Healthcare reform

[NorthSideSox72]

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.

Great post, but... I'd have voted NO on that congratulatory motion as well, because I find it obscene that Congress is wasting time on s*** like that.

 

[GoSox05]

Georgia Rep Paul Broun:

 

 

the Great War of Yankee Aggression. Wow. Just wow.

[Rex Kickass]

Great post, but... I'd have voted NO on that congratulatory motion as well, because I find it obscene that Congress is wasting time on s*** like that.

 

I'm sure that there were a few people who voted against this on that purpose alone. But I'm willing to wager that when the majority of a caucus votes against a nonbinding resolution of congratulations, it has nothing to do with wasting time on s*** like that.

[NorthSideSox72]

I'm sure that there were a few people who voted against this on that purpose alone. But I'm willing to wager that when the majority of a caucus votes against a nonbinding resolution of congratulations, it has nothing to do with wasting time on s*** like that.

OK... then why else vote no on that?

 

[Balta1701]

Since it's come up, the House has a list available of previous legislation that has been passed by self-executing rules available if you go through its website. Here's a quick list of 20+ of those votes coming from the last GOP controlled congress, 2005-2006.

 

Stolen fully from Matt Yglesias.

[southsider2k5]

It would be nice if this meant that the Dems wouldn't b**** when this happens to them again...

[Balta1701]

It would be nice if this meant that the Dems wouldn't b**** when this happens to them again...

Normally out of sarcasm I'd ask you to please give me an example of the Dems b****ing about Republican usage of "Deem and Pass", but having just done a lexis search for both names for the process, I couldn't find a single article talking about it prior to this year. Strange.

[StrangeSox]

Well, they were party to a lawsuit over it, right?

[kapkomet]

STATEMENT OF FACTS

 

10. The Bicameralism and Presentment Clause of the Constitution of the United

States mandates that “Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the

Senate, shall, before it becomes a Law, be presented to the President of the United States. . . .”

U.S. Const. art. I, § 7, cl. 2.

 

11. A law is enacted in conformance with this constitutional mandate only if “(1) a

bill containing its exact text was approved by a majority of the Members of the House of

Representatives; (2) the Senate approved precisely the same text; and (3) that text was signed

into law by the President.” Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448 (1998).

 

12. Article I, section 7, clause 2 further provides: “But in all such cases the votes of

both Houses shall be determined by yeas and nays, and the names of the persons voting for and

against the bill shall be entered on the journal of each House respectively.”

 

13. In or about March 2010, the Rules Committee of the House proposed a rule to the

full House establishing the terms and conditions pursuant to which certain legislation would be

considered by the House (the “Rule” or “Slaughter Rule”). The Rule provided that, upon

adoption by the House on a vote of the yeas and nays of one bill (the “Reconciliation Bill”), an

entirely different bill, H.R. 3590 (the “Senate Bill”) would be “deemed approved” by the House.

 

14. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Rule.

 

15. In or about March 2010, the House approved the Reconciliation Bill. The House

has never voted on the Senate Bill.

 

This is a copy of a lawsuit that's going to be filed about 10 minutes after they Slaughter this. I'm sure it will get attacked because of its source, but whatever.

 

Again, AGAIN, for the reading impaired, it doesn't matter what the house has done in the past. Republican, Democrat, Camels, Bulls***, whatever party has ever been in charge makes no difference. You all want to go back to "past political occurances" of this, and I say again, AGAIN, it doesn't matter. That's not the point.

 

It's pretty interesting to me the defenses you all keep saying. Oh, those obstructionist f***s, they won't vote for my bill! Please - you can't even get enough Democrats to vote for this so you have to shove this up our ass. There's never been a bill that mandates the purchase of a service from an exchange of the federal government, either. But, poor poor people who just need health care. STRAWMAN.

[southsider2k5]

Normally out of sarcasm I'd ask you to please give me an example of the Dems b****ing about Republican usage of "Deem and Pass", but having just done a lexis search for both names for the process, I couldn't find a single article talking about it prior to this year. Strange.

 

The Democrats spent eight years saying they weren't going to run the country like the Republicans, yet here you are digging up all of the ways that they are acting just like them. Congrats. You now are the party of Karl Rove style governance.

[Rex Kickass]

Well, they were party to a lawsuit over it, right?

 

They were actually, and the process was deemed constitutional in a court of law.

[kapkomet]

They were actually, and the process was deemed constitutional in a court of law.

 

 

Says who?

 

It's not the same court case.

[Rex Kickass]

The Democrats spent eight years saying they weren't going to run the country like the Republicans, yet here you are digging up all of the ways that they are acting just like them. Congrats. You now are the party of Karl Rove style governance.

 

I'm pretty sure that they haven't run the country like the Republicans. In fact when organizing the Senate in 2009, they went so far as to say that reestablishing the rules of the chamber would take a 67 vote supermajority, to prevent something like the "Nuclear Option" that the GOP proposed doing in 2005 from actually happening.

 

Playing hardball with existing rules and using them in specific, extraordinary circumstances to pass a bill and not to change the way government is run, is not Karl Rove style governance. It's the way Congress works. And its the way its worked for centuries. It's not pretty, its not pie in the sky, but its how it works.

