Obama and Dems to go it alone on health-care reform, if GOP refuses to compromise

[Random]

It's basically the same thing - they're trying to subvert the normal processes of the senate and avoid the filibuster with a questionably legal parliamentary maneuver. This isn't a budget bill. This is a normal piece of legislation. Reconciliation shouldn't be in play; it shouldn't even be an option. But they're going to change the rules and push it through in such a manner - the same sort of strong-handed tactics that they were accusing the republicans of just a few years ago.

Oh, but it was a constitutional crisis back then, it was going to ruin everything! Naked power grab!

They are not changing the rules. If reconciliation is used in this case it would be to alter a pre-existing law. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what is happening right now.

This is all about the Senate Healthcare bill that passed while the Democrats still had 60 votes and were able to wrangle enough votes to get it passed. The problem was that the House had passed a much more liberal bill and could not make it more consevative without losing votes.

Then Dems lost the 60 vote margin in the Senate. Odds of any sort of healthcare bill passing the Senate seem slim as long as Republicans are willing to let Americans die to advance thier political aims, but the Senate has still passed a bill, even though it had not been passed by the House.

So the plan becomes, get the House to pass the Senate bill as is so it doesn't get changed in committee, doesn't have to go through another Senate vote, and can go right to the President's desk for signing.

The House however hates the current bill as it is too conservative. They don't like all the compromises the Senate made in a misguided attempt to bring Republicans on board, so there is little chance of it making it through the House as is.

Now we get to the reconciliation process. Basically, it allows for certain modifications to the law to be passed within a certain time period by majority vote. The problem is that there is currently no law to modify. So the new plan becomes:

1) Have the Senate pass a reconciliation bill that makes what modifications they can to the Senate healthcare bill and send it to Obama, who does not sign it.

2) Have the House pass the Senate bill and send it to Obama.

3) Obama signs the Senate bill into law, then...

4) immediately after signing the Senate bill into law, he then signs the reconciliation act into law. Heck, they will probably both be on his desk at the same time when he signs them.

Now admittedly, this is all a bit lawyerball, but it is possible without any rule changes.

The Republican Nuclear option was basically bribing the umpire and convicing him to change the rules of baseball to suit your aims at any given moment. It would have allowed the majority party to run amok whenever they were in power, and even many in the GOP were reluctant to use it.

 

[Thunder]

It's basically the same thing - they're trying to subvert the normal processes of the senate and avoid the filibuster with a questionably legal parliamentary maneuver.

The GOP used reconciliation to pass the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and drilling in ANWAR.

did it bother you then as well?

 

[Thunder]

Parky, we should sit down as a country / forum / government and decide what the issues are - what we agree on and what we don't. Not about solutions, just about the problems.
.

oh....i see.

this way we can prolong the problem even longer. and then the GOP can run on Obama's "failure" in 2012.

the time for talk is over. the people of the USA gave the Democrats control of the White House, the Senate, and the House of Representatives, and we will use this power to reform health care as we see fit...with a few Republican ideas thrown in just to be nice.

we will do what the GOP failed to do....from 1994 to 2006.

what is this called? its called leadership.

 

[Minadin]

They are not changing the rules. If reconciliation is used in this case it would be to alter a pre-existing law. You seem to have a misunderstanding about what is happening right now.

This is all about the Senate Healthcare bill that passed while the Democrats still had 60 votes and were able to wrangle enough votes to get it passed. The problem was that the House had passed a much more liberal bill and could not make it more consevative without losing votes.

Then Dems lost the 60 vote margin in the Senate. Odds of any sort of healthcare bill passing the Senate seem slim as long as Republicans are willing to let Americans die to advance thier political aims, but the Senate has still passed a bill, even though it had not been passed by the House.

So the plan becomes, get the House to pass the Senate bill as is so it doesn't get changed in committee, doesn't have to go through another Senate vote, and can go right to the President's desk for signing.

The House however hates the current bill as it is too conservative. They don't like all the compromises the Senate made in a misguided attempt to bring Republicans on board, so there is little chance of it making it through the House as is.

