House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it

[True_Blue]

Source: Washington Post

After laying the groundwork for a decisive vote this week on the Senate's health-care bill, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi suggested Monday that she might attempt to pass the measure without having members vote on it.

Instead, Pelosi (D-Calif.) would rely on a procedural sleight of hand: The House would vote on a more popular package of fixes to the Senate bill; under the House rule for that vote, passage would signify that lawmakers "deem" the health-care bill to be passed.

The tactic -- known as a "self-executing rule" or a "deem and pass" -- has been commonly used, although never to pass legislation as momentous as the $875 billion health-care bill. It is one of three options that Pelosi said she is considering for a late-week House vote, but she added that she prefers it because it would politically protect lawmakers who are reluctant to publicly support the measure.

"It's more insider and process-oriented than most people want to know," the speaker said in a roundtable discussion with bloggers Monday. "But I like it," she said, "because people don't have to vote on the Senate bill."

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742_pf.html

[Go2Peace]

1. It's so confusing. So are we struggling just to get 50 votes?

Or is everyone cowering and not wanting to be seen voting on it?

[PinkFloyd]

2. No, 216...I think.

Pelosi still needs 216 to pass the senate version in the house and she's having trouble with it. Blue-Dogs don't like the cost, Stupak group doesn't like the abortion language, progressives don't like no public option. I believe it's going to fail and we'll wind up with nothing because they'll move it to the back burner. Then if the GOP takes over we'll end up with tort reform and that's our health care reform.

[Go2Peace]

4. Thanks, I didn't realize that. I thought we had the house under control.

amazing, and they had passed it before without trouble? Wasn't the original bill actually stronger with a PO? You would think it would have *more* support? Thanks for the info!

[Egnever]

5. We do have the house under control

this is all to avoid going back to the senate.

[No Elephants]

24. No, this is to try to protect the re-election of Democratic Representatives who do not

want to be held accountable at the polls in November for voting for the bill.

"Hey--I voted ONLY for improvements to the Senate bill. I never voted for the hcr bill that finally passed, though."

Similar to the reason she had a voice vote recently.

[Kermitt Gribble]

64. Exactly. n/t

[warm regards]

123. Not really...the last I heard is that they are still around 4 votes shy.

[PinkFloyd]

6. Kinda

They gave up on the PO right off the bat. Pelosi has already declared no PO this time either. If I recall correctly it originally passed the house with a narrow 5 vote margin but the senate bill has things in it the house doesn't like and they have to vote for it to do reconciliation. The problem is, since it passed with a narrow margin and more people have issues with the senate version, each vote is hard to come by just to get to 216.

*** EDIT***
According to what I see on TV, Pelosi wants to use something called Deem and Pass, which would pass the bill without voting on it. Obviously, that will be controversial.

[Kolesar]

11. Thanks for the summaries

and welcome to our forum! :applause:

[No Elephants]

25. The Senate bill has things in it Pres. Obama still doesn't like. These are his changes.

P.S. this thread is about "deem and pass." Check the OP.

[pnwmom]

18. The reason it's not under control is because of two groups: one group of progressives

like Kucinich who don't want to pass anything without a public option. And a group of anti-abortion people who think the House's version isn't anti-abortion enough.

[Knight Hawk]

41. Other Groups

There are other groups who are not supporting the bill and/or are not exactly crazy about it.Seniors are confused and afraid of what it might do to Medicare.Seniors on Medicare Advantage,which generally are less affluent seniors,are definitely getting screwed by the bill.People who are generally healthy,especially young people,who are living without health insurance and not all that concerned ,do not want to start paying money for something they do not believe they need,for example 26 year old single guys who have a pretty good job but do not have insurance.And then there is a large group of people in the middle both politically and economically who are doing fairly well and do no have a strong yearning to see major changes in something so important to them.There is simply not a STRONG demand from a critical mass of people for this particular bill.

[marshall]

114. The elderly and the young are untapped resources for helping to pay for those in need

Under the current system too many resources are poured into the elderly. And under the current system the healthy young pay absoutely nothing. Meanwhile there are some folks in between who do not have health care and who need it and who will live many more productive years if they have it.

[No Elephants]

50. Besides Kucinich, which liberal is voting against it? BTW, Kucinich is for single payer, not P.O.

[Stevepol]

52. DK has said he'd vote for a bill with a robust PO.

[No Elephants]

94. Yes, but that would be a compromise on his part. He wants single payer.

[No Elephants]

20. A bill wtth a public option did have more support in the House..

[shotten99]

7. True enough.

I think this over all reform is disappointing, but not the disaster it's been made out to be.
Considering what a GOP Congress would consider "reform", this is better than nothing.

