Reconciliation...

[AvgGuyIA]

Maddow really knows how to draw in the 792 k00ks who watch that show every night........

She knows damn well this bill hasnt a snowballs chance in hell........but she certainly doesnt want to take a show that according to cable news industry standards is "off the air" in the ratings dept......by talking about the fact that the House has zero chance of passing the Senate bill.

Back when I was a kid, before the "broadcasting day" would begin, the stations would broadcast a black and white test pattern consisting a large circle with lines crossing through it and an indian chief's face at the top. Along with that, an audio tone could be heard. I'd hum and match the tone exactly.

I am positive that the test pattern had a larger devoted audience than Rachel Madcow on MSNBC even though there were fewer television sets back then.

ETA: Look what I found. You can find just about anything on YouTube. Enjoy.

[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hkST-1U8kf4&feature=related[/ame]

 

[Claudette]

Of course they want to do it all before the Easter break when all the Dems have to go home.

Gee. Ya think all the constituants yelling at em when they get home might have something to do with that???

 

[Meister]

I have a blue dog democrat in my state (Walt Minnick) that seems to be more fiscally conservative than most republicans.

 

[Liability]

Do the math Rinata. The House version passed by three votes the first time. Now they have to accept the Senate version which many don't like. Also, a dozen won't vote for it with the abortion language. Pelosi is way short on this one.

Plus, President Obama has addressed the thorny issue of the bribery that has been used to get Congress-critters and Senators to support the competing versions of the legislation. Now, supposedly, the Administration is behind the effort to winnow OUT of the legislation any other such legal bribery. But if they can't BUY the votes of the members who have serious reservations, how the hell are they gonna compel the wayward Democratics to vote FOR it?

Unless, of course, President Obama's stated new position opposing such bribery is actually a green light to go ahead and offer such bribes as needed . . . .

Not to mention that Nan' and Barry want to pass the reconcilliation bill before the Senate bill is even voted on.
In essence, they are reconciliating a non existing bill.

I understand it differently.

Last year, both houses passed respective versions of a health care bill.

It the House were to now pass the Senate version AS already passed by the Senate, then the Senate wouldn't have to vote again on it at all. The "reconciliation" of the House and Senate versions would be the capitulation by the sob-sister in the Democrat House to the Senate's version. If the House cannot vote to accept -- without any modifications -- the Senate version, then they WILL have to reconcile the two versions (compromises adding to each version and taking away from each version, presumably). That would require then that the Senate vote on the Reconciled (final) version.

I can see no rational way for the House to just blindly commit to accepting the Senate version since they were so close in the vote last time, and some of the Senate provisions were firmly opposed by some of the House members who voted "aye."

This is FAR from a done deal, as I understand it.

 

[Meister]

Plus, President Obama has addressed the thorny issue of the bribery that has been used to get Congress-critters and Senators to support the competing versions of the legislation. Now, supposedly, the Administration is behind the effort to winnow OUT of the legislation any other such legal bribery. But if they can't BUY the votes of the members who have serious reservations, how the hell are they gonna compel the wayward Democratics to vote FOR it?

Unless, of course, President Obama's stated new position opposing such bribery is actually a green light to go ahead and offer such bribes as needed . . . .

Not to mention that Nan' and Barry want to pass the reconcilliation bill before the Senate bill is even voted on.
In essence, they are reconciliating a non existing bill.

I understand it differently.

Last year, both houses passed respective versions of a health care bill.

It the House were to now pass the Senate version AS already passed by the Senate, then the Senate wouldn't have to vote again on it at all. The "reconciliation" of the House and Senate versions would be the capitulation by the sob-sister in the Democrat House to the Senate's version. If the House cannot vote to accept -- without any modifications -- the Senate version, then they WILL have to reconcile the two versions (compromises adding to each version and taking away from each version, presumably). That would require then that the Senate vote on the Reconciled (final) version.

I can see no rational way for the House to just blindly commit to accepting the Senate version since they were so close in the vote last time, and some of the Senate provisions were firmly opposed by some of the House members who voted "aye."

This is FAR from a done deal, as I understand it.

