Healthcare - nothing has been passed, quit overreacting! (Christmas, Dodd, Sanders)

[GreenGene]

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

So let's assume a bill is agreed upon in Conference. Let's assume there is a huge fight and the end result is that it contains a public option. Then the bill proceeds to be voted on by the House and Senate. Some Senators like Joe Lieberman and others say they won't vote for it and thus the bill won't reach the filibuster proof 60 vote majority. Is the bill dead? Not really, because the Senate can resort to a procedure called Reconcilliation otherwise known as the Nuclear Option.

There may be some confusion over the terms Budget Reconciliation and Nuclear Option. They are not the same. I'll try to describe how they are different.

Budget Reconciliation

The legislative process known as Budget Reconciliation goes back to 1974. It is an optional process that Congress sometimes uses with legislation that includes policy changes with regard to the federal budget; specifically, funding of mandatory programs and/or revenue programs (anything dealing with taxes).

Now, I don't know this for a fact, but it's quite possible that the health care reform bill - since both House and Senate versions contain provisions which make it a mandatory program - will be eligible for Budget Reconciliation.

Many bills dealing with federal budget items are voted on without the use of the Budget Reconciliation process, but it has been used from time to time. From 1980 to 1998, Budget Reconciliation was used 13 times. More recently, this process was used four times during the Bush administration, including both the 2001 and 2003 Bush tax cuts.

According to the Wikipedia entry for Budget Reconciliation, "Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit."

It is important to note that Budget Reconciliation is an established legislative process that Democrats and Republicans both have used in the past, and will no doubt use again in the future. A very good description can be found here:

THE BUDGET RECONCILIATION PROCESS (http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/bud_rec_proc.htm - broken link)

Nuclear Option

This phrase describes something that does not exist. The phrase is generally attributed to Republican Senator Trent Lott, and it refers to an effort by Republicans to change Senate rules regarding judicial nominations.

In a nutshell, it takes a two-thirds vote in the Senate (60 votes) to break a filibuster. In 2004/2005, although the 55 Democrats in the Senate had agreed to over 200 Bush judicial nominations, they used the filibuster process to block 10 appointments to the bench, and that caused Republicans to seek a way to change the rules.

There are very good articles giving the background of this available here:

The Political Scene: Blowing Up The Senate : The New Yorker

Everything you wanted to know about the "nuclear option" - Salon.com

The Nuclear Option was never approved, and therefore has never been used. The so-called Gang of 14 worked out a compromise.

So, with any current legislation, it's Budget Reconciliation, and not Nuclear Option.

Originally Posted by azriverfan.

Furthermore, even if Reconciliation is voted and approved to be used for this healthcare policy, certain elements can be stripped from the bill using another procedure called the Byrd Rules. Any bill that passes using Reconciliation, it is subject to certain standards called they Byrd rules named after our famous West Virginia Senator. The public option could then be stripped from the final bill using these Byrd rules. A lot of this is unknown territory and the Senate and House want to avoid going this route but you never know.

There are several good sources of information regarding the Byrd Rule, including this one (http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/byrd_rule.htm - broken link). One thing worth noting is that the Bryd Rule can be waived by a 60-vote majority vote of the Senate.

[kovert]

The bills represent corporate interests rather than that of private citizens. Even many liberals that intially supported Obama are furious with him.

It is just like what happened with Bush. After 9/11 many Americans looked to him and other elected officials and look what happened. I have to say I was cautiously optimistic about the gov't now in power but that has quickly dissipated away.

Liberal rage

Liberal rage_2

Liberal rage_3

Liberal rage_4

Liberal rage_5

and last but not least.

This is not a right versus left or democrat versus republican problem. This is an American, particularly its middle class that is under siege.

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by sanrene

The Senate bill is the foundation to a single payer. They create a whole new government bureaucracy for that express purpose. There is language in the bill that future senates will need 67 to amend this provision.

Some liberals in congress have let the cat out of the bag - this bill is a starting point.

I'm surprised that's even in there. I would argue that this language is not enforceable. If it were, it would have been included in previous bills. Why only 67? Why not 75? Why not require unanimity? It's not only silly; it could turn out to be a public relations nightmare for Reid.

