal method, just like we've magically come to require 60 vote majorities in the Senate.

 

Now, if this has been done before without causing a Constitutional Crisis, why is it all of a sudden one now? I'm defaulting to the position of "it's probably not" based on who harping about it, but I know next to nothing on House procedural stuff. Is there a solid legal analysis out there you could link to explaining the issues behind using the "deem and pass" method?

[lostfan]

Kap, we're poking fun because you use the "it's the same thing!" response to plenty of cases where it clearly is not or the "it's always different" to cases that are strikingly similar. This is, as far as I can tell, just another dubious-but-legal method, just like we've magically come to require 60 vote majorities in the Senate.

^^

[KipWellsFan]

Okay, again, I don't give a f*** that a ®Repubelican (spelling on purpose) did this. It's not constitutional. And FYI, I don't watch even one minute of TV anymore. So Faux yourself.

 

Re: the filibuster - it cracks me up how this is the "same thing", when CLEARLY it's not. I spelled it out for you, but you all want this to be something it's not so bad you can justify anything.

 

And, the UFO-Kucinich is a "big deal" because they are trying to pass this with real votes so they don't have to be unconstitutional and actually pass a real bill. And ALSO as I've said at least three times now, I may not like that outcome, but at least it's legit.

 

If members of congress oppose deem and pass then they should vote against it and then this whole thing can end. Oh yah, they won't because as angry as this might make you, the majority of the members in congress support the bill. Period.

Edited March 19, 2010 by KipWellsFan

[Rex Kickass]

Please cite an example where the GOP used the "Gephardt Rule" to pass two bills with one vote.

 

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Public Citizen sued over it. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter actually joined in.

 

The lawsuit determined that a deem and pass rule is constitutional and acceptable.

[southsider2k5]

http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bak...tag-trusted-cbo

 

Cordes pegged $1.3 trillion as “the amount by which the final health care bill would reduce the deficit over the next 20 years,” bucking up the CBO's credibility: “That's according to the non-partisan Congressional Budget Office, which is trusted by both parties as the authority on budget matters.”

Story Continues Below Ad ↓

 

The $1.3 trillion number, however, is not in CBO's report (PDF). Robert VerBruggen noted on National Review Online's “The Corner” that the 20-year estimate “is nowhere to be found in the CBO report itself. It seems that the Democrats took the CBO’s estimate that deficit reduction could fall 'in a broad range around one-half percent of GDP,' matched it up to some estimates of GDP in 2020–2029, and attributed their back-of-the-envelope math to the CBO itself. I e-mailed a source within the CBO to ask if they had arrived at the $1.2 trillion figure themselves. The source e-mailed back one word: 'No.'”

 

ABC and NBC also cited the CBO's estimates, but didn't lead with them or match CBS's enthusiasm for championing them and the CBO's authority.

 

Unmentioned by CBS, how the CBO can only go by what congressional leaders say they will do. In this case, that includes cutting $500 billion from Medicare over the next ten years, cuts few think will ever really occur, to say nothing of how every entitlement program takes on a life of its own which leads to soaring costs well beyond the initial estimates.

 

FNC's Carl Cameron, on Special Report with Bret Baier, noted the caveats CBS skipped, including how the Democrats arranged it so the first ten years of the plan only have to provide benefits for the last six years:

 

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office says it prepared only a preliminary estimate that is likely to change. It reported that the reconciliation package of fixes adds $170 billion to the Senate bill for a new, ten-year total, of $940 billion for only six years of actual benefits. The CBO says, only tentatively, that the federal budget deficit would come down $138 billion, but that at least $53 billion of that belongs to the Social Security trust fund.

 

 

Read more: http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/brent-bak...o#ixzz0ib63MXiD

[FlaSoxxJim]

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Public Citizen sued over it. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter actually joined in.

 

The lawsuit determined that a deem and pass rule is constitutional and acceptable.

 

Doh!

 

[DukeNukeEm]

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Public Citizen sued over it. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter actually joined in.

 

The lawsuit determined that a deem and pass rule is constitutional and acceptable.

Wow, owned.

[Balta1701]

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Public Citizen sued over it. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter actually joined in.

 

The lawsuit determined that a deem and pass rule is constitutional and acceptable.

Actually, that one was a slightly different circumstance...in that one, the bills that the House and Senate passed actually included different language thanks to some earmark or something that a staffer included into one of them at the last minute. That was the specific question that brought about the lawsuit, not just the use of "Deem and Pass" which was already quite common.

[Balta1701]

I think a good metaphor for this article is..."Let's give Linebrink the 9th".

But as the week inches along, with momentum steadily building to a Sunday vote, the party leaders are also beginning to decide which politically endangered lawmakers will be given absolution to vote no.

