Parliamentarian Ruling Kills an Option for Moving Health Bill

[Patranus]

It's almost scary how many of us get news from Matt Drudge, isn't it? I do, too, I admit it.

Contrary to popular beliefs, Drudge Report doesn't provide new rather provides links to reputable news sources.

 

[PokerGuy]

Before you make a BS claim like that, inform yourself:
http://pollingreport.com/health.htm

Those are meaningless. The people speak when they vote. VA, NJ, MA, and lots more to follow. Some dems are starting to get the picture while others won't get it until they all get swept out in November.

 

[PokerGuy]

They still don't need Republican votes, and will pass it with Reconciliation.

That's my point. You said at some point you gotta throw them under the train and keep rolling. That's been the dems approach all along, ignore the will of the people and ignore any republican input.

 

[theeedude]

Those are meaningless. The people speak when they vote. VA, NJ, MA, and lots more to follow. Some dems are starting to get the picture while others won't get it until they all get swept out in November.

Sure, people speak when they vote, and Democrats have majorities in both houses and the presidency. The people have spoken as to who they want to implement policy, including health care.

 

[theeedude]

That's my point. You said at some point you gotta throw them under the train and keep rolling. That's been the dems approach all along, ignore the will of the people and ignore any republican input.

Will of the people is for Democrats to have majorities and presidency, that is for Democrats to govern. Will of the people is also for Republicans to be irrelevant.

 

[PJABBER]

Will of the people is for Democrats to have majorities and presidency, that is for Democrats to govern. Will of the people is also for Republicans to be irrelevant.

Will you take that same view when the Republicans take over the Congress next year?

 

[spidey07]

Will of the people is for Democrats to have majorities and presidency, that is for Democrats to govern. Will of the people is also for Republicans to be irrelevant.

Scott Brown.

The will of the people is to STOP this healthcare bill.

 

[woolfe9999]

This sort of isn't news. The dems have been acting under the assumption that the House has to pass the Senate version as is, then a second bill modifying the first would pass by reconciliation. It would have been advantageous to the dems if they could have amended the bill in the Senate first, by way of reconciliation, because then they wouldn't have to ask the house dems they are courting to take it on faith that a reconciliation bill would pass after they agreed to vote on the first bill. Still, everything I've read says the dems have been assuming all along that this was the situation they are in.

- wolf

 

[PokerGuy]

Sure, people speak when they vote, and Democrats have majorities in both houses and the presidency. The people have spoken as to who they want to implement policy, including health care.

No, in November they spoke clearly and said they wanted change from the previous administration. Now that they see the disaster the current one is creating, they are starting to speak clearly in each election to show what they think of it.

 

[theeedude]

No, in November they spoke clearly and said they wanted change from the previous administration. Now that they see the disaster the current one is creating, they are starting to speak clearly in each election to show what they think of it.

Oh, OK, so because of November, consequences of all other elections don't matter?
That's not how it works, buddy. Democrats were given majorities by the voters. Live with it.

 

[PJABBER]

Oh, OK, so because of November, consequences of all other elections don't matter?
That's not how it works, buddy. Democrats were given majorities by the voters. Live with it.

One could easily argue that they won by a small margin, that they represented themselves as centrists and then, without paying a bit of attention to the will of the people, have ruled as leftists.

Oh well, it will be the Republicans' turn in a few months. Hope they learned THEIR lesson better than the Dems seem to have learned theirs.

 

[CrackRabbit]

Scott Brown.

The will of the people is to STOP this healthcare bill.

You know, at this point I want them to pass this health care bill just so I can laugh at your screams of impotent rage.

Nothing would make my world brighter to know that bigoted morons, like you, didn't get their way.

 

[thraashman]

Scott Brown.

The will of the people is to STOP this healthcare bill.

That's the single most retarded thing you have ever posted. You're basically saying that the only reason Scott Brown won is because he would vote against healthcare. That is by far the most ridiculous thing ever. The reason Scott Brown won was because his opponent was a bad choice and very unlikeable. She said multiple things that put her in the disfavor of the people.

 

[boomerang]

Oh, OK, so because of November, consequences of all other elections don't matter?
That's not how it works, buddy. Democrats were given majorities by the voters. Live with it.

I was going to say what a ridiculous argument before I realized it's no argument at all. Your inference is that the majority gets to make all the rules. It's a simplistic argument and anyone that had their head out of their ass would realize it.

What you're seeing going on right now in DC is the majority party being forced to bend to the will of the people. The people don't want this bill in the last form we saw it. They're making their desires known and the outcry is so massive that their reps have no choice but to listen.

Here's part of the problem.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KoE1R-xH5To&feature=youtu.be&a

"But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it." This statement is the height of ignorance.

 

[thraashman]

One could easily argue that they won by a small margin, that they represented themselves as centrists and then, without paying a bit of attention to the will of the people, have ruled as leftists.

Oh well, it will be the Republicans' turn in a few months. Hope they learned THEIR lesson better than the Dems seem to have learned theirs.

Leftists? Most of the Dems are just left of center and some are even right of center. The problem is that the Republicans are SOOO far to the right, that someone just right of center looks like a socialist to them now. I am what would be considered center left and every single dem is to the right of me from what I've seen of them.

The Mississippi school who cancelled their prom rather than let a lesbian couple attend are leftist in comparison to the current republicans.

