PDA

View Full Version : U.S. Issues Breaking: Dems To Pursue Reconcilliation On Health Care


RINGLEADER
01-21-2010, 05:38 PM
A well-informed source tells The Mouth Nancy Pelosi is set to announce the House will go the reconciliation route on health care reform.

Of course, that means using a budgetary procedure that requires a simple majority to pass.
It’s still unclear to us precisely what that means would be passed, but possibilities would be creating a national health care exchange and expanding Medicare or Medicaid coverage.
Democrats are caucusing now, so stay tuned.

Update: A second source confirms that Pelosi is presenting a reconciliation plan to the caucus, and making sure they go with something that can actually pass.

Separately, she is meeting with Harry Reid today.

http://www.nydailynews.com/blogs/dc/2010/01/its-reconciliation.html

Chocolate Hog
01-21-2010, 05:41 PM
Democrats making a ballsy move? No way.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:43 PM
These Moonbats must really think that this is the Soviet Union or something.

petegz28
01-21-2010, 05:56 PM
I thought "reconciliation" was a Senate procedure?

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 05:57 PM
I guess they just have nothing better to do. It's not like 17% of the population that wants to work is out of a job or anything silly like that.

petegz28
01-21-2010, 05:58 PM
Well. I guess there is this...

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees

talastan
01-21-2010, 05:59 PM
I thought "reconciliation" was a Senate procedure?

Didn't you know that Queen Nancy owns all of them?:shake:

petegz28
01-21-2010, 06:00 PM
Reconciliation generally involves legislation that changes the budget deficit (or conceivably, the surplus). The "Byrd Rule" (2 U.S.C. 644, named after Democratic Senator Robert Byrd) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990 to outline which provisions reconciliation can and cannot be used for. The Byrd Rule defines a provision to be "extraneous" (and therefore ineligible for reconciliation) in six cases:

1.if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues;
2.if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions;
3.if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure;
4.if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision;
5.if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and
6.if it recommends changes in Social Security.
Any Senator may raise a procedural objection to a provision believed to be extraneous, which will then be ruled on by the presiding Senator. A vote of 60 Senators is required to overturn the ruling.

They may still need 60 votes

petegz28
01-21-2010, 06:03 PM
And this....

Reconciliation also applies in the United States House of Representatives, but since the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the reconciliation process represented less of a change in that body.

It seems House reconciliation is pretty meaningless, if you ask me. It still has to go through the Senate.

petegz28
01-21-2010, 06:05 PM
Seems there is some debate on whether this is even doable...but since when do Dems care about precedent???

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WV) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, said that reconciliation is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 06:07 PM
Seems there is some debate on whether this is even doable...but since when do Dems care about precedent???

I tol'ya they think this is the Soviet Union and they are in a Politburo.

Bootlegged
01-21-2010, 06:15 PM
I hope Nancy's face finally explodes, firing her bugeyes into John Murtha's nostrils. Murtha would then collapse as he has bugeyes in both nostrils and a ham sammich in his gullet. Murtha falls to his left, crushing Dennis Kucinich. Kucinich's body collapses into itself and then springs with great force shooting his oversized head through the wall into the mens room where it fatally injures John Conyers who is taking his third beer shit of the morning.

ILChief
01-21-2010, 06:55 PM
they should have used reconciliation in the first place and this whole thing would be over.

petegz28
01-21-2010, 06:59 PM
they should have used reconciliation in the first place and this whole thing would be over.

This is not in their favor though they think it is. The fact is now each piece has to be presented and voted on. That will not favor the Dems.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 07:53 PM
Democrats making a ballsy move? No way.

Tis what I was thinking. They'll still fuck it up though.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 07:53 PM
If they were gonna do reconciliation, they should have went for what they wanted anyway. A Single Payer option.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 08:00 PM
Go ahead. Make my day.

fan4ever
01-21-2010, 08:06 PM
They may still need 60 votes

That's what I heard last night; no matter what it would take 60 votes, and the politician didn't think they'd even get the 51 votes since this language in the bill isn't about budget...it's about healthcare. Said a lot of senators would have to agree with doing something there is no other way to see it other than a "illegal" proceedure considering the nature of the bill.

We'll see how widespread the corruption is.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 08:07 PM
This would be an "all in" move where even if they win the hand, it would cost them dearly. nancy doesn't care about that though, because she's out as a party leader either way.

BigRedChief
01-21-2010, 08:12 PM
They may still need 60 votesThis isn't breaking news. It's a rumor.

There are procedure votes to use reconciliation that require 60 votes. In the past the opposition party didn't block a procedural vote like the dems didn't block the Bush tax cuts with procedure votes. But the Republicans will and have already used procedural votes to protest a bill. Its a new dawn in America.

Royal Fanatic
01-21-2010, 08:17 PM
they should have used reconciliation in the first place and this whole thing would be over.
Isn't it funny how the libs think the end justifies the means? As long as they get what they want, it doesn't matter to them that a majority of the American people oppose this bullshit bill, and it doesn't matter that the only way this bill can get passed is for the Dems buy off some senators, buy off the unions, and buy off anyone else they need to buy off.