Now we get to the reconciliation process. Basically, it allows for certain modifications to the law to be passed within a certain time period by majority vote. The problem is that there is currently no law to modify. So the new plan becomes:

1) Have the Senate pass a reconciliation bill that makes what modifications they can to the Senate healthcare bill and send it to Obama, who does not sign it.

2) Have the House pass the Senate bill and send it to Obama.

3) Obama signs the Senate bill into law, then...

4) immediately after signing the Senate bill into law, he then signs the reconciliation act into law. Heck, they will probably both be on his desk at the same time when he signs them.

Now admittedly, this is all a bit lawyerball, but it is possible without any rule changes.

The Republican Nuclear option was basically bribing the umpire and convicing him to change the rules of baseball to suit your aims at any given moment. It would have allowed the majority party to run amok whenever they were in power, and even many in the GOP were reluctant to use it.

Is Reconciliation restricted to budget bills, or is it not?

Is this a budget bill, or a piece of 'normal' legislation?

 

[Minadin]

The GOP used reconciliation to pass the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts, and drilling in ANWAR.

did it bother you then as well?

I didn't say they were right to do so, if that's true. Tu Quoque. If your assertion is that it's wrong, it doesn't make the current proposal right, just because someone else did something similarly nefarious in the past.

Both parties seem to be major hypocrites on this sort of stuff, each using whichever argument serves their purpose, depending on who is in power.

 

[rwguinn]

... Odds of any sort of healthcare bill passing the Senate seem slim as long as Republicans are willing to let Americans die to advance thier political aims, but the Senate has still passed a bill, even though it had not been passed by the House.

...

You just called me and many of your fellow Americans some very bad things. I consider that a personal attack.
But then, Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to further their "daddy knows best" philosophy.
*******.

 

[Thunder]

I didn't say they were right to do so, if that's true. Tu Quoque.

dude...just look it up.

do I think reconciliation is bad? no. as long as the principle of democracy and majority rule is respected, I don't care how its done.

now, should reconciliation be used all the time? no. that would be an abuse.

but, should Filibusters be used all the time as well? hells no. that too is an abuse of the intent of this procedure.

I think Filibusters should only be used when the minority feels that the majority is going to pass something that is very dangerous for the country as a whole. And I feel Reconciliation should also only be used when the majority feels that the minority is abusing the intent of the Filibuster and has less than honorable reasons for wanting to use it.

Perhaps, we need some new Reconciliation and Filibuster laws. Maybe even give the other side the right to appeal the use of a Filibuster or Reconciliation, to the SCOTUS.

We want democracy and majority rule to be respected. We also want the minority to have the ability to protect itself from what it feels is bad laws.

But none of this should be abused.

 

[Minadin]

dude...just look it up.

do I think reconciliation is bad? no. as long as the principle of democracy and majority rule is respected, I don't care how its done.

now, should reconciliation be used all the time? no. that would be an abuse.

but, should Filibusters be used all the time as well? hells no. that too is an abuse of the intent of this procedure.

I think Filibusters should only be used when the minority feels that the majority is going to pass something that is very dangerous for the country as a whole. And I feel Reconciliation should also only be used when the majority feels that the minority is abusing the intent of the Filibuster and has less than honorable reasons for wanting to use it.

Perhaps, we need some new Reconciliation and Filibuster laws. Maybe even give the other side the right to appeal the use of a Filibuster or Reconciliation, to the SCOTUS.

We want democracy and majority rule to be respected. We also want the minority to have the ability to protect itself from what it feels is bad laws.

But none of this should be abused.

That's what the minority is trying to do now. Most of the time, the majority rule should be respected. But, there is such a thing as the tyranny of the majority, as the democrats I quoted above pointed out.

And, in this case, it's not even a real majority, as it would seem via polls (thus far) that a fairly substantial majority of Americans would prefer that we not pass this legislation.