Just ask Teddy Kennedy about his thoughts about the 1971 Nixon HCR proposal.

[zipplewrath]

19. This is GOP reform

This bill is basically what Bob Dole and Howard Baker proposed 15 years ago. So you are getting what a GOP congress would consider "reform". What you're not getting is what the democratically controlled House considers reform. How that is a democrat success escapes me.

[pattmarty]

22. You are exactly right.

[mirrera]

36. ding ding ding!

[pattmarty]

21. Believe the Nixon proposal was a LOT better than this piece of shit...........

..............I do have to say this to those who either have been fooled or are Dem lackeys: Be careful what you wish for.

[No Elephants]

23. Ted Kennedy opposed the Nixon bill. Supposedly, it was not good enough. However,

some say Ted and other Democrats did not want Republicans to get credit for health care reform (much as Democrats did not want Republicans to get credit for the first Hispanic on the SCOTUS).

If that is correct, people in and out of Congress need to get their priorities straight. Everything should not be about Democrats v. Republicans. It has to be about, first, what is right.moral, and, second, what is good for the nation and the majority of its people.

That Kennedy later changed his mind reflects how far right Democrats have brought the nation since the resounding Nixon and Reagan elections. And how Democrats disempower themselves, even when they are in the majority.

[Egnever]

3. 50 votes is in the senate

we are struggling to get the senate bill through the house unchanged cause if it gets changed it has to go back to the senate to be voted on again and then would also be open for amendment again I believe, which in turn would create more nightmares.


As far as I can tell at this point to avoid getting this thing derailed the plan is to pass the senate bill in the house as it was originally passed in the senate if that happens it goes directly to the presidents desk. In order to do that though the house really wants changes so the idea is to put the house changes in through reconciliation which avoids the filibuster.

Apparently if the senate bill gets signed by the president as passed then it lays the legal justification for the house versions reconciliation. Something i think they afraid wont pass muster if they try to change the bill first and then try to pass it through the senate through reconciliation.


Did that make any sense ? LOL

[No Elephants]

26. No. You need to re-read the OP. The House IS voting on changes.

[Krashkopf]

13. Nobody want to have to explain why "They voted FOR it . . .

before they voted AGAINST it."

[No Elephants]

27. "It" being a public option?

[comtec]

8. If i understand grayson's bill it's ONLY universal healthcare

which is separate from the bill pelosi is trying to pass through.
es it's not a wonderful bill, but it does have components that are desperately needed.
As I see it, we let her do this, the pres signs it into law, and the dems have a real (puric) victory!
THEN... we pass grayson's bill and actually accomplish something.

We have to stop thinking in a straight forward, and honest manner, for passing legislation and start being as underhanded as they are!

[No Elephants]

30. I think Grayson's bill is Medicare as a public option, not Medicare for all.

Medicare for all is HR 676, which has been pending--and still is pending-- since 2005, with a hundred co-sponsors, but never even made it to the CBO, let alone to a vote.

You think Grayson's bill is actually going to get enacted by the same House that passed the House bill (Stupak amendment, very lame and delayed public option) and the same Senate that could not even bring itself to approve said lame House bill?

I appreciate Grayson, but I think filing that bill at this time is kabuki. More false hope to make the turd bill they ARE about to pass more palatable.

[Loudmxr]

9. This is not good. It is handing a talking point to the Republicans.

Where is the leadership? Throw the caps over the wall and find a way around it. (old West Wing episode)

[ixion]

10. The whole fiasco is one mui grande rethug talking point, handed to them by the Dems

on a silver, well-insured platter.

[Juche]

69. The same republicans who call Obama an Al Qaeda manchurican candidate socialist n*gger from Kenya?

You are worried about giving them ammunition to attack the democrats?

That is like a battered wife worrying her stamp collecting hobby will cause her husband to kick her in the face.

[ixion]

124. uh, pardon?

I don't see the logic in your metaphor at all, sorry.

[comtec]

12. Obama could single handedly cute cancer, aids, and the common cold

and the gop would find a talking point.

why do we give a fuck about them anymore anyway?

GODS, if only the dems in congres would act like they gave a fuck about democracy for a change!

[roosterpack]

16. gop will........

.......always have their worthless talking points that only serve or make sense to their base.

screw 'em......we have our foot in the door pass something......ANYTHING!

here's how i'm seein it. reform started out as a shiney new sleek corvette loaded with all the options.

we now are buying an amc pacer....remember those? yeah, it's not the corvette but at least it has a steering wheel, good tires and has passed inspection......it'll get us from point A to point B.

once the bill is passed then it can be modified/upgraded as we move along. it's a starting point.