Exactly....they would have to vote on the Senate bill. I doubt that will happen......
But, they want to vote for the reconcilliation bill before they even vote on the Senate bill.

 

[Liability]

Not to mention that Nan' and Barry want to pass the reconcilliation bill before the Senate bill is even voted on.
In essence, they are reconciliating a non existing bill.

I understand it differently.

Last year, both houses passed respective versions of a health care bill.

It the House were to now pass the Senate version AS already passed by the Senate, then the Senate wouldn't have to vote again on it at all. The "reconciliation" of the House and Senate versions would be the capitulation by the sob-sister in the Democrat House to the Senate's version. If the House cannot vote to accept -- without any modifications -- the Senate version, then they WILL have to reconcile the two versions (compromises adding to each version and taking away from each version, presumably). That would require then that the Senate vote on the Reconciled (final) version.

I can see no rational way for the House to just blindly commit to accepting the Senate version since they were so close in the vote last time, and some of the Senate provisions were firmly opposed by some of the House members who voted "aye."

This is FAR from a done deal, as I understand it.

Exactly....they would have to vote on the Senate bill. I doubt that will happen......
But, they want to vote for the reconcilliation bill before they even vote on the Senate bill.

Well, I hadn't noticed that.

I agree with you. That's silly.

They have to either accept the already passed Senate version (which will free the Senate from having to vote on it again at all) OR they will have to address whatever "compromise" comes out of their efforts to reconcile the two competing versions. In the latter case, the Senate WILL have to also vote again on THAT final "reconciled" version.

All the procedural gamesmanship is designed to AVOID having to confront the prospect of either the House being unable to achieve a majority on the actual reconciliation version OR the Senate having to use their "nuclear" option to get enough votes to pass the final version. The prospects SUCK for the Democratics, either way, since the majority of the public does not want this garbage and the mid-term elections already show serious signs of an electoral disaster for the Democratics.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

I understand it differently.

Last year, both houses passed respective versions of a health care bill.

It the House were to now pass the Senate version AS already passed by the Senate, then the Senate wouldn't have to vote again on it at all. The "reconciliation" of the House and Senate versions would be the capitulation by the sob-sister in the Democrat House to the Senate's version. If the House cannot vote to accept -- without any modifications -- the Senate version, then they WILL have to reconcile the two versions (compromises adding to each version and taking away from each version, presumably). That would require then that the Senate vote on the Reconciled (final) version.

I can see no rational way for the House to just blindly commit to accepting the Senate version since they were so close in the vote last time, and some of the Senate provisions were firmly opposed by some of the House members who voted "aye."

This is FAR from a done deal, as I understand it.

Exactly....they would have to vote on the Senate bill. I doubt that will happen......
But, they want to vote for the reconcilliation bill before they even vote on the Senate bill.

Well, I hadn't noticed that.

I agree with you. That's silly.

They have to either accept the already passed Senate version (which will free the Senate from having to vote on it again at all) OR they will have to address whatever "compromise" comes out of their efforts to reconcile the two competing versions. In the latter case, the Senate WILL have to also vote again on THAT final "reconciled" version.

All the procedural gamesmanship is designed to AVOID having to confront the prospect of either the House being unable to achieve a majority on the actual reconciliation version OR the Senate having to use their "nuclear" option to get enough votes to pass the final version. The prospects SUCK for the Democratics, either way, since the majority of the public does not want this garbage and the mid-term elections already show serious signs of an electoral disaster for the Democratics.

I think the damage is done. Even if they don't pass health care, the public is going to boot the Progressives out of Office in November 2010 and once again in 2012, which includes Obama.

 

[Liability]

Exactly....they would have to vote on the Senate bill. I doubt that will happen......
But, they want to vote for the reconcilliation bill before they even vote on the Senate bill.

Well, I hadn't noticed that.

I agree with you. That's silly.

They have to either accept the already passed Senate version (which will free the Senate from having to vote on it again at all) OR they will have to address whatever "compromise" comes out of their efforts to reconcile the two competing versions. In the latter case, the Senate WILL have to also vote again on THAT final "reconciled" version.

