Reconciliation On Health Care (or anything else), How Can You Defend It?

[Dr.Traveler]

I don't think there is any justification for this. Reconciliation is a bad idea and runs against the will of the Founders.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Or even the Federalist Papers?

That isn't a snide comment, its a legitimate question.

On topic, I don't see why not. Reconciliation has been used in the past for Tax cuts that the GOP and DNC both thought would have major impacts on the economy.

I don't see where the GOP Partisans have much of a leg to stand on here. They're threatened nuclear options repeatedly in the past, and even used them. Its kinda hard to call "FOUL!" when you too are guilty of trying to play the system to pass things without 60 votes.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

We're a Center-Right country and we're going to have a lot of fun with a simple majority from 2010 on out

 

[Vanquish]

LOL. Frank's go-to reply is "we've got this in 2010 so suck it!" LMFBO. Love the non-discussion, Frank. They should make a doll out of you since you're a (forum) troll.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Bush should have partially privatized Social Security and reformed Medicare, Freddie and Fannie using reconciliation.

And when we win it all back in 2012 that's exactly what we're going to do, and you can kiss the Department of "Education" goodbye!

What if Bush HAD privatized Social Security, LiarFrank? With the Wall Street collapse and subsequent Stock Market debacle suffered under Bush in the last year of his Presidency, how well would THAT idea have panned out?

It would have been a disaster.

Some folks out there are more than capable of managing their own retirement funds and not losing the shirt off their back, but the truth is this:

No matter how smart "Persons" are, people are stupid.

Most folks would see their privatized SS funds wiped out in a year. If not less.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Good, simple explanation Van.

A good majority of Americans are not in favor of this bill. I wonder if the Dems will be willing to walk the plank for Pelosi and OL'BO to pass this bill??

Thats the big question.

My bet: No.

You'd have to go home in the fall and defend the reconciliation process with nothing in hand... only a promise that in a few years the healthcare reform will kick in.

If the bill were immediate, it might happen as you'd have something to show for it.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

Bush could have used that logic to privatize Social Security

You realize that when push came to shove, nobody wanted that, right?. Nobody.

If the GOP thought even 10% of the population would have supported them, then they'd have used Bush's "Mandate" from the 2004 election to pass it. As soon as people thought it through though, they called up their congressmen and said stuff it.

Frank, I hope the GOP tries it again in 2010. I'd like to see how a second Obama term would play out.

 

[Dr.Traveler]

We're a Center-Right country and we're going to have a lot of fun with a simple majority from 2010 on out

Of course we are. That's why Obama was elected with an electoral landslide that included such lefty states like Indiana and North Carolina.

 

[boedicca]

I don't think there is any justification for this. Reconciliation is a bad idea and runs against the will of the Founders.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Or even the Federalist Papers?

Article I Section 5 provides for each house setting its rules.

According to the current Senate Rules, a 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to change the rules. Given that the author of the Reconciliation process, Senator Byrd, says that using it for ObamaCare is a violation, it should require a 2/3 vote to change the rule in this case.

 

[Vanquish]

You know they keep transcripts and notes and papers on the legislative intent and intent behind the congressional rules. Byrd could be changing mid-stream. So what you'd go to would be the floor notes regarding legislative intent.

But that'd be too easy

 

[Dr.Traveler]

I don't think there is any justification for this. Reconciliation is a bad idea and runs against the will of the Founders.

Where is the filibuster in the Constitution? Or even the Federalist Papers?

Article I Section 5 provides for each house setting its rules.

According to the current Senate Rules, a 2/3 majority of the Senate is required to change the rules. Given that the author of the Reconciliation process, Senator Byrd, says that using it for ObamaCare is a violation, it should require a 2/3 vote to change the rule in this case.

Unfortunately being the author of a rule doesn't legally mean you're the final arbiter on it. That's going to be up to the Senate parlimentarian and the presiding officer.

And your answer doesn't quite answer my question. The Constitution allows the Senate to set its rules, but that doesn't mandate 60 votes being required to pass laws. It just means the Senate can set the rules how they'd like to. They've already opened up some bills to an exemption to filibuster through reconciliation.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

LOL. Frank's go-to reply is "we've got this in 2010 so suck it!" LMFBO. Love the non-discussion, Frank. They should make a doll out of you since you're a (forum) troll.

Progressive are out on the limb and Obama is offering you a buzzsaw.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Bush could have used that logic to privatize Social Security

You realize that when push came to shove, nobody wanted that, right?. Nobody.