[icee]

38. Won't happen.

[No Elephants]

32. +1 And if the Rethugs could not find a talking point, they'd simply make one up--like death panels.

The very last thing we should concern ourselves with is whether our actions give Republicans something to say.

Do the right thing, period.

[Hosnon]

17. I agree. This plays directly into the hands of those peddling the idea that

Obama and the Dems want to take over everything.

Regardless of whether this procedural move is legit, all most people will hear is that the Dems are passing this massive bill without voting on it.

[icee]

40. Like I said yesterday, Obama has the Dems in checkmate. They

pass this horrible bill, the Dems are out in November and 2012, with Obama maybe out. They fail to pass the bill about the same thing will happen, but for different reasons.

[No Elephants]

54. Obama does not have about 400 Democratic legislators in checkmate. They put themselves there.

If they had moved quickly and enacted a good bill, regardless of what Obama did or did not do, they would have been heroes.

[icee]

59. I'll not argue that point, NE. It is one or the other; however, Obama's

lack of participation and wishy-washy attitude certainly did not help matters.

[No Elephants]

92. Thanks, Icee, but I think Obama has participated and has not been wishy washy.

You and I may, however, be operating under different assumptions about the kind of bill Obama wanted.

For instance, look how quickly the WH killed the prescription drug re-importation bill.

[icee]

99. Ah, I see what you are saying. Not wishy-washy, but, rather,

irritatingly purposeful. Is that what you mean? Yes, gave into big pharma and insurance companies knowingly and wantonly.

[No Elephants]

104. I don't think Obama is irritating! Au contraire. I just think he got the bill he wanted.

I keep thinking about those meetings last year. And how the WH did not want to comply with the ACLU's request for white house visitor logs.

How House Progressives asked and asked for a meeting with Obama, but he would not meet with them until after the Senate bill was well on its way. I am pretty sure I read that he even stood them up once.

And how last summer, during the town hall meetings, Obama called the public option a sliver and he and Rahm chided "the left" for making a bill deal of it, yet he praised Baucus to the skie.

How the WH quickly nipped the drug re-importation bill in the bud.

How Obama praised Baucus to the skies again on Christmas Eve.

How Coakley got the health insurance company and PHRMA money in the race for T. Kennedy's seat, not Brown, who ran promising to be the 41st vote AGAINST this bill.
.
How a drug lobbyist who supposedly made a deal with the WH last year got fired after Coakley LOST.

Things like that.

[icee]

116. Oh, okay. I'll keep an open mind. Think I'll ask oogly what he thinks.

[True_Blue]

88. True

If the Dems passed a REAL health care reform bill, that would have guaranteed them a majority for the next 20 years or so. If this bill passes, it'll probably ruin the Dems chances for many years to come.

[No Elephants]

93. Yep. Many Democratic Congresses followed FDR--who was re-elected so many times

that the Constitution was amended after he died (in office).

[Psephos]

118. Exactly. n/t

[Juche]

77. What is wrong with that?

I do not agree with the concept that this will make the dems look bad. If anything, it'll help them. A big reason the dems are losing support is they are getting bossed around by the GOP minority. Showing some courage and willing to play hardball is going to get the dems in better with liberals and unions (who make up 30% of the electorate and who provide much of the funding & volunteers for the dems).

As far as independents, they are independent for a reason. They barely pay enough attention to be able to discern the 2 parties apart. So within 5 months they will have forgotten about this anyway.

[Hosnon]

80. That's a good point. I'm often moaning about how gutless the Dems are. I don't quite see why

she broadcast this to the public though? Why not just do it?

[No Elephants]

31. Never worry about what Republicans are saying or might say. This is not good, though,

because it makes voters even less able to hold their reps accountable--which is the whole point. It's yet another incumbent protection move.

[The Stranger]

44. Fuck the Republicans. Repat: Fuck the Republicans.

Fuck them in the morning, fuck them in the evening.

Fuck the Republicans.

She just do it and stop fucking talking and talking and talking and talking about it.

It should have been done months ago.

[melm00se]

14. Having a majority

isn't all it's cracked up to be.

the more folks you have on your side of the aisle increases the likelihood of schisms and that is what you are seeing here.

[No Elephants]

51. No one had deepeer schisms in his Congress than LBJ. He did olkay anyway.

The more people make excuses for this Congress and this President, the lamer they seem.

We are not getting a better bill because (1) too few Democrats in either House of Congress want us to get a better bill, nor does the President--but (2) no one wants to cop to that, either, so they blame the Republicans and each other. Anything to obscure the truth and avoid taking responsibiity.

Few Democrats want to deal with those two realities.