All the procedural gamesmanship is designed to AVOID having to confront the prospect of either the House being unable to achieve a majority on the actual reconciliation version OR the Senate having to use their "nuclear" option to get enough votes to pass the final version. The prospects SUCK for the Democratics, either way, since the majority of the public does not want this garbage and the mid-term elections already show serious signs of an electoral disaster for the Democratics.

I think the damage is done. Even if they don't pass health care, the public is going to boot the Progressives out of Office in November 2010 and once again in 2012, which includes Obama.

Let's ponder a couple of possibilities.

(A) Somehow, the idiot Democratics, over the objection of the majority of the American public, cram this bill through. In that event, I believe the Democratics are gonna get CREAMED in the polling booths come election day, and they damn well believe it too. So the prospects of getting it crammed through are not so sunny.

(B) The idiot Democratics cannot unify themselves sufficiently to get this hideous legislation crammed through both Houses. The measure falls, a failure. This will at least present the liberal Democrat candidates running for re-election with the cover of being able to say "See? We listened!" But, the fact that the Obama Administration spent so much of its political capital on trying to force it through will STILL be one of the MAJOR campaign issues for the entire campaign season in all those races. The liberal Democrap "base" will loathe them for their cowardice and failure to get it done despite having such a massive majority! The rest of us? We will loathe them for having even come so close to foisting that shit off on us!

If I were a sitting liberal Democrap Congress-critter right now, I'd be boiling mad at this President, nominal "leader" of my Party!

As it stands, I am very pleased that President OBama has turned out to be such a massive failure as a "leader" in terms of steering legislation he desires to "passage." I have, on such issues, long agreed: I WANT him to fail. I appreciate the fact that he has been SO very accommodating!

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Well, I hadn't noticed that.

I agree with you. That's silly.

They have to either accept the already passed Senate version (which will free the Senate from having to vote on it again at all) OR they will have to address whatever "compromise" comes out of their efforts to reconcile the two competing versions. In the latter case, the Senate WILL have to also vote again on THAT final "reconciled" version.

All the procedural gamesmanship is designed to AVOID having to confront the prospect of either the House being unable to achieve a majority on the actual reconciliation version OR the Senate having to use their "nuclear" option to get enough votes to pass the final version. The prospects SUCK for the Democratics, either way, since the majority of the public does not want this garbage and the mid-term elections already show serious signs of an electoral disaster for the Democratics.

I think the damage is done. Even if they don't pass health care, the public is going to boot the Progressives out of Office in November 2010 and once again in 2012, which includes Obama.

Let's ponder a couple of possibilities.

(A) Somehow, the idiot Democratics, over the objection of the majority of the American public, cram this bill through. In that event, I believe the Democratics are gonna get CREAMED in the polling booths come election day, and they damn well believe it too. So the prospects of getting it crammed through are not so sunny.

(B) The idiot Democratics cannot unify themselves sufficiently to get this hideous legislation crammed through both Houses. The measure falls, a failure. This will at least present the liberal Democrat candidates running for re-election with the cover of being able to say "See? We listened!" But, the fact that the Obama Administration spent so much of its political capital on trying to force it through will STILL be one of the MAJOR campaign issues for the entire campaign season in all those races. The liberal Democrap "base" will loathe them for their cowardice and failure to get it done despite having such a massive majority! The rest of us? We will loathe them for having even come so close to foisting that shit off on us!

If I were a sitting liberal Democrap Congress-critter right now, I'd be boiling mad at this President, nominal "leader" of my Party!

As it stands, I am very pleased that President OBama has turned out to be such a massive failure as a "leader" in terms of steering legislation he desires to "passage." I have, on such issues, long agreed: I WANT him to fail. I appreciate the fact that he has been SO very accommodating!

I know, his radical progressive base is furious with Obama because he hasn't done what "the majority of Americans" (a big lie in itself) voted for him to do.

