The biggest problem with the healthcare reform

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

FYI- the most likely approach is for the House to adopt the Senate bill in full, while the Senate then passes agreed upon changes to the original Senate bill through reconciliation (which needs only 51 votes), followed by House adoption of the reconciliation bill as well.

Likely? By that definition, BYU is "likely" to win a National Championship in football this year too.

Getting the House to swallow the Senate bill is no picnic. Bart Stupak said today, "There is no way that bill is going anywhere. . . . I bet it wouldn’t get 100 votes."

Maybe you should shoot him a quick email and tell him how likely it is.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

Likely? By that definition, BYU is "likely" to win a National Championship in football this year too.

Getting the House to swallow the Senate bill is no picnic. Bart Stupak said today, "There is no way that bill is going anywhere. . . . I bet it wouldn’t get 100 votes."

Maybe you should shoot him a quick email and tell him how likely it is.

That's the bill as it stands now- reconciliation amends the bill. That's the point.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

That's the bill as it stands now- reconciliation amends the bill. That's the point.

If you mean the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" approach, don't hold your breath. Besides the widespread (and entirely fair) view that such an maneuver is sour-grapes parliamentary cheating, you'd have to rely on the "we'll fix it later" promise being good enough for those wavering House Democrats.

There are serious doubts that Obama will be able to get them to sign his suicide pact, but who knows, maybe they are as star struck by him as you are. Maybe they don't care if they have a job after November.

[MikeWaters]

Clinton had a saying "the people are always right."

Obama should stick his finger up in the air and see which way the wind is blowing.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

If you mean the "pass it in the House first, then amend it with reconciliation" approach, don't hold your breath. Besides the widespread (and entirely fair) view that such an maneuver is sour-grapes parliamentary cheating, you'd have to rely on the "we'll fix it later" promise being good enough for those wavering House Democrats.

There are serious doubts that Obama will be able to get them to sign his suicide pact, but who knows, maybe they are as star struck by him as you are. Maybe they don't care if they have a job after November.

It isn't a "we'll fix it later" approach. It would get fixed concurrently. I don't think you are following the process closely.

The Senate passed a bill. The House can now vote on that bill, or, alternatively, they can ask the Senate to modify it. The Senate can modify through reconciliation rather than through a formal amendment so it only takes 51 votes. The Senate can pass reconciliation before the House takes any act at all. The House can adopt the reconciliation bill first, and then adopt the Senate bill. That way, there is no risk at all to the House.

[MikeWaters]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't a "we'll fix it later" approach. It would get fixed concurrently. I don't think you are following the process closely.

The Senate passed a bill. The House can now vote on that bill, or, alternatively, they can ask the Senate to modify it. The Senate can modify through reconciliation rather than through a formal amendment so it only takes 51 votes. The Senate can pass reconciliation before the House takes any act at all. The House can adopt the reconciliation bill first, and then adopt the Senate bill. That way, there is no risk at all to the House.

"can modify though reconciliation"

Do you understand what the limitations of reconciliation are?

There is a reason why this is the first I have heard someone say this, in all the nincompoop blather I have been reading.

[Tex]

Originally Posted by Cali Coug

It isn't a "we'll fix it later" approach. It would get fixed concurrently. I don't think you are following the process closely.

The Senate passed a bill. The House can now vote on that bill, or, alternatively, they can ask the Senate to modify it. The Senate can modify through reconciliation rather than through a formal amendment so it only takes 51 votes. The Senate can pass reconciliation before the House takes any act at all. The House can adopt the reconciliation bill first, and then adopt the Senate bill. That way, there is no risk at all to the House.

I don't think you are following the process closely either. Here's Kent Conrad:

[Senator Kent Conrad's] comments lend weight to speculation that congressional Democratic leaders plan to have the House pass the Senate healthcare reform without changes, then pass a second bill with changes hashed out between the two chambers' leaders and the White House.

I don't hear anyone talking seriously about the option you are advocating.

Either way, this is all a complete bastardization of the purpose of reconciliation, but we've already seen the Dems don't play by the rules.

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by MikeWaters

"can modify though reconciliation"

Do you understand what the limitations of reconciliation are?

There is a reason why this is the first I have heard someone say this, in all the nincompoop blather I have been reading.

Yes, which is why it is perfect to amend the existing bill (as opposed to using it to pass an entirely new bill).

[Cali Coug]

Originally Posted by Tex

I don't think you are following the process closely either. Here's Kent Conrad:



I don't hear anyone talking seriously about the option you are advocating.

Either way, this is all a complete bastardization of the purpose of reconciliation, but we've already seen the Dems don't play by the rules.

The second bill is the reconciliation bill. Your link is precisely the method being floated right now. It is being discussed all over the place.

http://congressmatters.com/storyonly...orm-still-pass

http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...age=1#comments

http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2010/...igh-speed.html

[MikeWaters]

there are limitations to what reconciliation could amend. See Hitler's comment in the video.