We got ourselves more Democrats. Now, we need to realize that we need better Democrats. But, that takes REAL work. More than knocking on doors and holding up signs. It takes getting involved with the state party and staying involved. It takes getting the DNC to change its inccumbent protecting ways.

[Hippo_Tron]

63. I would say that's certainly true for a large majority

Having a majority is important in the sense of who controls Congress because if you don't, the opposition can tie your agenda up in committee forever. That being said large majorities are a blessing and a curse. Within your own party members are generally more responsive to carrot type incentives. However, because they are your own party and you may need them to hold the majority in the future, you are less inclined to use stick incentives against them. Nate Silver does an interesting analysis of how valuable each Democrat is to the caucus based on how often the vote with the party and how likely their seat would otherwise go to a Republican.

Right now our majority is large enough that it's hard to make a case that the Republicans are the ones blocking things because we can't even get the conservadems in line. If the opposition were entirely Republican it might've been easier for the President to take on the obstructionists and shame moderate Republicans into voting for cloture.

[No Elephants]

98. You seem to be assuming the President has problems with this bill.

The only people he seems to have taken on are "my friends on the left" who were insisting on a public option.

[No Elephants]

115. Delayed reaction. Nate Silver's analysis does not tell the whole story

because how someone votes does not tell the whole story.

As we've seen, neither the Speaker of the House nor the Senate Majority Leader brings a bill to a vote until he or she knows how the vote is going to come out. So, yes, Stupak and Nelson voted with the Democrats on health care, but look what they did to the respective bills first--and, as to Nelson, that was after the health insurance industry. Baucus, Collins AND Lieberman all finished with the bill. Also, the DINOs provide cover for others. In all, they bring a bill very close to a GOP bill before it even comes to a vote.

And, as Democrats appear to be Pub Lite, they fail to win the hearts and minds of their natural constituencies. Also, the base becomes apathetic or goes third party. So, while Baucus may hold the fort against a Republican in his state, Ted Kennedy's seat goes to a Scott Brown because Massachusetts liberals (esp. Boston, the most liberal part of the state) stayed home. Contrast that with money bombs liberals from all over the country have dropped on candidates like Halter this go round and Tinklenberg (sp?) last time.

[Hosnon]

15. What a horrible, horrible idea. I was watching the morning news shows at

the gym this morning.

All of the headlines were some variation of: "Dems to pass healthcare reform without voting".

Once again, we're going to get destroyed trying to make a nuanced argument.

[nyc 4 Biden]

37. +10000

dems are weak sauce!

[Bold Lib]

70. Yep. Put it on the floor and VOTE.

[Xenotime]

82. It will considered brilliant when they pass it and everybody is better for it.

[AngryOldDem]

125. This is biggest piece of procedural bullshit I've ever heard.

Have the **COURAGE** to put this bill to a FULL vote of the House. This tells me all I need to know about the true support of this legislation on both sides of the aisle. If you say you have the necessary votes to pass it, then why all this procedural sleight-of-hand?

Have the balls to put it to a full damn vote if you're so damn sure this bill is the way to go.

Saw a poll this morning where 70% of the public is sick and tired of Congress, whatever the party. Count me among them. Sick of this game-playing.

Hell, at this rate, just make the bill law via presidential fiat, and don't waste time with any kind of vote. Makes about as much sense.

[RedstDem]

28. Sounds Unconstitutional

Never hold up in court, and gives the people another reason for disillusionment...

[w4rma]

33. It's a commonly used rule. It is Constitutional. (nt)

[Xithras]

62. Has it ever been challenged?

There are quite a few practices in Washington that are of questionable Constitutionality, but which persist because nobody has ever actually filed suit and challenged them in the Supreme Court.

If it hasn't been challenged, it's almost a certainty that it will be shortly after this gets ramrodded through.

[karynnj]

71. Yes it was - under Bush - and ruled constituutional

[Hosnon]

74. Do you have the case? nt.

[karynnj]

83. Looked but couldn't find the article I read,

but here's what it was. It was used in 2005 to raise the debt ceiling then - for the same reason, to allow Republicans to avoid a vote specificaly to raise the debt ceiling. But, they did actually pass the higher debt ceiling.

Here is a vaguer comment that has a link:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/16/22293...

""Deem and Pass" has been used often and by both parties. Democrats point out that Republicans used it quite a bit in the 1990s, in fact -- though not for something quite as large as this.

In this Congress, Democrats used "Deem and Pass" for raising the debt ceiling, which was tucked into the PayGo bill."

[karynnj]

79. I was looking for the article I read that was either on Daily Kos or linked here,

but I can't find the one that did. It was used in 2005 to raise the debt ceiling then - for the same reason, to allow Republicans to avoid a vote specificaly to raise the debt ceiling. But, they did actually pass the higher debt ceiling.