 

[Vast LWC]

A couple of things:

1. Reconciliation has been used 19 times since it's inception. 16 of those 19 times is was used by REPUBLICANS.

2. Fixing the health care system IS a budgetary matter. If rates continue to rise as they have been, and they show every sign of doing so, then revenue will drop.
Health care costs are estimated to go up to 24% of a family income by 2019, that means a severe drop in non-health related GDP.
For right-wingers, imagine the government raised taxes by like 10%, that would have about the same effect as the cost of health care rising this much.

 

[Vast LWC]

I know, his radical progressive base is furious with Obama because he hasn't done what "the majority of Americans" (a big lie in itself) voted for him to do.

Oh, right, it's a "Big Lie"...

Because the Democrats were never actually elected with health care reform as a large part of their platform.

Right?

Or perhaps it's because all the polls at the time didn't show huge majorities in support of health care reform, until the industry started their misinformation campaign...

Listen, here's the way this government works:

People make promises to the public, and are elected by their constituency with the expectation that they will fulfill those promises.

If you think that this country should be run on the basis of what the latest polls say, thus completing media control of the government, then you are free to propose an amendment to the Constitution.

Until that point, the Democrats are doing what they were elected to do.

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

A couple of things:

1. Reconciliation has been used 19 times since it's inception. 16 of those 19 times is was used by REPUBLICANS.

2. Fixing the health care system IS a budgetary matter. If rates continue to rise as they have been, and they show every sign of doing so, then revenue will drop.
Health care costs are estimated to go up to 24% of a family income by 2019, that means a severe drop in non-health related GDP.
For right-wingers, imagine the government raised taxes by like 10%, that would have about the same effect as the cost of health care rising this much.

Hey, I'm a right winger and I'm still waiting to see how nationalizing the healthcare industry will lower costs. Everything the government has implemented is BROKE.

You peeps can't be this gullible/stupid.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A couple of things:

1. Reconciliation has been used 19 times since it's inception. 16 of those 19 times is was used by REPUBLICANS.i

2. Fixing the health care system IS a budgetary matter. If rates continue to rise as they have been, and they show every sign of doing so, then revenue will drop.
Health care costs are estimated to go up to 24% of a family income by 2019, that means a severe drop in non-health related GDP.
For right-wingers, imagine the government raised taxes by like 10%, that would have about the same effect as the cost of health care rising this much.

The RW fringe are not concerned with facts, only that which seems to support their belief system matters, everything else is perceived by the fringe as noise. The real question is: In the assessment of individual fringers, which ones are truly too stupid to understand issues and which ones are willfully ignorant. I suspect both groups lack the self confidence to examine their belief system and/or to do so requires thinking and that's something they are un- accustomed to doing.
Yet in the final analysis, either group of the class fringer is not worth debating. Much like a suicide bomber their brains have been washed by propaganda and they truly believe they know the truth. No different then the lemming, they will follow the leader off a cliff of illogic and never question why.

 

[Wry Catcher]

A couple of things:

1. Reconciliation has been used 19 times since it's inception. 16 of those 19 times is was used by REPUBLICANS.

2. Fixing the health care system IS a budgetary matter. If rates continue to rise as they have been, and they show every sign of doing so, then revenue will drop.
Health care costs are estimated to go up to 24% of a family income by 2019, that means a severe drop in non-health related GDP.
For right-wingers, imagine the government raised taxes by like 10%, that would have about the same effect as the cost of health care rising this much.

Hey, I'm a right winger and I'm still waiting to see how nationalizing the healthcare industry will lower costs. Everything the government has implemented is BROKE.

You peeps can't be this gullible/stupid.

Obviously you can NOLA, most everyone knows what it means for an industry to be nationalized - why are you so ignorant? Or, maybe you're not. Maybe...yep...I think so, you're a liar. That's it, isn't it. You're not as stupid as you appear (by your words) you simply don't have the words (or, maybe they don't exist) to provide a credible reason for your beliefs? Yep, it is hard to justify prejudices, they are so irrational.

 

[Vast LWC]

Hey, I'm a right winger and I'm still waiting to see how nationalizing the healthcare industry will lower costs. Everything the government has implemented is BROKE.

You peeps can't be this gullible/stupid.

Medicare is 15% more efficient in cost than private healthcare.