If the GOP thought even 10% of the population would have supported them, then they'd have used Bush's "Mandate" from the 2004 election to pass it. As soon as people thought it through though, they called up their congressmen and said stuff it.

Frank, I hope the GOP tries it again in 2010. I'd like to see how a second Obama term would play out.

Dems are already looking at potential triple digit House losses in 2010. Please go for it

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The "nuclear" Option, Reconciliation, a simple majority vote....whatever you want to call it how can people justify bastardizing our political system like this. Health Care reform is HUGE, its 1/6th of our economy! Its too big for these shenanigans.

I'll start this with my outrage at the tactic and I want people who support it to go ahead and defend it. I want a debate on this.

This is not a debate on a need for healthcare or the actual bill itself, it is a debate on using Reconciliation.


A short recommended read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

i'll give a shot at it!

though, i have not done my usual thorough research on the topic yet, but i'll try to, with the little knowledge i have on the topic.

FIRST and foremost, the Healthcare bill, ALREADY WENT TO A VOTE and PASSED, without Reconciliation rules.

The Bill PASSED the house with a majority, and it PASSED the senate with 60 votes, a super majority because a filibuster was played on the bill.

the mere majority vote, is for VERY FEW, amendments made to the ALREADY PASSED Bill that will come out of the Conference to merge the senate version with the house version, this IS NOT another chance to vote down or to vote for the ALREADY PASSED bill....it is amendments that reconcile the 2 that need working out. 95% plus... of the bill is the same.

I would very much have had issue if the democrats used reconciliation to get the bill passed, if they banned filibusters....BUT THIS IS NOT what is happening here plymouth.

And let me remind you, I do NOT support this bill...we are only talking 'process' as you said!

care

Sorry...you are wrong.
First...the Senate Bill has NOT PASSED THE HOUSE.
Second...no filibuster was applied to the Senate Bill as the Republicans didn't even have the necessary votes to enforce it.

Now for the process of defending against it....
The House is NOT ALLOWED to change one single word of the Senate Bill when they vote on it. The Senate has "promised" the House that they will "change" the Bill after they vote for the SENATE BILL......and add in or take out things the House doesn't like... This is where it can be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. Once the Bill is changed it requires 60 votes to enact each and every change. If any of you think the House is that stupid....then perhaps YOU should run for Congress.

 

[Oldandtired]

The "nuclear" Option, Reconciliation, a simple majority vote....whatever you want to call it how can people justify bastardizing our political system like this. Health Care reform is HUGE, its 1/6th of our economy! Its too big for these shenanigans.

I'll start this with my outrage at the tactic and I want people who support it to go ahead and defend it. I want a debate on this.

This is not a debate on a need for healthcare or the actual bill itself, it is a debate on using Reconciliation.


A short recommended read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

i'll give a shot at it!

though, i have not done my usual thorough research on the topic yet, but i'll try to, with the little knowledge i have on the topic.

FIRST and foremost, the Healthcare bill, ALREADY WENT TO A VOTE and PASSED, without Reconciliation rules.

The Bill PASSED the house with a majority, and it PASSED the senate with 60 votes, a super majority because a filibuster was played on the bill.

the mere majority vote, is for VERY FEW, amendments made to the ALREADY PASSED Bill that will come out of the Conference to merge the senate version with the house version, this IS NOT another chance to vote down or to vote for the ALREADY PASSED bill....it is amendments that reconcile the 2 that need working out. 95% plus... of the bill is the same.

I would very much have had issue if the democrats used reconciliation to get the bill passed, if they banned filibusters....BUT THIS IS NOT what is happening here plymouth.

And let me remind you, I do NOT support this bill...we are only talking 'process' as you said!

care

Sorry...you are wrong.
First...the Senate Bill has NOT PASSED THE HOUSE.
Second...no filibuster was applied to the Senate Bill as the Republicans didn't even have the necessary votes to enforce it.

Now for the process of defending against it....
The House is NOT ALLOWED to change one single word of the Senate Bill when they vote on it. The Senate has "promised" the House that they will "change" the Bill after they vote for the SENATE BILL......and add in or take out things the House doesn't like... This is where it can be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. Once the Bill is changed it requires 60 votes to enact each and every change. If any of you think the House is that stupid....then perhaps YOU should run for Congress.

Well....care4all admitted to know little on the topic.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

i'll give a shot at it!

though, i have not done my usual thorough research on the topic yet, but i'll try to, with the little knowledge i have on the topic.