Here is a vaguer comment that has a link:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/archive/2010/03/16/2229330.aspx

""Deem and Pass" has been used often and by both parties. Democrats point out that Republicans used it quite a bit in the 1990s, in fact -- though not for something quite as large as this.

In this Congress, Democrats used "Deem and Pass" for raising the debt ceiling, which was tucked into the PayGo bill."

[No Elephants]

90. I think you're mistaken.

[No Elephants]

89. Challenged as unconstitutional on what basis? The Constitution allows

the House to make its own rules, except that the Constiution specifies what a quorum consists of.

[Hosnon]

95. Neither chamber can make a rule that violates an express provision of the Constitution.

Which is why the 60-vote filibuster rule may be unconstitutional (it violates an implicit provision of the Constitution: simple majority to pass legislation).

In other words, the provision allowing the chambers to set their own rules does not trump the rest of the Constitution.

[No Elephants]

96. I disagree that the filibuster rule may be unconstitutional.

Of course, the rules do not overrule the Constitution, but there is nothing in the Constitution that says a majority, simple or otherwise, is necessary to pass legislation. And I don't think it's fairly implied, either.

That said, the 3/5 rule and the 2/3 rule both work to favor Republicans overall in that the essential philosophy of Republicans is (supposedly) the less government does, the better.

[Hosnon]

97. It's arguably implied by the fact that when the Constitution requires something different from

what is normally required in a democratic body (i.e., a simple majority), it expressly says so (e.g., treaty ratification, overturning a veto).

[No Elephants]

100. The opposite is implied by those things: When the Framers wanted a specific

percentage, they obviously knew how to specify it. The fact that they left everything else to the rules implies, well, that everything else is up to the rules.

[Hosnon]

102. I disagree. I don't consider the threshold to pass legislation a matter of process.

That is Congress' primary function.

And what if a chamber set the threshold at 3/4? The 2/3 provision regarding overturning a veto would then be superfluous. And a canon of legal construction is that the text should not be read so as to render any part thereof as such.

[No Elephants]

103. You disagree yet can't point to anything in the Constitution. What you think

supports your position actually undercuts it.

Congress's function is to legislate, true. Whether you consider what percentage it takes to pass legislation procedural or substanive is irrelevant. For one thing, you're not a Framer. For another thing, the Constitution left worlds of substance up to Congress. The relevant point is, the Constitution left up to each House the percentage required to pass legislation.

[Bold Lib]

72. I think the parliamentarian already said that it was a rules violation. But Biden CAN

overrule that. This is not the way these things should be done. If the Rethugs were doing this we'd be calling them the thugs they are. Just not good.

[No Elephants]

91. Link?

[Hoopla Phil]

126. I also heard about this. It was on the radio though.

[robcon]

29. Incredibly stupid idea.

It's only smart if you think the repugs should control both houses (or at least one) after this November's election.

"I voted for it before I voted against it" was a killer for John Kerry in 2004. This is worse.

[paparush]

34. Sounds cowardly. Reps need to stand up and cast a vote. Its what we pay them to do.

[mzmolly]

61. They did cast votes and they will do so again.

The house passed a bill and the senate passed a bill.

[No Elephants]

105. Apparently, the House does not want a list of ayes and nays for a bill without a public option.

[No Elephants]

101. I thought we paid them because the Constitution requires them.

If they passed single payer, they could do it by winking for all I care, as long as it would hold up in court.

But, yes, it is a job retention maneuver.

[change_notfinetuning]

35. You've heard of chicken-hawks. These are the chicken shits. They claim to

want an up or down vote, but that was before they didn't want an up or down vote.

President Obama is leading the party well. Their words and actions are a continuing mismatch.

[derby378]

39. I have SERIOUS issues with this strategy

The "self-executing rule" takes the power out of the House and puts it all in the hands of one person - the Speaker. Even if many of our Congresscritters are total dickweeds, the fact that their constituents put them in office means they've earned the right to vote on this issue on the citizen's behalf.

And I still need a good look at this "fix" package, too.

[No Elephants]

106. As I understand it, the House passes the "fixes" and only then is the bill deemed passed.

So, I don't understand how it is all in the hands of the Speaker. She can't deem it passed unless and until all the fixes are passed. And she can stop it from passing if the fixes are passed.

[Proud Liberal Dem]

42. I want HCR to pass

and while this plan MAY possibly be feasible/technically legal, I would feel better about it if they stick with their original plan to just pass the Senate bill and then pass the desired fixes through the House using normal procedural methods and the Senate using reconciliation.
I'm curious as to what happened between yesterday and today. I swore that I thought I heard that Pelosi has the votes.

