obama demands vote on health care..

Danzig · #1 03-16-2010, 01:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Thank you for expessing your opinion. Arent you tired of O'Dumbass lies? If your not then someting is wrong. Hopefully if Reid gets the heave ho out then Pelosi will be next. She should shove that health care up her worthless @ss. I dont know about you but im tired of seeing her and Reid on TV talking about that piece of crap health reform bill. What a coward O'Dumbass is by saying he is going to invoke the majority rule thing instead of using how the voting rules has been in the past. O'Dumbass has already proved he is not afraid to put his own party under the bus. Some leader that the Democrat party has. He has already show me that he could care less about the military, retired military, and people on Social Security. Hopefully in 2013 this country will have a Republican leading it.

when you're ready to have a serious discussion, let me know.

Nascar1966 · #2 03-16-2010, 01:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

when you're ready to have a serious discussion, let me know.

And you try to say im acting like a juvenile. Maybe you should look in the mirror. Im sure your one of the millions that was mislead in 08 by O'Dumbass. If your enjoying seeing this great country of ours going down the tubes then more power to you.

Antitrust32 · #3 03-16-2010, 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

And you try to say im acting like a juvenile. Maybe you should look in the mirror. Im sure your one of the millions that was mislead in 08 by O'Dumbass. If your enjoying seeing this great country of ours going down the tubes then more power to you.

Uh, I wouldnt be so sure.

Nascar1966 · #4 03-16-2010, 02:30 PM

Danzig,

Do you agree with the Democratic party new strategy with this bill? Trying to pass it without having a vote. I dont recall anything like this happening before. Have you? If it is passed without a vote I pity each and every Democrat up for election in Congress and the Senate. Hopefully the next job they have is cleaning out a bathroom.

Danzig · #5 03-16-2010, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

Danzig,

Do you agree with the Democratic party new strategy with this bill? Trying to pass it without having a vote. I dont recall anything like this happening before. Have you? If it is passed without a vote I pity each and every Democrat up for election in Congress and the Senate. Hopefully the next job they have is cleaning out a bathroom.

no, i don't. and no, i didn't vote for obama. as for them doing this before, there have been instances where they pssed things without a vote, altho nothing on a scale of the health care bill from what i understand.

Danzig · #6 03-16-2010, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nascar1966

And you try to say im acting like a juvenile. Maybe you should look in the mirror. Im sure your one of the millions that was mislead in 08 by O'Dumbass. If your enjoying seeing this great country of ours going down the tubes then more power to you.

i'm sorry, but i feel your incessant use of 'o'dumbass' is juvenile. it doesn't make you or your comments look serious. or maybe that's just me. as for the rest, i don't want to see our country go down the tubes. but i also don't think one person, or one small group of people can cause that.

Nascar1966 · #7 03-16-2010, 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm sorry, but i feel your incessant use of 'o'dumbass' is juvenile. it doesn't make you or your comments look serious. or maybe that's just me. as for the rest, i don't want to see our country go down the tubes. but i also don't think one person, or one small group of people can cause that.

I give you all the credit in the world for expressing your opinion. I might not agree with your opinion but I commend you for expressing it.

Riot · #8 03-16-2010, 05:42 PM

Quote:

Do you agree with the Democratic party new strategy with this bill? Trying to pass it without having a vote. I dont recall anything like this happening before. Have you?

The above is not true. The above is an inaccurate description of passing the reconciliation passages with the bill. It is spin, and some of the news media isn't helping by calling it passing without a vote. It is simply voting on the reconciliation as the same time as the Senate bill.

Here is a detailed explaination: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...th-care/37540/

PS, the GOP has used the same procedure in the past on bills, so it has happened before.

Quote:

There Will Be an Up or Down Vote on Health Care

Mar 16 2010, 10:40 AM ET

The Wall Street Journal's particularly caustic editorial on the self-executing maneuver that might allow Democrats to pass health care reconciliation legislation without having to first vote on that putrid Senate bill is full of absolutes and adjective constructions: it is an "amazing procedural ruse" -- a "concoction" that violates Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution, which states that for a bill to become law, it "shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate."

Speaker Nancy Pelosi, because of the Stupak 12 and the compromises in the Senate bill, can't get enough Democrats to put their names down on the slate as voting yes on it as a stand-alone measure. The reconciliation fix is much more popular. Hence -- self-executing -- a parliamentary maneuver that essentially "presumes" the Senate bill into law by passing the post-facto fixes only.

Plain enough, right? Even Democrats are buying into the notion, fretting about the optics of allegedly not voting. Not really. In fact, the Journal gets it wrong. So do Democrats. So has the political class. Democrats will still be on the hook for health care. Here's why:

Yesterday, conservative jurist Michael McConnell argued that that Democrats are trying to finish the health care bill without voting on it. Mitch McConnell, the minority leader in the Senate, intoned that Democrats claim they never voted for it even though they'll vote to send it to the president for a signature.