FIRST and foremost, the Healthcare bill, ALREADY WENT TO A VOTE and PASSED, without Reconciliation rules.

The Bill PASSED the house with a majority, and it PASSED the senate with 60 votes, a super majority because a filibuster was played on the bill.

the mere majority vote, is for VERY FEW, amendments made to the ALREADY PASSED Bill that will come out of the Conference to merge the senate version with the house version, this IS NOT another chance to vote down or to vote for the ALREADY PASSED bill....it is amendments that reconcile the 2 that need working out. 95% plus... of the bill is the same.

I would very much have had issue if the democrats used reconciliation to get the bill passed, if they banned filibusters....BUT THIS IS NOT what is happening here plymouth.

And let me remind you, I do NOT support this bill...we are only talking 'process' as you said!

care

Sorry...you are wrong.
First...the Senate Bill has NOT PASSED THE HOUSE.
Second...no filibuster was applied to the Senate Bill as the Republicans didn't even have the necessary votes to enforce it.

Now for the process of defending against it....
The House is NOT ALLOWED to change one single word of the Senate Bill when they vote on it. The Senate has "promised" the House that they will "change" the Bill after they vote for the SENATE BILL......and add in or take out things the House doesn't like... This is where it can be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. Once the Bill is changed it requires 60 votes to enact each and every change. If any of you think the House is that stupid....then perhaps YOU should run for Congress.

Well....care4all admitted to know little on the topic.

and I politely set the record straight.

 

[Wry Catcher]

The "nuclear" Option, Reconciliation, a simple majority vote....whatever you want to call it how can people justify bastardizing our political system like this. Health Care reform is HUGE, its 1/6th of our economy! Its too big for these shenanigans.

I'll start this with my outrage at the tactic and I want people who support it to go ahead and defend it. I want a debate on this.

This is not a debate on a need for healthcare or the actual bill itself, it is a debate on using Reconciliation.


A short recommended read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

A very short required read: The Vision Statement for Governance.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

 

[maineman]

[The senate can certainly use reconciliation if it wants to pass small items that serve to reconcile differences between the two. don't like? move.

I just love it when lefties who hyperventilate about the right loving America resort to the Love It or Leave It argument.

There really should be a name for this similar to Godwin's Law (perhaps there already is - anyone?).

I guess I should have also added that if the poster really wants to change the majority rules philosophy of our constitution, he could work his butt off and try to pass a constitutional amendment which would require a supermajority of 3/5ths for every piece of legislation. Barring that, if the poster really can't live with the fact that the constitution clearly states that bills that pass both houses by a simple majority and are signed by the president become law, the only OTHER option for him would be to move somewhere else... wouldn't you agree? Or is there some OTHERE option that I may have missed?

 

[VaYank5150]

The "nuclear" Option, Reconciliation, a simple majority vote....whatever you want to call it how can people justify bastardizing our political system like this. Health Care reform is HUGE, its 1/6th of our economy! Its too big for these shenanigans.

I'll start this with my outrage at the tactic and I want people who support it to go ahead and defend it. I want a debate on this.

This is not a debate on a need for healthcare or the actual bill itself, it is a debate on using Reconciliation.


A short recommended read
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reconciliation_(United_States_Congress)

A very short required read: The Vision Statement for Governance.

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence,[1] promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Are you mad? Are you trying to IMPLY that "promote the general welfare" has ANYTHING to do with ensuring US citizens have access to healthcare? Are you a Socialist or something?

 

[maineman]

We're a Center-Right country and we're going to have a lot of fun with a simple majority from 2010 on out

it cracks me up how you continue to make this prognostication of yours as if it were fact. It isn't.

 

[Oldandtired]

Sorry...you are wrong.
First...the Senate Bill has NOT PASSED THE HOUSE.
Second...no filibuster was applied to the Senate Bill as the Republicans didn't even have the necessary votes to enforce it.

Now for the process of defending against it....
The House is NOT ALLOWED to change one single word of the Senate Bill when they vote on it. The Senate has "promised" the House that they will "change" the Bill after they vote for the SENATE BILL......and add in or take out things the House doesn't like... This is where it can be blocked by filibuster in the Senate. Once the Bill is changed it requires 60 votes to enact each and every change. If any of you think the House is that stupid....then perhaps YOU should run for Congress.

Well....care4all admitted to know little on the topic.

and I politely set the record straight.

And very well done I might add.