However, I think that we could probably make some progress on this problem if we set aside partisan 'gotcha' politics and actually tried to address the issues. We just have to first define the issues in a specific manner, and the causes, and then try to come up with logical solutions.

Here's a recent dialogue between a republican congressman and a democrat congressman on the subject:

http://www.kmox.com/episode_download.php?contentType=36&contentId=4425028

I think there are a lot of points the two sides could agree on, work out, and find solutions to, in order to pass something meaningful and responsible.

 

[Random]

You just called me and many of your fellow Americans some very bad things. I consider that a personal attack.
But then, Democrats are willing to do whatever it takes to further their "daddy knows best" philosophy.
*******.

You are right, I appologize.

I should have said, "...as long as the leadership of the Republican party is willing to let Americans die to advance their political aims."

We have 50,000 Americans dying each year due to this problem, and another million a year being forced into bankruptcy. I have seen no indication from the GOP that they care about this. Indeed, whenever Democrats actually find their spines and say, "Hey this is kinda a problem for some people, so if we could sort of do something to maybe help them out isn't that kinda a good thing? Sorry to bother you about this", the GOP accuses them of emotional theatrics.

 

[rwguinn]

You are right, I appologize.

I should have said, "...as long as the leadership of the Republican party is willing to let Americans die to advance their political aims."

We have 50,000 Americans dying each year due to this problem, and another million a year being forced into bankruptcy. I have seen no indication from the GOP that they care about this. Indeed, whenever Democrats actually find their spines and say, "Hey this is kinda a problem for some people, so if we could sort of do something to maybe help them out isn't that kinda a good thing? Sorry to bother you about this", the GOP accuses them of emotional theatrics.

Wrong again. The stupidity posted in that idea is beyond any hope of cure.
Dems have a majority, and just who in hell is keeping them from doing things? They can't even seem to put a temporary patch on Medicare, which is reducing benefits (payments) by 21%. So, lots of old folks will die now, right?
Now, THAT is letting people die to prove you're opposition is just a bunch of obstructionist ********, is it not?

 

[Random]

Wrong again. The stupidity posted in that idea is beyond any hope of cure.
Dems have a majority, and just who in hell is keeping them from doing things? They can't even seem to put a temporary patch on Medicare, which is reducing benefits (payments) by 21%. So, lots of old folks will die now, right?
Now, THAT is letting people die to prove you're opposition is just a bunch of obstructionist ********, is it not?

Don't get me wrong, Obama and the Democrats in the Senate are no great shakes either. I knew the whole thing was heading for trouble from the start.

Obama said that he was going to finally take care of healthcare reform and I thought, "Finally. Someone who will look the insurance, drug companies and the other big money boys of the healthcare industry in the eye and tell them to take a long walk off a short pier!"

Then Obama opens by saying, "Great news! I have struck a backroom deal with the insurance, drug companies and the other big money boys of the healthcare industry!" Nowhere to go but down from there.

Then he handed it over to the "gang of six". When it became painfully obvious to everyone with two brain cells to rub together that they were going to do nothing productive he just let things sit there, gathering moss.

Between insurance industry Blue dogs desperately trying to kill anything that might pose a long term threat to insurance industry profits, Obama dropping popular aspects of the bill like the public option in a misguided attempt to bring Republicans on board even after they say they will oppose it regardless of what is in it, and Joe "I oppose legislation I supported three weeks ago because I found out liberals like it" Lieberman, who needed the Republican filibuster?

It didin't help that with only 60 theoretical votes and 60 needed to break a filibuster, absolutely every one of those votes was crucial and each Senator could ask for whatever they wanted, including that other Senators didn't get what they wanted. Democrats are not like the Republicans, they don't have that single-minded party discipline that the GOP has hammered into themselves for the last two decades. Still very much a circular firing squad.

For me, it's like trying to chose between the barbarian hordes who kill the men, rape the women, and take the children as slaves, and the incompetant town guards who do nothing when the barbarians show up, kill the men, rape the women, and take the children as slaves. Technically, the town guard is better, but I'm not really a fan of either.