Personally I think the Republicans have been so obstinate because it's a bad bill and it's bad for this country.

 

I agree 1000%. To imply that the primary motivation to oppose this bill is to deny Obama an "accomplishment" is akin to saying you're opposed to shooting yourself in the foot because you want to save ammo.

Add Medicare to the list.

 

I've seen estimates of waste as high as 40% in the program. Don't think you would have that if it were run in private industry.

 

As to the summit, I think it went about as most people thought it would.

It's a very difficult argument to make to the public that the Democrats cheated because they amended a bill with a majority of senators, that's how people understand the institution to work. Reconciliation has been done plenty of times before as well, mostly by Republicans, which further weakens their argument to the public that the Democrats are acting outside of the rules.

 

The majority party is going to lose seats as long as the economy is struggling, but if they pass this bill Democrats will be able to hang their hats on it for some time to come, which is precisely why Republicans have been so obstinate.

 

Exactly, on minor appropriations as reconciliation was designed for, not 40% of GDP... The only thing that is going to be hanging is the moderate dems who's districts clearly do not want this and they are going to be flapping in the breeze in November.

Personally I think the Republicans have been so obstinate because it's a bad bill and it's bad for this country.

 

It's about as uncontroversial as a health reform proposal can get. If you oppose this outright then what form of "health reform" could you endorse?

 

Exactly, on minor appropriations as reconciliation was designed for, not 40% of GDP... The only thing that is going to be hanging is the moderate dems who's districts clearly do not want this and they are going to be flapping in the breeze in November.

 

It's closer to 16% of GDP. But, the Senate already passed the bill, reconciliation would only be used to amend parts that affect the budget, like the handout to Ben Nelson and some of the tax structure that the House disagrees with.

It's about as uncontroversial as a health reform proposal can get. If you oppose this outright then what form of "health reform" could you endorse?

 

 

 

It's closer to 16% of GDP. But, the Senate already passed the bill, reconciliation would only be used to amend parts that affect the budget, like the handout to Ben Nelson and some of the tax structure that the House disagrees with.

 

So was it meant to be used for something that accounts for 16% of GDP? No.

So was it meant to be used for something that accounts for 16% of GDP? No.

 

It's been justified to use reconciliation if the issue affects outlays or revenues. The Senate has already passed the bill changing the regulation of health insurance and the House will likely adopt identical language, meaning reconciliation isn't being used to affect non-budgetary aspects. But, the House will want to remove the handout to Nebraska and amend aspects of funding, which do affect the budget, thus the Senate's agreement to those changes is consistent with how the process has been used.

It's been justified to use reconciliation if the issue affects outlays or revenues. The Senate has already passed the bill changing the regulation of health insurance and the House will likely adopt identical language, meaning reconciliation isn't being used to affect non-budgetary aspects. But, the House will want to remove the handout to Nebraska and amend aspects of funding, which do affect the budget, thus the Senate's agreement to those changes is consistent with how the process has been used.

 

There are many many significant differences between what the Senate has passed and what the House has passed that do not affect revenue. They are two very different bills. Both are over 1000 pages with contradictory language galore. The reconciliation process, as previously practiced, is incapable of melding two bills of this size and scope to produce a new bill that is anything but incoherent. Look for the Democrats to attempt to redefine the meaning of the reconciliation process to provide them the power to re-write the bill without having to go through the same parliamentary procedures that a re-written bill should require.

Edited March 1, 201016 yr by shooter

There are many many significant differences between what the Senate has passed and what the House has passed that do not affect revenue. They are two very different bills. Both are over 1000 pages with contradictory language galore. The reconciliation process, as previously practiced, is incapable of melding two bills of this size and scope to produce a new bill that is anything but incoherent. Look for the Democrats to attempt to redefine the meaning of the reconciliation process to provide them the power to re-write the bill without having to go through the same parliamentary procedures that a re-written bill should require.