[No Elephants]

110. She has to have the votes to pass the "fixes." This is not about too few votes.

It's about House members not wanting their names linked to passing this bill.

[CTyankee]

43. This is totally insane. Pelosi has lost her mind.

Dems are gonna look like total hypocrites if this thing happens this way. I am just appalled...

[SandWalker1984]

45. procedural sleight of hand -- do these people not realize how that's going to play on Main street?

Apparently enough Democrats feel the Senate version is not worth voting for OR they know they will be punished for voting in this cororate mandated profits bill come November. So now they are willing to use sleight of hand to pass this lobbyist written nightmare?

If this bill is signed into law, it will be American enslavement to corporate rule. Debbierlus posted on the following on DU back on November 21st. Now is an excellent time to remind everyone of what Debbierlus said back then:

Health Insurance Reform: The Enslavement of American Citizens to Corporate Rule

After months of silent, closed door negotiations between the holy trinity (the executive branch, the congress, & the health care industry), we stand on the brink of health insurance reform.

Health insurance reform. Do not confuse this with health care reform as that was never the intent of this legislation. This is not a minor point. Health care reform would have addressed the central problem of our current health care system and confronted the reality that in order to provide universal, affordable health care for all citizens, we would need to stop treating human health as a commodity. It would have taken a moral imperative to place human life over profit. But, right from the very beginning, the central GOAL in creating this legislation was just the opposite, the development of a plan that not only maintained, but expanded the ability of the health care industry (private insurers, big pharm, large hospitals) to profit off human illness.

And, that has what has been created. A bill that enshrines private health care companies as the government mandated model for health care administration. A bill that will provide 70 billion dollars in subsidies to private insurance companies, at the expense of universal, affordable coverage for every American citizen. A bill that negotiated away the government's ability to stop big pharm price gouging, in exchange for a phony bargain where the pharmaceutical companies would cut up to 8 billion dollars in costs over the next ten years while they elevated prices 10 billion this year alone. A bill that does not allow reimportation of drugs from Canada and holds the American people hostage to a mob type system of pay or die. Under this bill, millions will not be able to afford their prescriptions. Millions more will be forced to choose medication, food, or heat.

Under this bill, denial of care will be allowed for a thousand other reasons then the sole prohibited exception of a preexisting condition.

Under this bill, health care coverage will remain a game of chance.

Under this system, class difference may still determine whether you live or die.


The promoters of this legislation claim that this bill will provide health insurance to 96% of the population. But, they fail to note that doesn't mean it provides health care to 96% of the American people. The reality is that tens of millions will only be able to afford plans that provide either minimal or catastrophic coverage. Millions more will opt out entirely and pay the fine to avoid tax penalties or jail time. Millions more won't be able to pay the fine, and they will incur a thousand dollar penalty in addition to the hundreds of dollars they could not afford to pay to opt out. Or, they will go to jail.

Bankruptcy from medical bills will continue en force with this legislation. The most affordable 'comprehensive' policies are allowed to only cover up to 60% of costs. If anyone with a 'comprehensive' policy such as this meets with the bad fate of a chronic or life threatening illness (or even a single hospitalization), they will stand in very real danger of being financially ruined even with their insurance coverage.

Under pressure from the executive branch, the Congress removed the only strong amendment in the House bill that would allow a state from emancipating from the enslavement to corporate insurance by developing their own single payer plans. The Kucinich amendment which would have prevented insurance companies from suing states who developed single payer at the state level is gone. So, yes. That means states can be SUED by private insurance companies for developing an alternate system that would provide universal, affordable and comprehensive coverage to its citizens.

Industry profit above all else.

This reform is being accepted from the American people out of ignorance and sheer and total desperation. We have acquiesced to the corporate dictate for so long, we forget that we even have the alternative to fight back against policies that put our very lives at risk for the sole purpose of corporate and shareholder profit. We have become so accustomed to the myth of compromise,
we have relinquished our principles to the point of our own powerlessnes. So, it is with this legislation. Better to take what crumbs are thrown, then to stand on conviction and demand true reform. Something is better then nothing. Our fear is so great, we cower and give up before we even begin to fight. But, until we break this circle, we will be left with less and less, and our power to influence will be all but impotent.

This legislation was written to save the health insurance system from the collapse which was soon to come. A collapse which very well could have precipitated the transition to single payer.

Why are we reviving the beast?

**********************

We should not settle for crumbs.

The Senate bill, which the House is about to rubberstamp, is about MANDATING INSURANCE, NOT ABOUT BETTER HEALTH CARE. Insurance does not = health care. Health insurance companies make profits by DENYING THEIR CUSTOMERS HEALTH CARE.