But that's wrong. House Democrats aren't doing that.

In fact, they ARE taking an up or down vote on the Senate health care bill. They're just doing it AT THE SAME TIME as they're passing the reconciliation language, which countermands several controversial provisions. That is: House Democrats still have to vote for the so-called "Cornhusker Kickback," and the "Gator Aid" provisions, but they're going to do so while simultaneously passing the reconciliation fix that removes them. The two bills will essentially be merged into one vote.

But it's still an up or down vote on health care -- one that Republicans can use to bash Democrats with if they want to, but one that Democrats hope will provide them with some political cover -- yes, they voted for the Senate bill, but they did so with its amendments attached.

Republicans really don't have much of a constitutional argument because the Constitution gives the House and the Senate the power to define its own rules. If "deeming" a Senate bill as passed is ruled to be the same thing as passing it, then the bill is "passed," constitutionally. (As Rep. Sam Rayburn, in 1948, put it, "There is to be one vote only; and if the resolution is agreed to, it means that the House concurs in the Senate amendments.")

And while it's true that the rule has never been used for something this large, it's unusual for Republicans to be bothered by the idea that controversial legislation ought to be subject to an up and down vote on its merits. GOPers, endorsed by their own rules guru, Rep. David Dreier of California, have used the maneuver to pass legislation large and small -- including a $40 billion dollar deficit reduction bill. Dreier in 2005 used the tactic to allow Republicans to avoid having to take a recorded vote on an immigration measure. It's also a bit rich for Republicans to complain about a parliamentary tactic being employed in a way that's not in keeping with the spirit of the traditions of Congress.

Truth be told, it's difficult to see the "deeming" move providing any plausible deniability for Democrats. It's just an easier -- and not controversial, or rare -- way for them to pass a difficult bill. In November, they'll still be on the hook.

sham · #9 03-16-2010, 08:01 PM

Though previously used, I suspect that 'Deeming' has never been tested in the Supreme Court. I'll bet it will be tested if healthcare passes using this tactic.

From my novice point of view, it would appear to be unconstitutional in that a bill (identical language, not even as much as a single comma difference) must be voted on by both houses and passed (with ayes and nays recorded by name) before that bill can be presented to the president for his signature. The president then signs it into law or vetoes the measure and it would then be sent back to congress. The constitution is very clear and makes no mention of anything resembling a method by which a bill may be deemed to be passed.

Since I'm now working on my income taxes for 2009 and it looks like I owe, I may DEEM them to have been paid and save a few hundred bucks.

Danzig · #10 03-16-2010, 08:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Riot

The above is not true. The above is an inaccurate description of passing the reconciliation passages with the bill. It is spin, and some of the news media isn't helping by calling it passing without a vote. It is simply voting on the reconciliation as the same time as the Senate bill.

Here is a detailed explaination: http://www.theatlantic.com/national/...th-care/37540/

PS, the GOP has used the same procedure in the past on bills, so it has happened before.

i don't think he's talking about reconciliation, but about 'deem and pass'.

Riot · #11 03-16-2010, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i don't think he's talking about reconciliation, but about 'deem and pass'.

Yes, that is what the article I posted talked about. Same thing. I agree it's confusing. Especially when the media isn't making it clear.

The Senate health reform bill - already passed with a supermajority - will be voted upon- unchanged - by the House (the passed House bill is done, the Senate will not vote upon that).

Within the same vote will be the House passing it's reconciliation package to that Senate bill. With the vote on these two items (one package voted upon), the Senate bill will be "Deemed" passed by the House, unchanged. At the same time, the reconciliations the House wants will be passed.

Then, the reconciliations go back to the Senate for a vote. Either way, the Senate bill has been passed, unchanged, by the House. It can either then be reconciled, or go straight to the Pres for signature unchanged. The House wants to make changes, thus the reconciliations starting there.

timmgirvan · #12 03-16-2010, 07:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm sorry, but i feel your incessant use of 'o'dumbass' is juvenile. it doesn't make you or your comments look serious. or maybe that's just me. as for the rest, i don't want to see our country go down the tubes. but i also don't think one person, or one small group of people can cause that.

Yeah....and he's not even Irish!

timmgirvan · #13 03-16-2010, 07:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Danzig

i'm sorry, but i feel your incessant use of 'o'dumbass' is juvenile. it doesn't make you or your comments look serious. or maybe that's just me. as for the rest, i don't want to see our country go down the tubes. but i also don't think one person, or one small group of people can cause that.

How big is Congress, again?.....1500 people?