Redscape - View topic - Dems will do anything to push their health care agenda

Dems will do anything to push their health care agenda

Page 1 of 9 | Goto: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 next

Author

Topic

GMTom
Administrator

Mon Mar 08, 2010 8:36 am

http://www.foxnews.com/politic.....alth-care/

Democrat Eric Massa is being pushed out of office due to trumped up charges simply because he is one of the few Dems opposed to the health care bill.
Dirty politics once again, this time played on their own members. If you refuse to play ball their way, you get kicked out of the game!

posts: 8593 | location: Rochester, NY, North Coast USA | joined: 14 Feb 2000

Danivon
Ambassador

Mon Mar 08, 2010 9:46 am

Hmm. If he were not in such a 'casting vote' potential position, would you want the Dems to be ignoring such allegations against him? Contrast him with Rangel...

He's changed his story about why he's stepping down, which does not look too clean to me. First it was cancer, then the allegations came out, and now it's apparently because of his healthcare vote.

Hmmm.... he's protesting a little much, isn't he?

Mind you, how vital would his vote be anyway, after Nov 2010? It's hard to work that out as we don't know yet how the results would go (and whether his stance would be more popular). So it's only how things are now that counts - and he's still in place and can vote how he likes.

I'm not sure of the sums in the House, but I thought it was the Senate that was really giving the Dems a headache - the House wanted a stronger Bill.

_________________
World Cup 2010 - England

P 16(3) W 0 D 3 S 6(1) L 7(2) NMR 5
History

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Archduke Russell John I
Dignitary

Mon Mar 08, 2010 11:58 am

Danivon wrote:

I'm not sure of the sums in the House, but I thought it was the Senate that was really giving the Dems a headache - the House wanted a stronger Bill.

The problems are in the House right now Dan because the suggested process to get a Healthcare Bill passed. First we need to understand the original House bill passed with on a 5 vote margin. Three of the yeas and one No have either resigned to run for Governor or died. That gives the House only a 3 vote margin. Further, no other bill will most likely get through the Senate due to an inability to get enough votes for cloture on debate.

Therefore, it has been suggested that the House pass the Senate bill unamended so it can go to the President for signature. The problem is there are 3 different groups in the House Democratic Caucus that hates the Senate Bill. Each for difference reasons. Progessives hate it because it doesn't have anything as a national plan for healthcare. Everything is regional. Socially Conservative Democrats lead by Rep Stupak of Michigan hate it because it has weaker anti-abortion funding language and the Fiscal Conservative Democrats, or Blue Dogs, hate it because of all the special fiscal set asides like the "Cornhusker Kickback" or the additional $300,000 for Louisiana.

Unofficial whip counts are putting the Senate Bill losing in the House by about 35 votes. In order to convince enough of those House Dem's to vote Yes to the Senate Bill, it has been proposed after the Senate Bill is passed, a second bill making the changes to Senate Bill doing things like making Anti-abortion language stricter, stripping about the set asides and establishing a national exchange would be passed by the Senate(via reconciliation) and the House. However, it sounds like House rank and file Dem's are balking at the idea for at least two reasons. First is they don't trust the Senate to actually pass the bill. Second it would mean they would have to defend 2 additional votes on an extremely unpopular plan during the election in November.

_________________
"There is hardly a political question in the United States which does not sooner or later turn into a judicial one."

Alexis de Tocqueville (1805 -1859)

posts: 1761 | location: Philadelphia Pa | joined: 29 Jan 2003 | medals: 2

Jaundiced Jaffe
Ambassador

Mon Mar 08, 2010 1:31 pm

Even professional sausage makers have a hard time watching this.

JJ

posts: 1217 | location: Massachusetts, USA | joined: 08 Jun 2000 | medals: 6

Danivon
Ambassador

Tue Mar 09, 2010 12:33 pm

Archduke Russell John I wrote:

Danivon wrote:

I'm not sure of the sums in the House, but I thought it was the Senate that was really giving the Dems a headache - the House wanted a stronger Bill.

Hmmm. But wasn't Massa in favour of a stronger Bill? Wasn't he for Single Payer?

Why get rid of him, when it would be better to

a) try to convince him to take what he can get
b) if you are really as Machiavellian as Rahm is supposed to be, blackmail him to stay and vote the right way.

Quote:

Therefore, it has been suggested that the House pass the Senate bill unamended so it can go to the President for signature. The problem is there are 3 different groups in the House Democratic Caucus that hates the Senate Bill. Each for difference reasons. Progessives hate it because it doesn't have anything as a national plan for healthcare. Everything is regional. Socially Conservative Democrats lead by Rep Stupak of Michigan hate it because it has weaker anti-abortion funding language and the Fiscal Conservative Democrats, or Blue Dogs, hate it because of all the special fiscal set asides like the "Cornhusker Kickback" or the additional $300,000 for Louisiana.

