Posted on 02/22/2010 6:10:19 PM PST by eartotheground
For Democrats, the medicine cabinet is mostly empty, save for “a poisonous pill called reconciliation,” says Sen. Judd Gregg (R., N.H.), the ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee, to National Review Online. That’s the Senate budget procedure enabling a bill to pass with 51 votes. As Democrats plot to keep Obamacare alive, they seem ready to pop that pill and “swallow the consequences,” says Gregg. Before they try, Gregg cautions that such a maneuver is, “procedurally, an extremely heavy lift in the Senate” and “unrealistic.” Democrats, he says, should “learn the lessons of Massachusetts, and stop playing by the rules of San Francisco.”
Here’s what Gregg says we should be paying attention to: “In theory, if the Democrats choose to use reconciliation, they’d first have to pass the Senate bill as it stands and get it signed by the president. To get those House votes they’d have to buy off different constituencies by saying that they’ll pass a smaller, reconcilable ‘trailer bill’ in the Senate soon after the big bill passes. That trailer bill would probably have to go through the committee process — though the Democrats could try to skip the committees under reconciliation — before it goes to the floor.” Using a future “trailer bill” full of legislative goodies to pass the current Senate health-care bill is “heavy-handed gamesmanship,” says Gregg. “Technically, they could do it, by saying they’ll bring back corrections in reconciliation, but it would take extreme discipline.”
The biggest hurdle for Democrats is the Byrd rule, says Gregg. “Any piece of a reconciliation bill that is more about policy than budgetary activity will be subject to points of order and will need 60 votes to stay in the bill. Every sentence would be dissected. The bill would come in looking like a piece of legislation and leave as a piece of Swiss cheese. I just don’t see Democrats’ being able to sustain such a bill if they’re dealing with point of order after point of order.”
Eric Ueland, a former senior aide to Senate Republicans, agrees. “Reconciliation is being sold to House Democrats by the leadership as an appealing sidecar bill, but many of them are rightfully wary,” he says. “They know that reconciliation only lasts for five years, and they know that none of the fixes in reconciliation legislation can really be guaranteed, since the Byrd rule will let senators come in and riddle the bill with rifle shots.” And remember, Ueland says, “to even get to reconciliation, Democrats will have to scramble to figure out how all of the deals they cut can survive the process, which may be the least reconcilable part of all of this.”
If this is true, then why, pray tell, would they try to pull it off? Are they politically tone deaf?
Question is how far the Democrats are willing to change the rules. For example, the Parliamentarian can say this aspect of the bill cannot go through reconciliaton but this decision can be overruled by the VP as presiding officer of the Senate.
But, the problems that Gregg details in passing the Reconciliation bill are completely accurate.
I’m more optimistic after reading this, even if my head hurts.
Its true, recon is complicated and fraught with peril. Its all bluff. They won’t do it, they can’t do it, its over for the dems. Obamacare is dead, Obama is the worst president of all time, the dems are set up for a massacre next November, and Leftists have shown their hand and most everyone hates it.
It gives the government a direct veto or positive input in your choices of pleasures, diet, work, everything, because everything can be construed as impinging your health.
They're insane.
No. I'm serious.
Praying.
The leadership secrtetly doesn’t really care if a reconciliation bill passes at all. All they care about is getting the Senate bill passed by the House and signed into law. All this talk about reconciliation is a ruse to get House Dems to vote for the Senate bill by convincing them the bill can be fixed later with reconciliation.
Wow, hadn't thought of that.
They're insane.
No. I'm serious.
They are starting to resemble the telemarketer who won't take no for an answer, only, I cannot hang up!
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.
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/news/2408217/posts
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)
http://www.navytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w/
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
http://townhall.com/news/us/2010/02/19/obama_says_slight_fix_will_extend_social_security
Health Care Rationing for Seniors Another Problem in New Obama Plan
http://www.lifenews.com/bio3058.html
TRI CARE FOR LIFE This from a google search:
http://economicspolitics.blogspot.com/2009/05/tricare-for-life-is-obama-trying-to.html
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 enrollee’s 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.)
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/99xx/doc9925/12-18-HealthOptions.pdf
http://www.vawatchdog.org/09/hcva09/hcva110609-1.htm
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
http://www.armytimes.com/news/2009/10/military_tricarefees_blocked_100709w
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.
Snip
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.
Snip
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 can’t believe that a co-pay increase like this was allowed to go forward,” he added.
Bambi doesn't keep his promises...so buyer beware
If they cram it thru, borrow a page from the Libtards book and take it to court—all the way to the Supremes. With a temporary stay while under appeal it will be years before it could go into effect. By then Bozo will be gone. The Dims probably think we’re too dumb to go that route.
If the House votes for the Senate bill, it would have to go to conference committee and then could be filibustered.
Thanks so much for posting this! Based on an earlier article in WSJ about the same subject, I came to believe that reconciliation would never work for policy issues, and the parliamentarian would rule it out of order. Obamacare may be a crap sandwich, but reconciliation is fools gold.
No, if the House passes the Senate bill intact, instead of the House bill, Obama can just sign it and it's done.
Of course, since the Senate bill has many new revenue sources, and since revenue bills need to originate in the House, that would be unConstitutional - but the armies of socialism only march in one direction...
The House could pass the senate bill right now and no conference committee or further senate vote would be needed. The problem is that there aren't enough votes for the Senate bill right now in the House. That's why they want to do this reconciliation sidecar, to "fix" the Senate bill to make it palatable to House members so they will vote for the Senate bill.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.