I refuse to go along and play along. If the Senate version of the bill had been proposed and passed by Republicans, most of you would be screaming your heads off about how bad the bill was, how many loopholes it contains, how it is nothing more than mandated profits for the insurance industry and how the Republicans are owned by corporations. Sticking a "D" next to the bill doesn't make the pile of shit smell any better.

If the Senate bill passes and is signed into law by Obama, WE WILL ALL BE GIVING UP ALL CHANCE OF TRUE HEALTH CARE REFORM in our lifetimes. The health care industry, who is already powerful enough to control the writing of this bill will gain even more money, more power and more control over future members of Congress. They will not allow future regulation or legislation that will impact the way they do business or their profits.

I voted for change we can believe in, NOT corporate chains we will BE in.

If you agree with me, call up your House representative and let him or her know how you feel.

[True_Blue]

87. Excellent Post!

I agree that if this bill passes we'll never get true health care reform. This bill will make it that much harder to sever the private insurance companies from our healthcare system. Americans are being handed over to the very vultures that we need protection from.

[BREMPRO]

46. very clever move- we might just get heath care and insurance reform after all

anyone who thinks we'll get anything bettter than this bill with a few key changes is living in a dream world and risks evil lying broken record talking point repukes and teabaggers winning by killing it. 30 million more covered, subsidies for low income, no recissions or denials for pre- existing conditions, cost controls, competitive effectivness, insurance company increase overides, competitive exchanges, medicare sustainablility, significant deficit reduction, it's all there- public option can be fought for another day. a win is a win, lets move on. Teddy would vote for this and so would I.

[defendandprotect]

47. Kill the bill and start over . .. single payer . . . UNIVERSAL HEALTH CARE . . .

Let's not have unequal treatment of citizens --

weighing of INCOME, subsidizing insurance companies, class based system --

Every American should be treated equally!!

[Jester Messiah]

48. Doesn't seem too good...

But hey, whatever it takes. Lest we forget, lives are at stake.

[jonathon]

49. You seem to be under the impression this is a health care bill

This is a health insurance reform bill.

And, it won't gurantee care for the citizens forced to buy private insurance. This bill needs to go down in flames.

[Name removed]

66. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Guilded Lilly]

53. Do it. (n/t)

[harmonicon]

55. what a low-life Pelosi is.

Here's my crazy idea that I know she never considered: put forward a bill that the American people want and that their representatives would gladly vote for. Crazy shit, I know.

[Zenlitened]

67. Jeez. How do you come up with such wild notions? :)

...put forward a bill that the American people want and that their representatives would gladly vote for...

Sad, isn't it? And mind-bogglingly insane, the way Dems have managed to FUBAR this whole issue.

:( :( :(

[No Elephants]

108. If the two houses had not just voted I would agree with you. The bill that came out of the House

had a weak public option, though it did at least kill the monopoly exemption. And the Senate, well, we all know what came out of the Senate.

The public want Medicare for all, the lobbyists don't and therefore Congress and the President don't. Second verse--strong public option--same as the first.

[GinaMaria]

56. Sounds like a way to dodge accountability

passing it without a vote... guess we won't know where anyone stands on the issue. If they are for this, then say so with a vote, if not, then say so with a vote. Diluting democracy just sends the wrong message.

[SlingBlade]

57. The Democrats are now thinking Political Protection and

Counting later on the the rabbit hole of memory just as they have with everything
since they were handed the majority.

I for one will not forget this come November.
I won't forget that Democrats have a majority
I won't forget that they threw away the best chance for true reform in 60 years
I won't forget it, None of it.

They are burnt toast
<[img>

If you need a reminder, Re-Read, Joe Conason's book, It Can Happen Here:
Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Bush.

Funny, He never mentioned, Not looking Backwards, He never mentioned, Bi-Partisanship.
He needs to re-write that book and entitle it...
It DID Happen Here:
Authoritarian Peril in the Age of Democrats

This is the reality of the Democrats answer to that book.
How's it feel to be sold down the river ?

[aaronbav]

58. LYING,CHEATING, CONNIVING, THIEVING, SCUM SUCKING

SACKS OF SHIT - EVERY LAST GOD DAMNED ONE OF TEHSE PATHTIC PUTRID BASTARD (EXCEPT DENNIS).

FUCK EVERY LAST GOD DAMNED ONE OF THESE LYING, CHEATING BASTARDS -JUST FUCK THEM TO HELL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

FUCK THEM, FUCK THEM, FUCK THEM, FUCK THEM, FUCK THEM, FUCK THEM,

[No Elephants]

107. LOL, aaronbav, please stop holding back that way. You could give yourself an ulcer.

Welcome to DU.