The Progressives will have to take what they can get. Realistically they are not going to get national Single Payer, and they know it. Stupak would take some work, but would Republicans really object to his stronger amendment getting through reconciliation in the Senate?

And I thought that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was getting the boot anyway?

Quote:

Unofficial whip counts are putting the Senate Bill losing in the House by about 35 votes. In order to convince enough of those House Dem's to vote Yes to the Senate Bill, it has been proposed after the Senate Bill is passed, a second bill making the changes to Senate Bill doing things like making Anti-abortion language stricter, stripping about the set asides and establishing a national exchange would be passed by the Senate(via reconciliation) and the House. However, it sounds like House rank and file Dem's are balking at the idea for at least two reasons. First is they don't trust the Senate to actually pass the bill. Second it would mean they would have to defend 2 additional votes on an extremely unpopular plan during the election in November.

To be honest, I think that they have to factor in how unpopular they'll be with voters who do want reform. Liberals would likely stay away from the polls, making any Republican resurgence that much stronger.

Jeez, I thought that Labour were weak in power nowadays, but the Democrats are a bunch of kittens.

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Doctor Fate
Ambassador

Tue Mar 09, 2010 9:13 pm

Danivon wrote:

Hmm. If he were not in such a 'casting vote' potential position, would you want the Dems to be ignoring such allegations against him? Contrast him with Rangel...

I'm pretty confident he's forgotten to medicate.

However, I would contrast him with Rangel. How long has Rangel been under investigation? I'm not saying I buy Massa's story (a bit of consistency and a bit of evidence would not hurt), but Rangel's had more serious ethical charges over his head longer than just about any member of Congress I can remember. It was well over a year ago that Pelosi said the investigation was nearly over. They protected Rangel like a lioness protecting her cubs.

_________________
"I am not persuaded that 20,000 additional troops in Iraq is going to solve the sectarian violence there. In fact, I think it will do the reverse."--Senator Barack Obama, 2007

posts: 11322 | joined: 14 Jun 2002 | medals: 5

Danivon
Ambassador

Wed Mar 10, 2010 12:41 am

Yes, I can see that contrast. Could it be that rather than 'pushing out' Massa, they are in some way repaying his lack of loyalty by not standing by him. Loyalty is indeed a two-way street.

posts: 8531 | location: Rugby, Warwicksire, UK: Home of the oddly-shaped ball | joined: 15 Apr 2004

Archduke Russell John I
Dignitary

Wed Mar 10, 2010 7:40 am

Danivon wrote:

Well, he voted against the original House bill because it wasn't strong enough and has promised not to vote for the Senate Bill either. Additionally, I don't believe Massa was forced out for his vote. I believe he was forced out for the reason given. He hit on a dude. The Dems forced out two Republicans for doing the same thing. It would give the Republicans one more issue during a tight election. Since he is basically a nobody lacking any sort of power that can be sacrificed (as opposed to Rangel), the Dems did so instead of give the Rep's the issue.

Danivon wrote:

The Progressives will have to take what they can get. Realistically they are not going to get national Single Payer, and they know it.

This is a problem though because the Progressives always take what they can get. The go in with a stated position and then cave on it and accept the more moderate proposal. Therefore, nobody takes them seriously anymore and feels no need to even pay lipservice to their positions. Further, many of have signed the FireDogLake.com pledge to vote against any bill that does not include a strong public option.

Danivon wrote:

Stupak would take some work, but would Republicans really object to his stronger amendment getting through reconciliation in the Senate?

Well first off it might not even get that far. Reconciliation can only be used on Budget items and then only if it will reduce the deficit. Since the abortion language has no effect on the Budget it can't be passed by reconciliation. If the Dem's tried to slip it in, it would have to be approved by the Senate parlimentarian which is an non-partisan employee of the Senate and not one of the Members. Even if the parlimentarian agreed to allow it, the Republicans would definitely oppose it if it means 12 House Dem's won't vote for the Senate Bill causing it to fail.

Danivon wrote:

And I thought that the "Cornhusker Kickback" was getting the boot anyway?