Oh, and they don't give a shit that it will cost at least a TRILLION fucking dollars and that the government always fails at these types of endeavors. All that matters is that they give Obama this political victory so that he might possibly be able to keep enough power to ram some other bullshit bills down our throats.

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 08:21 PM
Isn't it funny how the libs think the end justifies the means? As long as they get what they want, it doesn't matter to them that a majority of the American people oppose this bullshit bill, and it doesn't matter that the only way this bill can get passed is for the Dems buy off some senators, buy off the unions, and buy off anyone else they need to buy off.

Oh, and they don't give a shit that it will cost at least a TRILLION ****ing dollars and that the government always fails at these types of endeavors. All that matters is that they give Obama this political victory so that he might possibly be able to keep enough power to ram some other bullshit bills down our throats.

We one of the very few industrialized nations that does not provide healthcare for it's citizens. I hope they succeed and improve the bill in the future where needed.

Royal Fanatic
01-21-2010, 08:41 PM
We one of the very few industrialized nations that does not provide healthcare for it's citizens. I hope they succeed and improve the bill in the future where needed.
Bullshit. Most of the citizens already have health care. I'd be just fine with incremental changes that provide insurance for those who need it and can't get it anywhere else. But when you fuck with my health care and fuck up the entire health care industry by creating a huge trillion dollar bureaucracy, that's when I object to the whole thing.

You don't use a hydrogen bomb to clear rocks from a field. This 2000 page trillion dollar monstrosity of a bill is a hydrogen bomb. Once you've used the bomb, you can't go back and improve things.

petegz28
01-21-2010, 08:46 PM
We one of the very few industrialized nations that does not provide healthcare for it's citizens. I hope they succeed and improve the bill in the future where needed.

Most people have health care. Most people who don't either choose not to have it or are illegals. In fact, that was one of Obama's campaign tricks where he slammed Hillary for wanted to force health care on everyone and Obama said if someone was making $40k or whatever and didn't want health care that was their choice.

The Mad Crapper
01-21-2010, 08:58 PM
we don't?!?! :spock:

ROFL

headsnap
01-21-2010, 08:58 PM
ROFL

your too quick... :)

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:07 PM
At some point when we're all dead and gone Healthcare will be a right in this country like it should be in any civilized (non-3rd world) society.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 09:09 PM
We one of the very few industrialized nations that does not provide healthcare for it's citizens. I hope they succeed and improve the bill in the future where needed.

Oh yeah. That's what government is good at doing. Fixing bills in the future where needed.

That's a great tact to take with huge chunks of our economy.

Taco John
01-21-2010, 09:11 PM
At some point when we're all dead and gone Healthcare will be a right in this country like it should be in any civilized (non-3rd world) society.

That will never happen. Healthcare will never be a right. Democrats would have tried to make it a right if they thought they could pull it off. They can't and they wont.

mlyonsd
01-21-2010, 09:14 PM
Saw an excellent bumper sticker today:

"If you think health care is expensive now wait till it's 'free'."

mlyonsd
01-21-2010, 09:15 PM
At some point when we're all dead and gone Healthcare will be a right in this country like it should be in any civilized (non-3rd world) society.

Take your hand off with a shop saw and then go to any emergency room. You'll get the healthcare you need.

headsnap
01-21-2010, 09:20 PM
Take your hand off with a shop saw and then go to any emergency room. You'll get the healthcare you need.

he must mean FREE healthcare... :shrug:

Cannibal
01-21-2010, 09:40 PM
In 200 years I seriously doubt Health Insurance companies with exist LOL. Pre-existing conditions, deductables, denying coverage, "preferred" providers, flat refusing to pay etc. That will all be gone by then. Those people will laugh at how we handled medical care for our citizens.

petegz28
01-21-2010, 09:41 PM
he must mean FREE healthcare... :shrug:

No such thing. Never will be. It is a fools errand to think health care will ever be "free".

headsnap
01-21-2010, 09:56 PM
In 200 years I seriously doubt Health Insurance companies with exist LOL. Pre-existing conditions, deductables, denying coverage, "preferred" providers, flat refusing to pay etc. That will all be gone by then. Those people will laugh at how we handled medical care for our citizens.

and when you turn 30 you get to go to Carousel...

trndobrd
01-21-2010, 11:32 PM
and when you turn 30 you get to go to Carousel...

...with helpful public servants to assist you

Taco John
01-21-2010, 11:42 PM
In 200 years I seriously doubt Health Insurance companies with exist LOL. Pre-existing conditions, deductables, denying coverage, "preferred" providers, flat refusing to pay etc. That will all be gone by then. Those people will laugh at how we handled medical care for our citizens.

Will we have flying cars?

mlyonsd
01-22-2010, 07:30 AM
In 200 years I seriously doubt Health Insurance companies with exist LOL. Pre-existing conditions, deductables, denying coverage, "preferred" providers, flat refusing to pay etc. That will all be gone by then. Those people will laugh at how we handled medical care for our citizens.

If Nobel prize winning author and film maker Al Gore is correct we probably won't need health insurance in 200 years.

The Mad Crapper
01-22-2010, 07:40 AM
Will we have flying cars?

ROFL