Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.
Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: ...lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.
The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass"...
.... because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.
There's a thread in C-D says 'everyone should serve in the Army'... to paraphrase. Here's yer chance.
Yes, the Dems will use any procedure possible to get this passed.
They couldn't get it passed when they had full majority and their golden opportunity. A bill so bad they had to bribe certain senators with special deals.
They couldn't pass it with the election of Scott Brown. A bill so bad that couldn't get a single Republican vote.
Now they have to consider special manuevers to afford protection to reluctant Dems. A bill so bad that they have to give kiddie rides on Air Force One to buy votes.
All this from a President who stated that something as large as Healthcare Reform should never be passed with a 50 + 1 vote.
If you have to pass a bill in a manner that "politically protects" congressmen who would have voted on it, then that is a very problematic bill. Looks like the November elections will be a huge upset.
I still have one question.
WHY Obambi's rush to get this passed, when it doesn't even take effect for several more years?
Any bill that restrains Ins Cos ability to gouge, will be considered by most of our Reps, a bad bill. My opinion, if this gets the bill thru, go for it.
I wouldn't worry about Pelosi's tricks. I suspect the US Supreme Court will rule on this matter on an emergency basis IF Obama signs it into law.
Once the Supreme Court overturns the bill (because of the self excuting rule used), the Democrats will be done for the Nov 2010 elections.
How's Obama going to get anything done after Nov 2010 when the Republicans take back at least the House (I doubt they will take the Senate).
This bill does nothing to curb the cost of healthcare. It provides subsidies to lower income people. But what if the lower income people still can't afford the premiums?
What about the self employed? Lets say you make $100K with a family of 4. You premiums are $8K. Under this healthcare bill, you get nothing. Say you are a little more successful or just plain inflation, you now make $130K, the insurance premiums run you $13K, you still get zero subsidies. Now 5 years down the road, you make $150K, your healthcare premiums are $15K, you still get zero subsidies. Say you make $200K in 2010. But your healthcare premiums are now $20K a year, how much subsidies will you get? Zero
So essentially this healthcare legislation does nothing for those making more than $88K. You just keep on paying more and more each year. Even the CBO says premiums will go up (but they just don't know by how much). No one knows
I suspect that, just as with the process of reconciliation, we'll hear words like "unprecedented" used to describe the process of self-executing rules. Don't believe it.
A little background:
Self-executing rules began innocently enough in the 1970s as a way of making technical corrections to bills. But, as the House became more partisan in the 1980s, the majority leadership was empowered by its caucus to take all necessary steps to pass the party's bills. This included a Rules Committee that was used more creatively to devise procedures to all but guarantee policy success. The self-executing rule was one such device to make substantive changes in legislation while ensuring majority passage.
And how popular has this process become?
When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.
Any bill that restrains Ins Cos ability to gouge, will be considered by most of our Reps, a bad bill. My opinion, if this gets the bill thru, go for it.
I wholeheartedly agree, Florida.bob. This bill is step one. There will be much amending and unforeseen difficulties that come up, but we can't let the objectionists stop progress with their fear mongering.
We know that "starting over" really means shelving health care reform once again. It would become just as confusing and convoluted the second time around. They'd make sure of it.
This bill may only get us to first base but that's OK. It's time to hit the dam* ball!
There's a thread in C-D says 'everyone should serve in the Army'... to paraphrase. Here's yer chance.
I wonder if the republicans will use this same tactic to pass a ban on abortion, when they regain control.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
