What do the GOP amendments to this Senate health care bill actually say?

[babylonsister]

This Is What "Bipartisanship" Looks Like
What do the GOP amendments to this Senate health care bill actually say?
By Christopher Beam
Posted Thursday, July 16, 2009, at 7:29 PM ET


When the Senate health, education, labor, and pensions committee passed its health care bill Wednesday, the Obama administration hailed it as a "bipartisan" effort. No matter that it passed the panel on a strictly party-line vote, with all 13 Democrats voting for and all 10 Republicans voting against. It was bipartisan, administration officials explained, because it contained 160 Republican amendments. Republican senators said that characterization was absurd. After all, they said, most of the 160 amendments were technical, rather than substantive, changes. Lisa Murkowsi of Alaska told the New York Times that, while it was "pretty impressive" that 20 of her amendments were accepted, "they were all technical."

Who's right? There's no real way to resolve this debate without examining the content of these amendments, and the committee has yet to officially release them. But a Senate Republican source sent Slate a summary of many of the amendments, with a short description of each. (Download the Excel file here.) Disclaimer: This is an incomplete list. Of the 788 amendments filed, only 437 appear here. And of the 161 GOP amendments passed or accepted, we have confirmed only 80 as such. We hope to update the document as more information becomes available.

That said, some context: Of the 788 amendments filed, 67 came from Democrats and 721 from Republicans. (That disparity drew jeers that Republicans were trying to slow things down. Another explanation may be that they offered so many so they could later claim—as they are now, in fact, claiming—that most of their suggestions went unheeded.) Only 197 amendments were passed in the end—36 from Democrats and 161 from Republicans. And of those 161 GOP amendments, Senate Republicans classify 29 as substantive and 132 as technical.

Yet many of the GOP amendments on this incomplete list do seem pretty substantive. For example, one amendment offered by Oklahoma's Tom Coburn requires members of Congress and their staff to enroll in the government-run health insurance program. Another, sponsored by Lamar Alexander of Tennessee, would "establish an auto advisory council to make recommendations to the Secretary of the Treasury regarding how best to represent the taxpayers of the United States as the majority owner of General Motors." An amendment written by North Carolina's Richard Burr requires that "a private plan would be exempt from any federal or state requirement related to quality improvement and reporting if the community health insurance option is not subject to the specific requirement."

more...

http://www.slate.com/id/2223023/

[Hutzpa]

1. Why are the Republicans allowed so many

amendments on the health care bill?

Are the Democrats trying to shoot themselves on the foot(?) we all know eventually
they are not going to vote for the bill irregardless of the amount of amendments
they include, whats the point(?) why give them that bragging power?? :shrug:

[babylonsister]

2. What would be the point of not allowing them to contribute

anything? I don't know if that's even legal. I'm sure someone had some good ideas. Maybe?

[madmom]

3. Someone should offer an amendment that says unless repugs vote yes all 161 repug amendments will be

excluded. This will show how dedicated they are to their amendments IMO.

[HopeHoops]

4. I think something like "anyone who is sick is excluded from coverage"

Or something like that.