[truthandlife]

FROM THE ARTICLE:

So what is the counter-move? How do opponents of Obamacare stop this?

Opponents cannot rely on liberal Democrats in the House who might balk at passing the Senate bill with just a “pledge” from 52 Senators. I have no doubt House liberals, despite their skepticism, will fade under pressure from Pelosi and Obama. They will do their duty and pass the Senate bill, whatever their current posturing.

Instead, the key to stopping the Pelosi-Reid plan lies with conservative or “moderate” Democrats who voted for the health care bill the first time.

There are 23 of these conservative-leaning Democratic House members who voted for Pelosi’s Obamacare back in November, which passed by just five votes, with 39 Democrats defecting to vote against the bill.

All 23 of these Congressman who did vote for the Pelosi bill are extremely vulnerable.

Opponents of Obamacare need to climb all over these 23 Congressmen with TV ads and advocacy campaigns in their districts to get them to change their vote this time, to vote “no” to the Senate bill when it comes before the House.

[Forgiven_Sinner]

Taking care of the liberals’ concerns is only half the equation. What will they do about the Blue Dog Democrats who won't vote for the Senate Bill without the Stupak amendment added in? And what about the Democrats who wish to retain their seats in the House?

Fortunately, this is Dick Morris’ opinion, who is often wrong.

[SirJohnBarleycorn]

It’s NO JOKE, folks.

The Rats could shove Obamacare down our throats, come what may.

Losing elections in November is a small price to them, for the goal of government control of all health care in the country.

[sickoflibs]

LOL

That is a plan?? Obama and the Senate has screwed house dems many times last year. Why would they buy this crap?

[Signalman]

These commie criminals must be stopped.

[Nateman]

I have an idea to fight this in the courts if necessary. Since Massachusetts changed the law ex-post facto to allow a temporary pick (Kirk) and Kirk voted to end the filibuster while the elected member (Brown) would have voted against it, all such critical votes (60/40) by Kirk such should be declared null and void because an unconstitutional method (ex-post facto) was used to obtain Kirks vote to get them.

[Burma Jones]

I’m as pessimistic and as suspicious of the other side as they come, but this doesn’t make sense. Pelosi had to beg, borrow and steal to get 220 votes for the House’s own bill, back in the happy days of early November. She’s now going to get 218 votes for the SENATE bill, with all its backroom deals that do House members no good, now, when they know they are all at risk and that O can’t ride to their rescue?

[MichaelAsher54]

[Windflier]

Behind closed doors Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members -- but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

Whiskey Tango Foxtrot, over?

Since when do the laws of our country allow anyone to make changes to a bill after it's been signed into law?

[Frantzie]

Thanks Newt. It passed the house by 3 votes. Later Cao switched and Wexler quit. This leaves one vote to the bill - tahnk you Newt and Dede in NY-23 for passing Hussein-Care.

[Thunder90]

The House components of the Healthcare bill will be attached to an upcoming budget, so it can be passed through reconciliation.

[Noob1999]

Great plan guys!

SCOTUS will be on that like stink on a buzzard!

[TexasFreeper2009]

This deal will be secured by a pledge from Reid and the Senate’s Democratic caucus that they will make “fixes” to the Senate bill after it becomes law with Obama’s John Hancock

um... they still need 60 to make any changes... this doesn’t make sense.

[yellowhammer]

To those of you who think that the Stupac bloc will be enough to block this, well, think again. As Morris has pointed out on his TV appearances, not all of the "NO" votes in the House can be counted on.
Once the House had enough votes last go 'round to pass the bill, those on the fence felt OK to vote "NO" because they weren't needed. But if Pelosi is short a few votes this time she can go "back to the well" and will be able to convince many of those to vote YES this time.

[Carry_Okie]

Behind closed doors Reid and Pelosi have agreed in principle that changes to the Senate bill will be made to satisfy liberal House members -- but only after the Senate bill is passed and signed into law by Obama.

Any crooked liberal pol stupid enough to take that kind of bait isn't worth the title.

[excopconservative]

If they pass this garbage bill, Pelosi may be the only Dem re-elected in the House, and if a local dog-catcher can be recruited to run against her, it could be a tight race.

[chilltherats]

So this is why Barney Frank has been “out there” talking down the filibuster and stating it’s not in the constitution (which is a red herring) - because they plan to do this without any of that ever coming into play. It’s also why they seated Brown so quickly and amicably.

The first step is to let the cat out the bag screaming and hollering. There has to be a campaign to alert the voters in the districts in which the House rep is vulnerable. He or she MUST grasp that we are onto this little game and they will lose their seat if they even consider going along with it.

We need a list of those House members. They must be targted loudly, daily, and kept in the spotlight.

The same can happen in the senate. They need 51 votes to do the after-the-fact amendments. They have 59 senators, 11 are vulnerable. We don’t know who the 52 are that Reid has in mind, but the math tells us that at least 4 are vulnerable. Target all 11 or ferret out who the 4 are who plan to go along with the amendments. Make their lives a living hell.

[OldDeckHand]

Of course, all of this ignores the Constitutional requirement that all revenue bills originate in the House. It makes it tough - and by tough, I mean unconstitutional - for the House to adopt the Senate bill with it containing so many provisions that increase revenue to the treasury, namely the so-called "Cadillac" tax.

Almost immediately, this law would be challenged in court, leaving the only question of "How much would the court strike?" Would they strike the entire bill, or would they strike just the revenue portions, which would probably be more likely. That could theoretically leave all the new insurance regulations, and the individual mandate intact.