The answer to that is yes and no. The Senate Bill passed with the "Cornhusker Kickback" (CH) in it. The original plan would have had it stripped out. However, that can't work now. I am going to try and explain this without being too verbose or condescending. If I fail, I apologize. Basically, the bill passed by the House has to say the exact same thing as the bill passes by the Senate. That means word for word exact. If the House makes any changes to the bill it has to go back to the Senate for new vote on passing, which means a new vote for cloture of debate before it can get its up or down vote. So, if the House passes the Senate Bill without the CH, or any of the other buy offs, in it, the bill would have to go back to the Senate before it could be signed by the President. If that happens, the bill will never leave the Senate because it will fail cloture.

Therefore the plan is for the House to pass the Senate Bill exactly as is with no modifications so it can go right to the President for signature. Then after that has happened, there will be a second bill passed by both Houses that says the previous exemption from increased Medicaid cost for Nebraska is revoked. This Bill will be done through the reconciliation to avoid the need for a cloture vote because the rules of Reconciliation specifically limit debate to 20 hours.

The problem is the House Blue Dog Dem's don't trust the Senate to pass the bill. The enmity between the House and the Senate is not new. There is an old story about a Freshman House member that sees a long time Incumbant of his party sharing lunch and a laugh with Members from the opposite party. When the FNG see the Old Guy later he asks him how he can be so friendly with the enemy. The Old Guy's response is they aren't the enemy. They're the opposition. The enemy is the Senate.

Danivon wrote:

The problem is most of the waivers are Conservative Democrats from districts that went for McCain by 60% or more in 2008 so most likely the people voting for them would be more unhappy with them for voting for the reform.

Danivon wrote:

Jeez, I thought that Labour were weak in power nowadays, but the Democrats are a bunch of kittens.

Hence why the claims that Republican obstructionism is the reason for the failure to pass the bill are a load of crap. The Dem's couldn't pass the bill when they had 60% majorities in both Houses. The problem is, if this were Europe, like the Republicans, the Democrats would actually be 3 different Parties. Basically what you are seeing is the equivalent of a 3-way coalition Government in a Parlimentary system trying to get a bill passed when the 3 parties to the Coalition can't agree.

posts: 1761 | location: Philadelphia Pa | joined: 29 Jan 2003 | medals: 2

Archduke Russell John I
Dignitary

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:00 am

I am also now hearing the Dem's are up to their old tricks as well. Apparently the healthcare reconciliation bill isn't going to be just about reforming the Senate Bill. Apparently, it is also going to include a complete overhaul of how student loans. Instead of the state by state approach now used, it will all be run through the Federal Department of Education.

posts: 1761 | location: Philadelphia Pa | joined: 29 Jan 2003 | medals: 2

Doctor Fate
Ambassador

Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:39 am

Archduke Russell John I wrote:

Yeah, but I want to mention this sort of thing in a new topic as it will stretch this one beyond all recognition.

Back on topic: Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is proposing a rule that, if passed, would "deem" the Senate bill passed in the House and permit them to amend the Senate bill without actually voting on it, thus taking the "trust" problem out of the picture. If that passes Constitutional muster, then the Constitution is now merely a suggestion.

Quote:

House leaders, Politico reports, are considering a self-executing rule – hoping to save their members from actually voting on the Senate bill. Such a move means the House would pass a rule saying if the Senate passes reconciliation, then they'll consider the Senate bill passed. If B is followed by C then A will be enacted. But, there's a problem with this strategy. Senate Budget Committee Chairman Kent Conrad, whose committee reconciliation must go through, says it's impossible to do “fixes” on a bill that hasn't already been signed into law. In other words, the House must pass the Senate bill – Louisiana Purchase, Cornhusker Deal and other warts included (you can just imagine the TV ads House Republicans are gleefully contemplating) -- and send it to Obama for his signature before the Senate can take up reconciliation. Those sweetheart deals are meant to be stripped in reconciliation. House and Senate negotiators have appealed to the parliamentarians to decide who is right and a decision is expected this week.

So, yeah, the Dems will do anything.

Amazing how Pelosi says it's "for the American people" and yet the polls show the people don't want THIS plan. Yes, they want some elements of it, but they really don't like THIS plan--or its costs.

posts: 11322 | joined: 14 Jun 2002 | medals: 5

Minister X
Dignitary

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:16 am

EDIT: cross-posting here with Steve, who seems to be editing his post. So grain of salt warning...

tmssteve wrote:

Back on topic: Louise Slaughter (D-NY) is proposing a rule that, if passed, would "deem" the Senate bill passed in the House and permit them to amend the Senate bill without actually voting on it, thus taking the "trust" problem out of the picture. If that passes Constitutional muster, then the Constitution is now merely a suggestion.

How about a source and a bit of even-handedness? Editing added...

Quote:

She is reportedly considering [not "is proposing"] putting forth a rule that would dictate that the Senate version of the bill is automatically passed through the chamber once the House passes a corrections bill making changes to it. [Which you conveniently didn't mention.]