Like Social Security, it is "going broke" because so many of the older generations decided to have fewer children, later in life, thus creating an imbalance between people paying into the system and people getting benefits from the system, combined with continuously rising medical costs....

...NOT due to inefficiency .

You can keep on harping on how government projects "always go broke", as if they are inefficient, but that's simply not the case.

In other words, if people were paying slightly less than current competitive rates on Medicare, (like they would for a "public option"), as opposed to having benefits based on the expectations of previous decades, Medicare would be flush with cash right now.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

So in 2012, all we need is a simple majority to:

1. Privatize Social Security
2. Close Department of Education
3. Start robust domestic drilling
4. Make English Official US language
5. National Voter ID

This Majority Rules thingy is so ******* sweet!

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Hey, I'm a right winger and I'm still waiting to see how nationalizing the healthcare industry will lower costs. Everything the government has implemented is BROKE.

You peeps can't be this gullible/stupid.

Medicare is 15% more efficient in cost than private healthcare.

Like Social Security, it is "going broke" because so many of the older generations decided to have fewer children, later in life, thus creating an imbalance between people paying into the system and people getting benefits from the system, combined with continuously rising medical costs....

...NOT due to inefficiency .

You can keep on harping on how government projects "always go broke", as if they are inefficient, but that's simply not the case.

In other words, if people were paying slightly less than current competitive rates on Medicare, (like they would for a "public option"), as opposed to having benefits based on the expectations of previous decades, Medicare would be flush with cash right now.

Medicare is more efficient??? at what?

 

[Vast LWC]

Medicare is more efficient??? at what?

At insuring people, at a lower cost.

Just ask any old person whether they want their Medicare to be privatized. I think you know what the response would be.

 

[Vast LWC]

So in 2012, all we need is a simple majority to:

1. Privatize Social Security
2. Close Department of Education
3. Start robust domestic drilling
4. Make English Official US language
5. National Voter ID

This Majority Rules thingy is so ******* sweet!

Yep.

However, you would never get a Republican majority to vote for ANY of those things. Except maybe the drilling.

So when it comes to issues that are important to you Frank, apparently you're just out of luck.

 

[Murf76]

No no no. You can't make a snide remark calling into question my claim...then run go hide when I call your bluff. You dont get to do that. Either come out and claim I'm not or quit that shit right now. Suddenly it's not relevant?

Fine. If you want it straight up without sparing your feelings... You don't make much more sense than some of the teenagers we occasionally see posting their opinions. So, if you really are an adult and an attorney, it's hard to imagine that you're any good at either... because you can't seem to connect the dots.

As for the inability to use simple logic, you must be looking in the mirror. I don't see you proving that my A + B = C is wrong. Care to give an example? Of course not.

Nope. We've been back and forth again and again, but you stick to your blind support of Obama and his healthcare disaster like a cocklebur. I've wasted enough time with you. If you can't admit that it's total disingenuous bullshit to invite your political opponents to a bipartisan summit and then cleave to your own partisan starting-point... there's nothing to discuss.

So you pick and choose which parts to respond to. Fair enough. But drop the silly evasion bullshit you attack me with when I do it.

Don't have puppies, man. I missed one little question. You ignored entire posts.

Well that's your opinion and you're allowed to have one. But my opinion differs. If he could get it passed without the normal politics in the background...he'd do it...if only because there's positive reputation for doing it. If he could get around doing it, he'd get so many more people clapping for him...but you're naive to think that something like this can just pass without wrangling to get it done. I admit that it'd be preferrable. Hell I'll even admit he campaigned on being able to do it and has failed in that regard. But it's not going to happen.

Whatever helps you sleep at night. It's dirt and you know it. But you're willing to bend your own integrity and support it anyway. These backdoor deals on this one bill aren't the only time this has happened. Look at the dirt they did on the GM and Chrysler bankruptcies. Ask yourself why Jeffrey Immelt is sitting on Obama's economic recovery board, and they just happened to legislate electronic medical records by 2014 in the Porkulus bill. Have you seen GE's new commercial touting their electronic medical records system? Don't you wonder what all GE is getting in exchange for all the good press they've provided through NBC and MSNBC? Didn't you wonder how the UAW ended up with big fat chunks of GM and Chrysler?