 

Will it be Representative Steve Driehaus of Ohio, who supported the bill last year, but faces a bigger re-election threat than most of his colleagues? Or Jason Altmire of Pennsylvania, who voted no last year and is being besieged by health care opponents in his conservative district that President Obama lost in 2008? Or Bill Owens of New York, who came to Congress last year in a special election and has a seat that Republicans are eagerly trying to win back?

 

There are, of course, very few votes to spare. Yet there are some. And even most Republican leaders concede that the mystery is not so much whether Democrats will reach the magic number of 216, but rather whose names will be included as yes votes in the final count.

[Cknolls]

The Deficit Reduction Act of 2005. Public Citizen sued over it. Nancy Pelosi and Louise Slaughter actually joined in.

 

The lawsuit determined that a deem and pass rule is constitutional and acceptable.

 

 

Doh!

 

 

Wow, owned.

 

 

An "A" for sarcasm, an"F" for answering the question. Was there TWO bills invovled with the House's passage in 2005?

[Balta1701]

An "A" for sarcasm, an"F" for answering the question. Was there TWO bills invovled with the House's passage in 2005?

I can give you a 2006 example where the Republicans passed 4 bills with 1 vote and 3 self-executing rules. Here's how it reads:

On April 26, 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. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

 

The substitute submitted by the Rules Committee did not combine all the amendments adopted by the three reporting committees, as is customarily done. Instead, it deleted two amendments adopted by the Judiciary Committee that would have required disclosure of lobbyists’ contacts with Members and staff, and lobbyists’ solicitation and transmission of campaign contributions to candidates.

 

It then further amended its own substitute by automatically deleting a third Judiciary amendment requiring a Government Accountability Office study of lobbyist employment contracts.

 

The third self-executing provision occurs at the end of the special rule and states: “In the engrossment of H.R. 4975, the Clerk shall ... add the text of H.R. 513, as passed by the House, as new matter at the end of H.R. 4975.” In other words, the Clerk was authorized to add as an amendment an entire separate bill, in this case, the House-passed legislation regulating Section 527 political committees, and thereby put that issue into conference with the Senate (which has no comparable provision in its bill).

 

The special rule had other problems since it allowed only nine amendments to be offered out of 74 submitted. Moreover, appropriators were unhappy with the earmark provisions included in the bill. This forced Rules Chairman David Dreier (R-Calif.) to pull the rule after 20 minutes of debate, followed by a five-hour recess and Republican Conference meeting before the House reconvened and the rule again was called up and narrowly adopted, 216-207.

[Rex Kickass]

An "A" for sarcasm, an"F" for answering the question. Was there TWO bills invovled with the House's passage in 2005?

 

Actually, yes.

 

The house bill contained different language than the Senate bill.

 

So technically there are two completely different bills that were combined and signed into law. In fact, in this case, IMO, it was very clear that two separate bills were passed because the language was completely different.

 

In this case, the House passes a sidecar measure that attaches itself to a Senate bill that the House deems passed with approval to the sidecar measure. Since the sidecar measure, by extension, modifies the bill before it comes to the President's desk, and the Senate then has to vote on a reconciliation measure that matches the House sidecar nearly word for word that it isn't actually two separate bills. It's actually just a conference committee vote done a different way. It isn't an optimal solution, but it is a solution, and the Senate parliamentarian has determined that this is a constitutional way to get this bill to the President's desk.

 

Given that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005 showed that the court's basis for its decision was ample clear evidence that the bill was passed by both Houses, I suspect that this current procedure would also pass constitutional muster, even if unorthodox and not optimal.

 

Of course none of this would be needed if the Senate Republicans weren't forcing the use of reconciliation on the bill rather than the use of conference committee because they are making virtually every piece of business clear the Senate with a 60 vote supermajority. But, please, keep ignoring that obstructionism.

 

I don't like that the Democrats have to find a way to end run around the Republicans to get business to the President's desk for a signature, but the rampant obstructionism has proved that the Republicans are not negotiating in good faith, especially when they go to pretty extraordinary measures to oppose initiatives that they, themselves, proposed years earlier.

 

We all know that politics plays a role in doing the people's business. However, politics needs to, at some point, give way to common sense and a dedication to actually achieving something for the people they represent. I would love to say that I think that the GOP caucus has that intent at heart, and I do think there are some individual representatives who do have that intent at their core. But by and large, the caucus seems to have decided that doing the business of the American people isn't as important as winning votes by constantly saying NO. Case in point, the majority of the Republican caucus has voted against such controversial things as rape victims who work for the government being able to confront their attacker in a court of law, and most recently against symbolic resolutions of congratulations.

[Balta1701]

Georgia Rep Paul Broun:

If ObamaCare passes, that free insurance card that's in people's pockets is gonna be as worthless as a Confederate dollar after the War Between The States -- the Great War of Yankee Aggression.

[StrangeSox]

What free insurance card is he referring to? Medicare?

[Balta1701]

What free insurance card is he referring to? Medicare?

The Obamacare card, because Obama's taking over all health care and making every decision with his own computerized mind. He bought that computerized mind from the British NHS.