Bad enough. Why distort?
____________________

JJ wrote:

Even professional sausage makers have a hard time watching this.

LOL. So true.

_________________
"What a book a devil's chaplain might write on the clumsy, wasteful, blundering, low, and horribly cruel works of nature!" - Charles Darwin

posts: 8254 | joined: 03 Jan 2002

Doctor Fate
Ambassador

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:59 am

Minister X wrote:

EDIT: cross-posting here with Steve, who seems to be editing his post. So grain of salt warning...

tmssteve wrote:

[not "is proposing"] putting forth a rule that would dictate that the Senate version of the bill is automatically passed through the chamber once the House passes a corrections bill making changes to it. [Which you conveniently didn't mention.]

Bad enough. Why distort?

She "is proposing" this in the sense that she's putting it out there as a possible solution. That's not "distorting" anything. That she hasn't officially "proposed" (as in "formally introduced") it in Congress is because she's having it checked for legality before running it by her leaders.

What she is proposing, putting forth, suggesting, and certainly more than musing about or it wouldn't have been reported by Time and elsewhere, is an end run around the Constitution. Well, okay, just so I don't distort anything: what she is checking into is something that has never been done in the history of the Republic.

Yeah, that's "bad enough," but no, I didn't "distort" anything.

posts: 11322 | joined: 14 Jun 2002 | medals: 5

Doctor Fate
Ambassador

Wed Mar 17, 2010 10:57 am

By now, I'm sure we've seen that my "allegation" (or whatever) about Slaughter was the direction this might be going. This bit of analysis from Politico is interesting:

Quote:

The so-called “Slaughter solution” for enacting health care reform without a conventional House vote on an identically worded Senate bill would be vulnerable to credible constitutional challenge, experts say.

No lawyer interviewed by POLITICO thought the constitutionality of the “deem and pass” approach being considered by House Democrats was an open-and-shut case either way. But most agreed that it could raise constitutional issues sufficiently credible that the Supreme Court might get interested, as it has in the past.

“If I were advising somebody," on whether deem and pass would run into constitutional trouble, "I would say to them, ‘Don’t do it,’” said Alan Morrison, a professor at the George Washington University Law School who has litigated similar issues before the Supreme Court on behalf of the watchdog organization Public Citizen. “What does ‘deem’ mean? In class I always say it means ‘let's pretend.’ 'Deems' means it's not true.”

Any challenge likely would be based on two Supreme Court rulings, one in 1983 and the other in 1998, in which the court held that there is only one way to enact a law under the Constitution: it must be passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the president.

In the more recent of the two rulings, a 1998 decision striking down the line-item veto, the court specifically said that the bills approved by both houses must contain the “the same text.” Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), for whom the procedure under consideration by House Democrats is now named, and Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) filed amicus briefs arguing for the result the court reached in the line-item veto case.

Btw, the President will be on the Evil Channel (Fox News) at 6 EDT tonight, being interviewed by Bret Baier.

posts: 11322 | joined: 14 Jun 2002 | medals: 5

Jaundiced Jaffe
Ambassador

Wed Mar 17, 2010 12:09 pm

It seems crazy to me to "pass" legislation that will slowly find its way to the Supreme Court. How are businesses and individuals supposed to plan their health care / finances with that kind of uncertainty on the horizon as to whether it applies.

I'll defer to the Archduke on this, but given that the Constitution has existed for over 200 years, it seems that this sort of basic constitutional question should not be on the table right now. I understand that there may not be an absolute clear precedent so far (there rarely is), but why would the Democrats offer up something so questionable from a basic constitutional perspective?

JJ

posts: 1217 | location: Massachusetts, USA | joined: 08 Jun 2000 | medals: 6

Doctor Fate
Ambassador

Wed Mar 17, 2010 2:20 pm

Jaundiced Jaffe wrote:

Furthermore, from a political perspective, I think it's a loser too. The only reasons for "deeming" is so some can claim not to have voted for it or so they can guarantee the Senate does what the House wants to the bill--or it won't pass. The first won't fly. This bill has received too much attention for sleight of hand to fool anyone. The second seems clearly unconstitutional--or murky at best.

Also, politically, the bill provides few benefits early on while jacking up taxes all over the place. My guess: they really see this as a revolutionary bill/program and want to enshrine it into law at any cost--even a disaster in November.

posts: 11322 | joined: 14 Jun 2002 | medals: 5

Page 1 of 9 | Goto: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 next

You cannot post new topics
You cannot reply to topics
You cannot edit your posts
You cannot delete your posts
You cannot vote in polls
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum

Jump to: