• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

the reconciliation or "fixes" package

JoeTheJuggler

Penultimate Amazing
JoeTheJuggler
Joined
Jun 7, 2006
Messages
27,766
I think it's time for a new thread on this. Now that the bill has passed, and the House has passed the reconciliation package, the Senate has taken up this set of amendments.

Republicans have vowed to do all they can to block it. If they succeed in getting even one amendment to this package passed, then it will have to go back to the House for another vote (though that probably won't be any problem).

What I think is interesting is when it comes time for a floor vote in the Senate, will Republicans vote no?

At least some of what this does are things Republicans pushed for: revoking the "sweetheart deals" (e.g. Nebraska) and so on.
 
The only thing worse than the Senate bill is the Senate bill without some of the reconciliation fixes. They should pass it quickly, quietly, and go on.
 
corplinx said:
The only thing worse than the Senate bill is the Senate bill without some of the reconciliation fixes. They should pass it quickly, quietly, and go on.
Click to expand...

I agree. If for some reason, the fixes fail, the existing bill is still the law of the land.

Of course, I doubt senatorial Republicans know this.
 
There's a very obscure chance that, if it gets punted back to the house, they could re-open the floodgates and try to put the public option into the reconciliation package.

I've got a feeling that the republicans might just let it pass reconciliation as-is after they've seen that the house has the votes to make any changes that'd fly with the senate and the parliamentarian.
 
there is a worry that some silly GOPer will want to add an amendment, which would add a public-option.

some Democrats would be tempted to vote yes.

unlikely to happen though.

but if someone adds a non-profit co-op...id be happy.
 
willhaven said:
There's a very obscure chance that, if it gets punted back to the house, they could re-open the floodgates and try to put the public option into the reconciliation package.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure how "obscure" that chance is. The centrists have already won (in that the bill passed), which means that now it's the leftists and rightists fighting it out for second place.


I've got a feeling that the republicans might just let it pass reconciliation as-is after they've seen that the house has the votes to make any changes that'd fly with the senate and the parliamentarian.
Click to expand...

That would be the best move tactically. I'm not sure that the "party of no" retains the basic tactical sense they had two years ago.
 
corplinx said:
The only thing worse than the Senate bill is the Senate bill without some of the reconciliation fixes. They should pass it quickly, quietly, and go on.
Click to expand...
So you disagree with the Republicans announced strategy to do everything they can to try to stop it from passing?
 
willhaven said:
There's a very obscure chance that, if it gets punted back to the house, they could re-open the floodgates and try to put the public option into the reconciliation package.
Click to expand...
I doubt it. The public option would have to overcome a filibuster in the Senate, and that's not going to happen.

ETA: And besides that, House Democrats have said they're prepared to vote again on the fixes if they're amended or tweaked (as a Republican strategy to delay passage by forcing another House vote).
 
Last edited:
the GOP is welcome to try to derail the law (it is now a law), by adding amendments that would require new House approval.

why should I care?
 
drkitten said:
That would be the best move tactically. I'm not sure that the "party of no" retains the basic tactical sense they had two years ago.
Click to expand...

I heard Senate Minority Whip, John Kyl (AZ) interviewed on PBS last night. He seemed to have a pretty realistic grasp of the situation. Despite some bits of rhetoric, in the end he said the fixes bill will almost certainly be passed within about a week, even if it has to go back to the House.

ETA: It seems like the best spin they can put on it is to claim that the fixes were ideas that originated with Republicans.
 
JoeTheJuggler said:
ETA: It seems like the best spin they can put on it is to claim that the fixes were ideas that originated with Republicans.
Click to expand...

Which would sort of shoot down the "shut out of negotiations"claim, but I'm guessing the teabaggers won't pick up on that.
 
Meadmaker said:
Which would sort of shoot down the "shut out of negotiations"claim, but I'm guessing the teabaggers won't pick up on that.
Click to expand...

We'll see. They might stay away from that spin because they don't want to have to own any of the healthcare reform (partly, as you say, to maintain the claim that they were shut out of negotiations and the process was somehow flawed).

Speaking of the process, Kyl repeated the "ram it through" thing yet again. It took over a year and a supermajority in the Senate, the process received more scrutiny than any legislative process has in modern times, and he still claims it was rammed through.

He also said the polls showed that 70% of Americans wanted to scrap the bill and start over (that is, give up on healthcare reform), which is a flat out lie.
 
Ugh.

Here's a sample of the more obtuse Republican amendments to date:

• David Vitter of Lousiana: An amendment "to repeal the government takeover of health care".

• Also from Vitter: An amendment "prohibiting use of funds to fund the Associate of Community Organizations for Reform Now". This is targeted at Acorn, a liberal community organising group hated by conservatives. The amendment would flog a dead horse – it comes after the group said it had gone bankrupt and was shutting its doors. Also, federal courts have already ruled a similar bill passed last year to be unconstitutional.

• Tom Coburn of Oklahoma: An amendment to bar insurance payment for the impotence drug Viagra for convicted child molsters and rapists. Clever. Coburn is setting up the Democrats to vote in favour of perverts.

• Another from Coburn: An amendment "To require all Members of Congress to read a bill prior to casting a vote on the bill". The healthcare bill alone ran about 2,700 pages.

• Bob Bennett of Utah: A bill that would call a vote in Washington DC on whether to overturn the same-sex marriage law. Disguised as support for greater democracy, this is a favourite cause of conservatives who believe Washington's majority black population opposes gay marriage and will vote to bar it. (Same-sex nuptials in the US capital began this month, and despite what opponents had predicted, the institution of heterosexual marriage remains intact.)
Click to expand...

Linky.

(If any one amendment can pass, it then has to go back to the House)

Disgusting.
 
all the amendments have failed. i heard this on ABC news 3 mins ago.

so yes, pedophiles can still get Viagra, but they should be castrated first, IMHO.
 
Maybe some GOPer will propose an amendment condemning the Holocaust. And if it doesn't pass, he can run on the line: "Democrats voted down a bill condemning the Holocaust!!!
 
I'm all for the "no viagra for rapists and molesters" amendment. Why shouldn't Senate Dems pass it? It's not as if it would be a controversial vote in the House. Why not let this thing ping pong a few times and put in some more crowd pleasing (and cost saving) amendments? The unsavory parts of the Senate bill don't kick in so quickly that they can't afford to make any changes to the reconciliation bill, and the fixes bill was not the controversial bill in the House the first time.

It would be unwise for the Democrats to vote against that Coburn amendment just to pass the reconciliation bill a little sooner. How does it hurt the Dems to vote for it, thus making the House pass it too? It makes the bill better in pretty much everyone's opinion. Voting against it opens you up to attacks that you voted against prohibiting the funding of rapists' erections. Bad PR. They have the votes to defeat every amendment they don't like.

Edited to add: It also doesn't help the Republicans at all if it does pass, and it does help them politically that Democrats voted against it. That's not an ad I'd want running against me.
 
Last edited:
Freddy said:
Voting against it opens you up to attacks that you voted against prohibiting the funding of rapists' erections. Bad PR. They have the votes to defeat every amendment they don't like.
Click to expand...

BS. The GOP is desperate to send this back to the House, in the hopes that something will F up and then the whole thing falls apart.

ALL BS GOP amendments should be voted down, even if it calls for World Peace.

Health-care reform in the USA is now law and will stay that way.
 
parky76 said:
BS. The GOP is desperate to send this back to the House, in the hopes that something will F up and then the whole thing falls apart.

ALL BS GOP amendments should be voted down, even if it calls for World Peace.

Health-care reform in the USA is now law and will stay that way.
Click to expand...

But nothing is going to go wrong in the House over an amendment like that. The world could also end before the reconciliation bill passes, but it's not bloody likely. I'm saying the Republicans' plan was dumb, and the Democrats could have helped themselves by playing along. It would have allowed them to point out how many Republican ideas went in, and they get to choose which ones.

You can bet those attack ads are already in the works. And they're not lies. It's already going to be a bad election cycle to be a Democrat. It doesn't matter what polls of adults say about the health care bill. Turnout is going to heavily favor the Republicans.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom