Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 02:42 AM
Original message |
What is really, truly the current status of health reform legislation in Congress? |
|
I have been hearing a lot of mixed stories.
What's going on... truly?
|
bluestateguy
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 02:45 AM
Response to Original message |
1. If you don't like the answer you get now |
|
Just wait around an hour or two and you'll surely hear something different from the latest Democrat in Congress to step up to the microphone.
|
Writer
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 02:46 AM
Response to Reply #1 |
2. I don't care if I like or don't like the answer... I just want to know what's going on! n/t |
sandnsea
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 03:56 AM
Response to Original message |
3. Trying to figure out what can pass |
|
That's what I see. What can pass and how can it get passed. Can Nancy get the votes in the House to pass the Senate bill; is there some way to put something together the Senate will pass; or can they do something in reconciliation. They're just trying to see if there's any way to put something together.
God what an opportunity we blew.
|
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 11:06 AM
Response to Reply #3 |
|
But I'm not sure we blew it YET. I definitely do not think the situation would have been necessarily much better had Coakley won. The comments from Nelson - on not agreeing unless the abortion language were changed to Stupak's to get his final cloture vote - suggests that if he really intended to do that, we might be in exactly the same spot. Would a version more like the Senate bill than the House bill with some things fixed (where they were pre MA) with Stupak have passed? Could they have twisted his arm?
I suspect that, in a way, the MA win may help people who want changes on some of those deals. It may be that passing Senate bill and then fixing gets to a better place than finding a House/Senate compromise that could have passed the Senate with Kirk, who IS still voting *, or with Coakley had she won.
* Note the hypocrisy of the Republicans being silent when Kirk joined the Democrat as the needed 60th vote to raise the dept ceiling over their filibuster. I guess this shows they wanted that passed - and they wanted to say they tried to stop it.
|
Clio the Leo
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 09:54 AM
Response to Original message |
4. The House has said they'd be willing to pass the Senate bill IF..... |
|
... the Senate would first pass a reconciliation bill they were happy with.
The Senate is in a holding pattern .... I think they want to get some jobs legislation passed first so they can raise the political capitol to buffer the reconciliation blow back that they'll get from the right and center sections of the electorate.
WH is insistant on not giving up.
|
karynnj
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Fri Jan-29-10 11:07 AM
Response to Reply #4 |
6. The senate said they would wait for Brown |
|
and they are doing the jobs bill.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Sat May 11th 2024, 02:18 AM
Response to Original message |