[DesertDiamond]

60. What? Does this leave the Gift to Insurance Companies in the Senate bill or what?

[Bold Lib]

73. Yep.

[cowman]

65. This is crazy

does pelosi think that the american people are so dumb that they won't see this as dishonest even though it techically is the letter of the law? If this bill is so good, then vote on it, don't do an end around it which is what the people will see it as. Jeez, we are just handing the repubs the congress on a silver platter come nov.

What the hell is wrong with us?

[Juche]

68. I love you Pelosi

I have been wanting the dems to play hardball and use every tactic available, and now they are.

This is awesome. I love these procedural maneuvers.

[warm regards]

75. It has been suggested that this method is unconstitutional.

[No Elephants]

109. Nothing in the Constitution says that.

[ShortnFiery]

76. That's so damn bullshit! They know that they don't have the votes.

Damn, I just may stay home in November. :grr:

[onenote]

84. if they don't have the votes, how are they going to pass the self executing resolution

it has to be voted on.

[florida08]

78. Am really getting tired of the blue dogs

First we have a public option in the house bill but not the senate. Now we could have a P.O in the senate thru reconciliation but not the house. Obama didn't put it in his version of the bill because of the blue dogs. Pelosi is blaming the senate but that doesn't hold water..she's afraid of the house blue dogs. Obama should be supporting the P.O publically. This is about the majority of citizens who want and need it..not re-election. Seems Pelosi is moving fast because she's worried..what are the blue dogs scared of? (rhetorical)

[Xenotime]

81. Good. This is they kind of take-charge change we need.

[ShortnFiery]

85. Yes, in favor of the insurance cartel and big pharma = Senate Bill.

That should keep us Democrats OUT OF POWER for a few election cycles. :crazy:

[onenote]

86. A self executing resolution is nothing new and it is voted on

Here's a short CRS report from more than 3 years ago on the use of self-executing resolutions.
http://www.rules.house.gov/archives/98-710.pdf

[No Elephants]

111. What's new is using it for something of this magnitude. Imagine passing the

War on Terror Resolution and/or the Patriot Act this way.

[onenote]

113. its not much different from what happens every day

Major legislative initiatives are bundled in must pass appropriations bills and passed. There is no separate vote on those portions of the bills.

And let's turn it around. Say that the House passed a new version of the Patriot Act that better protected civil liberties than the version currently in law. Say that getting the improved version passed by the Senate would be impossible because the changes would be blocked by conservatives. But assume that there was a procedure for getting around the conservatives in the Senate but it would require the House to pass a bad Senate version of the bill first. Would you seriously object to the Democrats using a procedure such as the one being discussed for HCR to overcome the conservative objections and get a more civil liberties friendly bill enacted into law?

[No Elephants]

120. Sorry, that is simply untrue. When major legislation is bundled and passed,

Domeone who voted to pass a bill cannot disassociate himself or herself from anything in the bundle.

This way, though, a House member who votes for only the fixes can say "I never voted for the Nelson Amendment."

In any event, no matter how you try to slice or dice, major legislation has never been passed by deeming before.

[onenote]

121. try again

Scenario A: appropriations bill is presented with all sorts of unrelated measures, many of which have never been presented for a separate vote. Members vote for the package. Everything in it passes. Member can argue that they didn't favor everything in the bill, but voted for it because of things that they did like.

Scenario B; Rules committee presents self executing resolution the adoption of which constitutes, expressly, the approval of a piece of legislation that has never been presented for a separate vote. Member can argue that they didn't favor the matter in the self executing resolution but voted for it because it was tied to the rule for moving forward on the measures that they did support.

Really just two peas in a pod. The rules by which legislation is moved in the house and senate are incredibly arcane and allow for a variety of end runs, short cuts, and procedural maneuvering and everyone who works on the Hill knows it and lives with it.

[No Elephants]

112. This is historic legislation! (But please don't put my name anywhere near the bill.)

I just want to note for all the men (a a few women) posters who keep associating courage with testicles--all the testicles in the House of Representatives are going to hide behind a woman skirts. And under her skirts? A vagina.

Just sayin'.

[marshall]

117. It's time to go balls out!

This is a dangerous move, but what other option do they have? Obama has reputedly staked his future on passing something that can be called Health Care Reform. Deals have been struck, promises have been made, and folks in the shadows want whatever was promised to them.

[No Elephants]

119. Apparently not. Please see Reply 112.

[marshall]

122. I mean it's balls out for Obama and Pelosi

I realize the smaller (in more ways than one) folk are trying to hedge their bets and blend into the background. But Obama and Pelosi are committed to this. They've worked for months, made countless deals we'll never know about, and twisted who knows how many arms. It's got to happen for them, one way or another. They're too far in for it not to happen.