You've accused me of partisanship... but you don't know me. I don't tolerate dirty-dealing. Not from any of them. Belonging to a party isn't a substitute for honor. It doesn't matter what party they come from if they're slimeballs. Take Mark Sanford for example. That guy should've been put out on his ass. Bad enough that he should embarrass his office by not being able to keep his dick in his pants... but you don't just abandon your post for days on end without securing your responsibilities to the people you govern.

So... maybe the question you should be asking yourself, is why you're willing to accept something you don't agree with.
It's your conscience though. Not mine. So, whatever.

Well you've got your mind made up. You aren't willing to possibly see things another way. I love the comment "in a state of conflict with"...aren't they supposed to be working together? Aren't they supposed to be civil to each other at least and put the people first? Of course it was folksy and informal.

Another excuse. Obama KNEW, before he even made the invitation, that Republicans opposed this bill. What's more, good legislation is a result of exchanging ideas and debating their merits. It's not "working together". Washington is not Mr. Rogers' neighborhood... despite Ron Paul's striking similarity when wearing a red sweater.

As for your jibe, "do you do that in court" you're making an invalid comparison. What you saw was a mediation. It was two sides trying NOT to use an adversarial method...it was two sides instead trying to problem-solve together...like in a mediation. And yes, if I know the attorney I'm in the mediation with...I'll definitely use their name. There's nothing unprofessional about that at all. Perhaps that's why the event didnt work...while you were being adversarial, BO was trying to problem-solve

Like I said, whatever helps you sleep at night. Maybe in his arrogance, he assumes everybody there is his buddy. And maybe in your blind devotion, you might assume the same. But this was not a private mediation between friends. It was very public and being broadcast in multiple venues.

Translation: We knew what was going to happen before we walked into the room and acted like it was ok...but when we got there, we conservatives dug in our heels, and wanted to start over.

They didn't go there to agree with Obama's fascist takeover of our healthcare system. They went there on the long-shot chance that he was actually serious about bipartisan solutions and because it was a good venue to showcase their alternative to Obamacare. Let's not forget that it hasn't been too long ago that the Democrats were denying that Republican plans even existed.

Perhaps you should ask your conservative congresspeople and senators. They've used the same rationale for Medicare and agencies like the FDA and EPA. I could school you on the constitutionality of executive branch agencies, but you'd just call me arrogant.

It might not surprise you to learn that I don't agree with SCOTUS decisions that allow the federal government to dole out welfare. And I don't agree with over-bloated federal agencies either.

Read this story about Davy Crockett sometime:
Davy Crockett vs. Welfare

I'm the guy highlighting the fact that you can't concede even one point to the other side. NEITHER side has a 100% lock on all the good ideas, but you're such a hack you won't admit that. Which makes everything you type worthless drivel. If you can't be objective, you're a hack.

That's the very reason why I keep thinking you must be a snot-nosed teenager. You've called me a "hack" about a half dozen times now with no cause other than the fact that I won't agree with you. Grow up. People aren't always going to agree with you. But you'll stand a better chance of having somebody "concede a point"... if you actually have one.


Anyway, let me leave you with this 'cause I'm going to be busy over the next couple of days... We've had some back and forth, and even though I've rattled your cage now and then... so far I don't REALLY think you're a mindless troll. If I did, I wouldn't have bothered with you.

Frankly though, it doesn't matter if you and I agree about the healthcare summit on an anonymous message board. The whole exercise is just about looking at various situations from every angle. In example, I hadn't given much thought to the Jim Bunning situation until I got into a thread about it. But afterward, I realized it was worth a phone call to my no-account senators to let them know that they should either put up or shut up on PayGo.

What matters in the end is that we hold our leaders accountable. That we EXPECT them to behave with the same honor and integrity that we expect from ourselves, and that we participate in the process of self-governance. So... if you don't like the pork and the horse-trading... pick up the phone, get to the fax machine, hell... send up smoke signals... and remind these people who the boss is. WE are the sovereign. They only represent us as well as we make them.