Skip to comments.Health care: Dems just don't have the votes
Posted on 02/23/2010 1:20:08 PM PST by OldDeckHand
Now that the White House and Democrats are making a last push to pass their so-far-unpassable national health care bills, the only thing that matters is whether they can get 217 votes for victory in the House and 50 votes (plus the vice-president's tie-breaker) for reconciliation in the Senate. Good policy doesn't matter. Bad policy doesn't matter. All that matters is votes.
The White House and Democrats have lost sight of the essential insanity of the process -- desperately searching for corners to cut so they can pass an enormous re-ordering of the American economy that Americans don't want -- because all they can think about now is passing something. It could be anything, as long as it is "comprehensive."
So where are the votes? Start in the House. House Democrats have to do two things. First, they have to pass the health care bill that Senate Democrats passed on December 24 -- Cornhusker Kickback, Louisiana Purchase and all. They could stop there and send the bill to the president's desk, but that, of course, is not going to happen. So they then have to pass a set of agreed-upon "fixes" to the Senate bill that the Senate would then pass by using the reconciliation process. (The fixes will start in the House; reconciliation bills have to originate in the House because all revenue measures have to originate in the House.)
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
“essential insanity of the process”
We need to keep up the pressure. Phones, faxes, emails.
THATS OK...WHATEVER THEY CANT PASS OBAMA WILL PASS BY EXECUTIVE ORDER...
217 votes in the House. Let’s thank idiot RINOs Newt and Dede for effing up NY-23.
“Dems just don’t have the votes”
from your weblink to God’s inbox!
Doesn’t ZERO have to sign the House passed Senate bill before it can be reconciled?
SET THEIR LOCAL AND DC LINES ON FIRE!
Sen. Scot Brown's number is 202-224-5443
Capitol Hill switchboard is 202-224-3121
Lots of local demwit phone numbers on this thread.
Rename, repackage, rewrite it a tad smaller, and sell another pig in a poke.
Tennessee has joined several other states in trying to pass a Health Care Freedom Act. NO COLAs for granny, retired Military or retired fed employees. BIG NEW fees for Tricare for Life retired over 65 Military's secondary health ins. (DOD bill already passed, delayed but goes into effect 2011)
New Dem mantra: Woof, woof eat dog food granny....ala let them eat cake.
Friday, February 19, 2010
Obama says slight fix will extend Social Security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
This option would help reduce the costs of TFL, as well as costs for Medicare, by introducing minimum out-of pocket requirements for beneficiaries. Under this option, TFL would not cover any of the first $525 of an enrollees cost-sharing liabilities for calendar year 2011 and would limit coverage to 50 percent of the next $4,725 in Medicare cost sharing that the beneficiary incurred. (Because all further cost sharing would be covered by TFL, enrollees could not pay more than $2,888 in cost sharing in that year.)
Bill Would Restrict Veterans Health Care Options 11/06/09
Buyer and McKeon Offer Amendments to Protect Veterans and TRICARE Beneficiaries
Congress plans to block Tricare fee increases
By Rick Maze - Staff writer, Oct 7, 2009
Tricare fee increases imposed last week by the Defense Department will be repealed by a provision of the compromise 2010 defense authorization bill unveiled Wednesday by House and Senate negotiators.
The fee increases were announced on Sept. 30 and took effect on Oct. 1, but the defense bill, HR 2647, includes a provision barring any fee increases until the start of fiscal 2011.
Retired Army Maj. Gen. Bill Matz, president of the National Association for Uniformed Services, said the announcement of fee increases was shocking considering that the Obama administration promised earlier this year to hold off on any new fee Tricare fee increases until fiscal 2011.
President Obama and DoD assured NAUS and the entire military family earlier this year that there would rightly be no increases in any Tricare fees in fiscal 2010, Matz said. We took them at their word, and I cant believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward, he added.
Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware.
I have been saying since June it would be the House that killed Obamacare. Finally the mSM pundits are atarting to realize the same thing. Back when the House voted for their version, the Rats were terrified of Speaker Pelosi and what she would do to them if they voted no. Now they are terrified of their ultimate bosses, the voters, and what they will do to them if they vote yes this time.
No. While he does have to sigh the original bill first, they can actually pass the Budget Reconciliation bill - hold onto it - then pass the original bill. It's legislative sleight of hand, but it's allowable under the rules of Congress.
With Obamacare, the only thing better than a quick silent death would be a spectacular crash-and-burn death. We very well may get the best possible outcome here ... wherein Democrats will both ignore the electorate, and prove themselves too incompetent to get it done.
"The fixes will start in the House; reconciliation bills have to originate in the House because all revenue measures have to originate in the House"
The question: Doesn't the House have to pass the Senate Bill (the one they don't like and won't vote for without a 'reconciliation fix') before they can take up the reconciliation bill itself?
The reason this is important relates to the one weapon the Republicans have left in their arsenal: the ability to stall the reconciliation bill in the Senate indefinitely. That power is not of much use if the House has already passed the Senate version since that would leave us with the Senate version of ObaminationCare sitting on Obama's desk ready for signature. Under those circumstances the Republicans would have to do the best they could to carve the bill back down by implementing some of the House changes, e.g. no abortion funding.
Tell me if this is or isn't the way it could go.
According to the article, the House still has to pass the existing Senate bill and then pass 'fixes' with reconciliations. This point is not clear as other news sources don't go into that detail. Experts?
How do you budget reconcile for a non-existent program?
That seems more like outright lies than anything else.
Explain more please ...
One thing that is not clear, and is key to all this, is whether what Obama has put out there is merely the “White House version” of Obamacare, or whether it is the result of the Senate-House Democrat negotiation that has been reported as going on behind closed doors these past weeks and as having been completed or near completed.
If the latter, one has to suspect that the Rat leaders believe they have the votes. The public posturing by Pelosi and Hoyer in the last day or two may be simply a hope to get a final bite at the apple on a couple of specific points they are still negotiating with the Senate.
I have been of the view that the House would be easier for the Rats to pass than the Senate, because of the greater extent to which individual Rat House members are beholden to, and subject to discipline by, the Rat party machine, than senators. With the Chicago way of doing things, the party machine will threaten or bribe individual members, and the price would be a lot lower than for a senator.
So if the House RATS vote through the Senate bill and (after putting up fixes) the Senate cannot pass the House fixes, then the Reps have to campaign on having put through the Senate version.
Sweet for the RAT Senators. But the REPs can kiss their careers goodbye.
Got to wonder what Ben Nelson is wishing for at this point?
You're apply logic to a political process. Mistake number one.
So long as the President doesn't sign the Reconciliation Bill first, they (the Congress, to include both Houses) can pass legislation in whatever order they choose. While it's not frequently talked about, it's within the Speaker's authority to hold bills before being sent to the WH for signature. The only time such maneuvers are attempted, is usually when the majority is engaging in some Parliamentary shenanigans.
I’m emailing and calling but I’m also praying that G-d tkes care of a few more of those votes for us! Let’s say 2 in the house and atleast one more in the Senate.
What's the difference between that and the actions of a dictator?.......................NONE.
It's a little confusing. We're talking about two separate bills - The original Senate bill and the Reconciliation Bill, which would need to be passed by both House & Senate, but would need to originate in the Senate.
So, the House wouldn't vote on the Senate bill until after the Reconciliation bill passed both House & Senate (but held from the President for signature until after the original Senate bill passes the House). Follow me?
And they just keep digging a deeper hole for themselves!