 

What I think is most precious about this argument is that you argue that if the Democrats don't immediately fold into Republican obstructionism, they are clearly as bad as the people you identify with.

[Rex Kickass]

Says who?

 

It's not the same court case.

 

I was answering someone else's question, and not responding to your post.

[southsider2k5]

I'm pretty sure that they haven't run the country like the Republicans. In fact when organizing the Senate in 2009, they went so far as to say that reestablishing the rules of the chamber would take a 67 vote supermajority, to prevent something like the "Nuclear Option" that the GOP proposed doing in 2005 from actually happening.

 

Playing hardball with existing rules and using them in specific, extraordinary circumstances to pass a bill and not to change the way government is run, is not Karl Rove style governance. It's the way Congress works. And its the way its worked for centuries. It's not pretty, its not pie in the sky, but its how it works.

 

What I think is most precious about this argument is that you argue that if the Democrats don't immediately fold into Republican obstructionism, they are clearly as bad as the people you identify with.

 

Funny, I spent eight years of listening to the exact opposite arguments. Back then it had nothing to do with how the government worked, and it was all about government being rammed down our throats. Funny how that has changed.

[Rex Kickass]

This is a copy of a lawsuit that's going to be filed about 10 minutes after they Slaughter this. I'm sure it will get attacked because of its source, but whatever.

 

Again, AGAIN, for the reading impaired, it doesn't matter what the house has done in the past. Republican, Democrat, Camels, Bulls***, whatever party has ever been in charge makes no difference. You all want to go back to "past political occurances" of this, and I say again, AGAIN, it doesn't matter. That's not the point.

 

It's pretty interesting to me the defenses you all keep saying. Oh, those obstructionist f***s, they won't vote for my bill! Please - you can't even get enough Democrats to vote for this so you have to shove this up our ass. There's never been a bill that mandates the purchase of a service from an exchange of the federal government, either. But, poor poor people who just need health care. STRAWMAN.

 

Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution

 

All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

 

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

 

Every Order, Resolution, or Vote to which the Concurrence of the Senate and House of Representatives may be necessary (except on a question of Adjournment) shall be presented to the President of the United States; and before the Same shall take Effect, shall be approved by him, or being disapproved by him, shall be repassed by two thirds of the Senate and House of Representatives, according to the Rules and Limitations prescribed in the Case of a Bill.

 

The Article says that the House and Senate must concur on a bill.

 

The House also, according to the Constitution, has the ability to set its own rules. Part of that includes the ability to do something like a deem and pass. By voting on the sidecar measure, they approve the Senate bill. If the Senate approves the same sidecar reconciliation measure, both Houses will have approved the Senate bill and the House amendments, creating a full bill that has been approved by both houses of Congress. It's not ideal, but its likely to meet the guidelines of Constitutional passage, especially since the 2005 act that Public Citizen sued over actually had two different versions pass in two different houses, but was signed into law and deemed valid under a court of law.

 

It's very unlikely that a federal judge will rule on the internal workings of the Congressional process and throw out a law in doing so. To do so would be the very definition of judicial activism. Something else that Conservatives and the GOP seem to hate, until it benefits them.

 

 

[bmags]

it doesn't matter anymore, they aren't going to do deem and pass, three votes: the rule, the senate bill, the sidecar.

 

 

[Balta1701]

They were actually, and the process was deemed constitutional in a court of law.

Again, the specific lawsuit they were party to was actually more of a specific case than just testing a self-executing rule. That was a case where the actual text of the bill that the House and Senate passed was different when it was signed by the President.

[kapkomet]

Again, the specific lawsuit they were party to was actually more of a specific case than just testing a self-executing rule. That was a case where the actual text of the bill that the House and Senate passed was different when it was signed by the President.

 

Well, I'm glad that this is a moot point now.

 

Since it's going to an "up or down vote" that means Nancy has the votes.

[kapkomet]

I also think that they never intended this to be done using the Slaughter rule. I think it was used two-fold - one to show the "nos" in the Dem party that they were "serious" about passing it with or without them and two to get the discussion off of the bill itself and how bad it sucks.

 

[HuskyCaucasian]

Does anyone have a good place to look for a synopses of the new reform bill? I've been a little busy the last week and have NO clue what is going on.

[lostfan]

There's not much new really except for a few style points. Just look at the version that passed the Senate in December and that's pretty much what it is (don't really know why Stupak is being so goddamn intransigent since the Senate bill had similar anti-abortion language in it, it's just he won't get direct credit for it I guess).

[Balta1701]

There's not much new really except for a few style points. Just look at the version that passed the Senate in December and that's pretty much what it is (don't really know why Stupak is being so goddamn intransigent since the Senate bill had similar anti-abortion language in it, it's just he won't get direct credit for it I guess).

Some of the state-level details (i.e. Nebraska) are out. The excise tax was reworked and actually strengthened to pass reconciliation rules. Covers an extra 1 million people than the Senate Bill and is better on deficit reduction than the Senate bill.

[HuskyCaucasian]

There are no public options, but there are "exchanges" correct?

[Balta1701]

There are no public options, but there are "exchanges" correct?

Correct, there is no public plan. The concept of an exchange is a key to the whole thing; its set up so that small businesses and individuals have the opportunity to buy reasonably priced plans despite the fact that they on their own wouldn't have enormous bargaining power.