Reconciliation...

[Liability]

The Senate's bill has to be passed by the House AS IS. No changes. Signed by the President and then the Senate may amend the law. Quite the leap of faith for a Representative facing election in November.

saveliberty, no it doesn't. The house will make amendments, to which the Senate leadership has already agreed, and then the bill will be sent back to the Senate (it will use reconciliation) for passage, and then on to the President.

This bill is going to pass. This is as certain in retrospect as was Katrina breaching the levy walls. Run and stick your finger in the dyke; if you are well insulated, you may pop to the surface later.

Your disagreement with Savelib is more a matter of semantics than substantive.

IF the House modifies the Senate version (as already passed) via any amendments, then the version the House might then be passing will not be the same as the current Senate version. Thus, the House (new) version will not suffice as passage of the same bill.

YOU then note, correctly in my estimation as far as this part goes, that if the House does that (i.e., amends the version they are considering from the Senate), since they will not be passing the SAME version AS the Senate, they will not have passed the same bill. Accordingly, as you said, the AMENDED House version WOULD have to go back to the Senate. At that point, the Senate might make use of a reconciliation vote, but they would be facing the same problem as the House now faces. They would not actually be reconciling anything. They would merely be attempting to pass the new House version for the very first time. How they can use reconciliation to pass a new version is not at all clear.

We all know WHY these shenanigans are going on.

NOBODY wants to do the (very) hard work of hammering out an actual House/Senate reconciliation bill in a joint Congressional committee. For if they TRY, they are very likely to FAIL. Instead, the President and his cohorts are playing a newly designed game: this is the game of "make believe."

I suspect that your high hopes for the eventual passage of this monstrosity are destined to cause you political disappointment.

Good.

 

[saveliberty]

Actually, you both are just plain wrong:

Health end game hinges on House, Senate trust - Health care reform- msnbc.com

The Senate parlimentarian has ruled that the Senate bill must be passed as is and signed by Obama. Then the Senate can go back and amend the law. It is a decision made today.

 

[amrchaos]

Actually, you both are just plain wrong:

Health end game hinges on House, Senate trust - Health care reform- msnbc.com

The Senate parlimentarian has ruled that the Senate bill must be passed as is and signed by Obama. Then the Senate can go back and amend the law. It is a decision made today.

But the Senate Bill have mandates. It sucks big ones!!

No mandates. If a Mandate passes, I am voting non-jackass this turn around.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Actually, you both are just plain wrong:

Health end game hinges on House, Senate trust - Health care reform- msnbc.com

The Senate parlimentarian has ruled that the Senate bill must be passed as is and signed by Obama. Then the Senate can go back and amend the law. It is a decision made today.

You are deliberately misunderstanding the ruling. If the bill passes the House, it goes to the president for signature. It does not have to go back to the Senate. If the House passes the bill with changes it will go to the Senate; the Dems will overrule the parlimentarian's non-binding opinion.

The bill will pass.

 

[Liability]

Actually, you both are just plain wrong:

Health end game hinges on House, Senate trust - Health care reform- msnbc.com

The Senate parlimentarian has ruled that the Senate bill must be passed as is and signed by Obama. Then the Senate can go back and amend the law. It is a decision made today.

You are deliberately misunderstanding the ruling. If the bill passes the House, it goes to the president for signature. It does not have to go back to the Senate. If the House passes the bill with changes it will go to the Senate; the Dems will overrule the parlimentarian's non-binding opinion.

The bill will pass.

You appear to be deliberately misstating what is going on or proposed.

You say, "If the bill passes the House . . . " but you don't make clear WHAT "bill."

If the SENATE-passed Bill in the exact same form as the Senate-passed bill were to NOW pass the House unamended, yes: in that case the bill could go directly to the President.

If the House makes ANY change (even minor ones), then what Congress has is two different bills, not one bill. IT is THEN supposed to EITHER be passed IN THAT EXACT SAME FORM by the Senate where, if it passes in that form and unamended, it can go to the President -- OR -- both houses of Congress will have to iron out the discrepancies in a manner acceptable to both houses AND in the final "reconciled" form, exactly the same. Then both houses will have to agree to that reconciled bill in the SAME FORM.

What cannot happen is to have two bills with any actual differences contained within them, for if that were to happen, there would be Constitutional Chaos.

Mark Levin addressed this point quite well (with a guest who is, like Mark, a Constitutional lawyer) yesterday. The crucial thing to bear in mind is The Constitution, Article I:

Section. 7.