 

That's not what is happening. The bill that the House passed isn't being merged with the Senate bill. The House will have to pass the bill the Senate did. If the House passes the Senate bill, verbatim, it would go directly to the President's desk without having to go back through the Senate where Democrats can't break a filibuster. However, the plan is for the House to pass a nearly identical bill as the Senate's, amending some of the funding proposals. These changes are what the Senate plans to pass through reconciliation.

I'm hearing contradictory statements as to the bill in the House. Do they have the votes to pass the Senate bill?

I'm hearing contradictory statements as to the bill in the House. Do they have the votes to pass the Senate bill?

 

No one knows, I guess. Pelosi says they do, but I guess we won't know until they vote.

That's not what is happening. The bill that the House passed isn't being merged with the Senate bill. The House will have to pass the bill the Senate did. If the House passes the Senate bill, verbatim, it would go directly to the President's desk without having to go back through the Senate where Democrats can't break a filibuster. However, the plan is for the House to pass a nearly identical bill as the Senate's, amending some of the funding proposals. These changes are what the Senate plans to pass through reconciliation.

 

The House won't pass the Senate bill verbatim because it's unacceptable to the House. If it were acceptable it would already be law. Passing something nearly identical to the Senate bill is passing something nearly identical to unacceptable. So it's clear that the House will have to make significant changes to make it acceptable to the House. The House bill was acceptable to the House (obviously) so it only makes sense that they would look to sections of the House bill that can be incorporated into the Senate bill to make it more palatable. So, IMHO, the process is a merging of the Senate bill with as many sections of the House bill as possible but I doubt they'll be able to create an acceptable bill and stay within the rules of reconciliation which is why I believe they will try to redefine the rules.

Edited March 3, 201016 yr by shooter

The House won't pass the Senate bill verbatim because it's unacceptable to the House. If it were acceptable it would already be law. Passing something nearly identical to the Senate bill is passing something nearly identical to unacceptable. So it's clear that the House will have to make significant changes to make it acceptable to the House. The House bill was acceptable to the House (obviously) so it only makes sense that they would look to sections of the House bill that can be incorporated into the Senate bill to make it more palatable. So, IMHO, the process is a merging of the Senate bill with as many sections of the House bill as possible but I doubt they'll be able to create an acceptable bill and stay within the rules of reconciliation which is why I believe they will try to redefine the rules.

 

If they don't pass the Senate's version there will be no reform, which is why the House would be willing to temper their ambition. You're conjecturing here.

If they don't pass the Senate's version there will be no reform, which is why the House would be willing to temper their ambition. You're conjecturing here.

 

I agree. I don't think there will be the radical reform that the hard core liberals in Congress want and I am conjecturing which is normal when discussing possible future events.

The House won't pass the Senate bill verbatim because it's unacceptable to the House. If it were acceptable it would already be law. Passing something nearly identical to the Senate bill is passing something nearly identical to unacceptable. So it's clear that the House will have to make significant changes to make it acceptable to the House. The House bill was acceptable to the House (obviously) so it only makes sense that they would look to sections of the House bill that can be incorporated into the Senate bill to make it more palatable. So, IMHO, the process is a merging of the Senate bill with as many sections of the House bill as possible but I doubt they'll be able to create an acceptable bill and stay within the rules of reconciliation which is why I believe they will try to redefine the rules.

 

As I predicted, the Democrats are trying to change the rules of the game. By adopting the "Slaughter Solution", the Democrats are trying to act as if the House had passed the Senate bill without the House actually passing, or even voting on the Senate bill.

That's not what is happening. The bill that the House passed isn't being merged with the Senate bill. The House will have to pass the bill the Senate did. If the House passes the Senate bill, verbatim, it would go directly to the President's desk without having to go back through the Senate where Democrats can't break a filibuster. However, the plan is for the House to pass a nearly identical bill as the Senate's, amending some of the funding proposals. These changes are what the Senate plans to pass through reconciliation.

 

 

If they don't pass the Senate's version there will be no reform, which is why the House would be willing to temper their ambition. You're conjecturing here.

 

Still think that is the case??? Looks like they are up to more parliamentary tricks. Look to me like the House is trying to avoid voting on the senate bill, because they do not have enough votes/democrats in the house willing to commit political suicide for Obama.