[lifelongMOgal]

Originally Posted by Ceece

Many, many people don't have a problem with that.

And many, many, many people do have a problem with the road to Socialism starting with single payer socialized medicine.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by kovert

The bills represent corporate interests rather than that of private citizens. Even many liberals that intially supported Obama are furious with him.

It is just like what happened with Bush. After 9/11 many Americans looked to him and other elected officials and look what happened. I have to say I was cautiously optimistic about the gov't now in power but that has quickly dissipated away.

Liberal rage

Liberal rage_2

Liberal rage_3

Liberal rage_4

Liberal rage_5

and last but not least.

This is not a right versus left or democrat versus republican problem. This is an American, particularly its middle class that is under siege.

If every thing you indicate is true I am wondering why all your sources are nothing but one left leaning blog and another left blog. Somehow I don't understand that you are talking the people with words from as far left as you can get. Let HuffPo run things and there will be no need for a Congressional vote on single payer "insurance" since they will just insert it and go back to writing the blog.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by lifelongMOgal

And many, many, many people do have a problem with the road to Socialism starting with single payer socialized medicine.

Maybe at least 60% of the people feel like you see. Now that doesn't work for HuffPo or Kos so lefties won't understand what you said.

[roysoldboy]

Originally Posted by sanrene

It will pass in the Senate. Most likely the House will be forced into taking up the Senate bill, unchanged. I predict there will be no conference bill.

Finally someone says what will happen. I think that Nasty Nancy decides who can speak on the House floor and that she will give up her bill and tell the House they must vote for the Senate bill. Then she and Dirty Harry can push it through together without a conference committee. Now the normal way of doing things is to have a conference committee iron out the differences but since so much abnormal was done to pass that pile of steaming Pelosi in the Senate they can do whatever they want to pass the final bill. There are going to be some really pissed Representatives if she tries to ram this down their throats but she will attempt it, anyway.

[kovert]

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

If every thing you indicate is true I am wondering why all your sources are nothing but one left leaning blog and another left blog. Somehow I don't understand that you are talking the people with words from as far left as you can get. Let HuffPo run things and there will be no need for a Congressional vote on single payer "insurance" since they will just insert it and go back to writing the blog.

Maybe because many Americans (myself included) can't be pigeon-holed into being a "leftie" or on the right. I'm pretty much disgusted with both the Dems and the GOP right now. Maybe because many Americans (myself included) see this as Corporate America(n GREED) vs. everyone else as the REAL division that's causing so much distress to middle income and hard working Americans.

Many Americans (such as myself) are sick and tired of being lied to and let down by both leftist and conservative ideologues and both political parties. With the way things are let's just keep it real and vote for which multinational gets to run the nation every 4 years. Sheesh!

[Katarina Witt]

Originally Posted by Zhang Fei

I'm surprised that's even in there. I would argue that this language is not enforceable. If it were, it would have been included in previous bills. Why only 67? Why not 75? Why not require unanimity? It's not only silly; it could turn out to be a public relations nightmare for Reid.

You could argue that till h*** freezes a six foot crust, but so what? If anyone argues it, it will be in front of the Supreme Court, and I seriously doubt you will be the attorney.

Originally Posted by roysoldboy

Finally someone says what will happen. I think that Nasty Nancy decides who can speak on the House floor and that she will give up her bill and tell the House they must vote for the Senate bill. Then she and Dirty Harry can push it through together without a conference committee. Now the normal way of doing things is to have a conference committee iron out the differences but since so much abnormal was done to pass that pile of steaming Pelosi in the Senate they can do whatever they want to pass the final bill. There are going to be some really pissed Representatives if she tries to ram this down their throats but she will attempt it, anyway.

The person you quoted was also certain that McCain would win. I think she needs a new crystal ball.

[Zhang Fei]

Originally Posted by Katiana

You could argue that till h*** freezes a six foot crust, but so what? If anyone argues it, it will be in front of the Supreme Court, and I seriously doubt you will be the attorney.

You're not making very much sense. If this kind of thing were constitutional, why wouldn't every congressional majority pass every law with this provision?