* * * *

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively.

U.S. Constitution, excerpt of Article I, Section 7. (Emphases added.)

"Bill" is singular. If the House passes ONE version and the Senate another, then it is impossible to present the President (as required) with one Bill for him to approve or oppose.

Furthermore, if the dishonest fiction that the House "already passed the Senate version" (a glaringly deliberate baseless falsehood) is something that those clowns try to foist off on America, they will have a real problem on their hands since there will be NO recording of their yeas and Nays on that Bill.

 

[EriktheRed]

This argument that now it's so different in degree as to be different in kind is just desperation

Wrong. The magnitude of the Health Care bill is so beyond anything for which Reconciliation has been used in the past, that even Robert Byrd opposes using it now.

Wrong.


Byrd defends reconciliation to finish reform - Live Pulse - POLITICO.com

 

[JakeStarkey]

The bill will pass by the end of this week.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The bill will pass by the end of this week.

And the countdown to November 2010 begins, followed by the countdown of Obama's impeachment and jailing or November 2012 - whichever comes first.

 

[saveliberty]

"Obama has railed against the 'ugly process' of cutting special deals, but the president and his top advisers were prime players in negotiations on the agreements to win votes and push the legislation forward."

"Obama's proposal to eliminate state-specific items comes with polls finding heightened public opposition to backroom political deals. Republicans have been happy to fan that discontent. Many Democrats, particularly House moderates facing tight re-election battles this fall, are eager to dissociate themselves from such spending.

The president wants votes from House Democrats 'who were deeply offended by those provisions in the Senate bill,' said Sheryl Skolnick, who analyzes federal health legislation for CRT Capital Group of Stamford, Conn. Clearly the math was, 'I gain more in the House by taking out those provisions than I lose in the Senate.'"


Senators resist Obama over projects in health bill - Yahoo! News

When you allow crap in the recipe, don't be surprised when people don't want to swallow the cake Mr. President.

 

[gautama]

BOTTOM LINE:

Whatever spin that either the DEMS or the REPS are using, the IMPARTIAL OBSERVER, whether he is knowledgeable about the issue, or not.....HAS TO RESPECT AS THE FINAL JUDGMENT THE CREATOR OF THIS "RECONCILLIATION PROCEDURE".....even if it's concocted by a SLEAZY DEM.

The creator of "The Reconcilliation Procedure" is CATEGORICALLY against the current use of it by the CRAZED and MARXIST Pelosi/Reid Combo.....the primary thorn in he butt being the Oamarrhoidal twat, Pelosi.

OBVIOUSLY, if only by the LOGICALLY CORRECT STANDARD........THE ACTIONS of the OBAMARRHOIDAL TWAT IS......BOGUS !!!!

 

[JakeStarkey]

The election of 2010 will indeed be a referendum on Obama's weak leadership since January of 2009 as well as on the reform bill. This puts the choice back in the hands of the citizen, which is where it belongs. Obama has done nothing to be impeached or jailed for any more than Reagan, for example Iran-Contra.

 

[rightwinger]

The bill will pass by the end of this week.

And the countdown to November 2010 begins, followed by the countdown of Obama's impeachment and jailing or November 2012 - whichever comes first.

Impeachment?

You need to check what you been smok'n

 

[Liability]

The election of 2010 will indeed be a referendum on Obama's weak leadership since January of 2009 as well as on the reform bill. This puts the choice back in the hands of the citizen, which is where it belongs. Obama has done nothing to be impeached or jailed for any more than Reagan, for example Iran-Contra.

Your expressed view of the impeachment-worthy alleged actions of President Reagan relative to Iran-Contra (which is entirely baseless as your contentions so often are) reveals you to be a typical liberal Democratic. Or maybe it's just the lack of clarity in how you express whatever is wafting across your lobes. ARE you suggesting that anything done by President Reagan relative to the so-called Iran-Contra matter would have properly warranted an impeachment?

On the other hand, I have to agree with you in small part. I do not see any of the crap being offered to us by President Obama, so far, as constituting anything justifying an impeachment.

 

[marigold]

Somebody remind me who it was that, in '06, told us all that reconciliation was against the very ideals of the Founders?

Reconciliation is tyranny in its purest form.

 

[JakeStarkey]

Somebody remind me who it was that, in '06, told us all that reconciliation was against the very ideals of the Founders?

Reconciliation is tyranny in its purest form.

Tell that to both parties, then.