Pelosi: Controversial tactic an 'option' for moving healthcare

[babylonsister]

We have options!


Pelosi: Controversial tactic an 'option' for moving healthcare
By Jared Allen - 03/15/10 04:39 PM ET


House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is leaving the door open on using a controversial procedure to move healthcare through the House.

The process would allow the House to “deem” the Senate bill passed when it votes on a package of changes to that legislation, perhaps as early as this weekend.

The procedure involves crafting a rule allowing for consideration of a reconciliation “fixers” bill that deems the Senate bill already approved by the House. Aides to the Speaker said the option is “under consideration.”

Republicans on Monday criticized the move, and said it would allow Democrats to avoid taking a tough vote on the Senate healthcare bill, which is under attack from the anti-abortion rights Democrats as well as Hispanic members and liberals.

Pelosi said at a Monday press conference that no final decisions have been made, but that having the Rules Committee write such a rule for the reconciliation bill is “one option.”

“When we get our CBO score and our decisions from the Senate Parliamentarian, when we have the substance, then we will decide on the process,” Pelosi said.

“But that will be one option,” she said when asked about a rule that declares the Senate bill considered by the House. “There are others.”

more...

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/86857-pelosi-says-use-of-controversial-tactic-an-option-on-healthcare

[Sebastian Doyle]

1. Why are you wasting time with all these games and "options" Nancy?

When the obvious solution would be to PASS A BILL THAT WAS WORTH A SHIT in the first place.

[IndianaGreen]

2. Not voting on the actual Senate bill may raise a Constitutional question

The Constitution explicitly states in Article I Section 7, that "every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States." Voting for a reconciliation bill without having a vote on the bill the Senate passed, and then claiming that the vote for the former is a vote for the latter, should raise all sorts of red flags. What if a future House were to use the same tactic to pass a bill that all Democrats hated?

[Cha]

3. KickR for the info.

[ncteechur]

4. my understanding is that the parlimentarian has said that this may be acceptable.

[Jennicut]

6. It comes down to that. If he says it was acceptable then the Rethugs have no case.

[Name removed]

5. Deleted message

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