 

[spidey07]

That's the single most retarded thing you have ever posted. You're basically saying that the only reason Scott Brown won is because he would vote against healthcare. That is by far the most ridiculous thing ever. The reason Scott Brown won was because his opponent was a bad choice and very unlikeable. She said multiple things that put her in the disfavor of the people.

Umm, the biggest part of his campaign was to be the 41st vote to defeat healthcare and eliminate dem super majority. Voters said that was the main reason they voted for him.

As it stands republicans have a very good chance of getting both house and senate and that will be an almost certainty if dems pass this with all the closed door deals.

 

[theeedude]

Umm, the biggest part of his campaign was to be the 41st vote to defeat healthcare and eliminate dem super majority. Voters said that was the main reason they voted for him.

As it stands republicans have a very good chance of getting both house and senate and that will be an almost certainty if dems pass this with all the closed door deals.

Sure, IF Republicans win both house, senate, and presidency, they can repeal "Obama care" I don't have a problem with that. But the current representation of the will of the people is that Democrats have that power, not Republicans, so Democrats get to govern. Just like GOP got to govern under Bush, you know the times you guys are all fighting to return🙂

 

[Fern]

This sort of isn't news.
-snip-

Sort of agree, except:

House Democratic leaders last week began looking at crafting a legislative rule that would allow the House to approve the Senate health care bill, but not forward it to Obama for his signature until the Senate clears the reconciliation package.

So the House leadership is stymied again.

Of course, (I suppose) there's no gaurantee that even with this maneouver the two chambers would agree upon a reconcilliation bill, but at least it would've gotten them around the 'trust issue' for the moment.

Procedural mechanics aside, it all still seems to come down to the House & Senate agreeing on a reconcillation bill. None of this sort of stuff looks like any indication they have.

So I must wonder are they really any closer to passing something substantive? They couldn't agree on the intial bills, can't agree on reconciling them either with only 50 votes needed this way. In a material way aren't they still stuck on square #1?

I imagine the pressure on Pelosi is considerable.

I don't see progressive helping either. I check out the Ed Shultz show, he's now back to strongly pressuring those Dem on his show to go back to the public option. That doesn't strike me as particualrly helpful at this point. I don't even see it as 'do-able' via reconcillation.

So yeah, probably not really news unless you're a political junkie interested in the minutiae of legislative procedure

Fern

 

[Throckmorton]

Scott Brown.

The will of the people is to STOP this healthcare bill.

The people are stupid, gullible, and misinformed. That's why they support what's in the bill, but think they oppose the bill. Thank goodness we are a Republic in which the right thing can sometimes override the "will of the people". If we weren't, we'd still have apartheid!

 

[Pens1566]

The people are stupid, gullible, and misinformed. That's why they support what's in the bill, but think they oppose the bill. Thank goodness we are a Republic in which the right thing can sometimes override the "will of the people". If we weren't, we'd still have apartheid!

What you're forgetting is that spidey would be ok with that.

 

[Fern]

That's the single most retarded thing you have ever posted. You're basically saying that the only reason Scott Brown won is because he would vote against healthcare. That is by far the most ridiculous thing ever. The reason Scott Brown won was because his opponent was a bad choice and very unlikeable. She said multiple things that put her in the disfavor of the people.

In addition to what spidey (accurately) points out, the Dem candidate was a successful experienced politician. She also beat several other Dem candidates in the primary. So she wasn't a bad candidate, nor unlikeable, by any stretch.

Maybe she should have campaigned harder, instead of thinking she had it in the bag. But she had a very big lead until the end. But I think events outside of her control doomed her. She was leading by a healthy margin until the backroom deals in HC reform became known. The Admins treatment of the Christmas bomber was also highly unpopular there IIRC. No, I think if she was unlikeable or a bad candidate she wouldn't have won previous elections, won the primary, or had a huge lead until near the end.

Fern

 

[woolfe9999]

Sort of agree, except:



So the House leadership is stymied again.

Of course, (I suppose) there's no gaurantee that even with this maneouver the two chambers would agree upon a reconcilliation bill, but at least it would've gotten them around the 'trust issue' for the moment.

Procedural mechanics aside, it all still seems to come down to the House & Senate agreeing on a reconcillation bill. None of this sort of stuff looks like any indication they have.

So I must wonder are they really any closer to passing something substantive? They couldn't agree on the intial bills, can't agree on reconciling them either with only 50 votes needed this way. In a material way aren't they still stuck on square #1?

I imagine the pressure on Pelosi is considerable.

I don't see progressive helping either. I check out the Ed Shultz show, he's now back to strongly pressuring those Dem on his show to go back to the public option. That doesn't strike me as particualrly helpful at this point. I don't even see it as 'do-able' via reconcillation.

So yeah, probably not really news unless you're a political junkie interested in the minutiae of legislative procedure

Fern

Totally agree here. I can't tell you whether or not Pelosi will come up with the votes. The idea of amending the Senate bill first was probably to help secure a few more votes by foreclosing the trust issue, but the real issue is how many dems they may lose on the abortion issue versus how many they can gain through various forms of compromize. Even with Massa exiting the picture, frankly the numbers don't look good enough to me, but we'll see.

- wolf

 

[woolfe9999]

In addition to what spidey (accurately) points out, the Dem candidate was a successful experienced politician. She also beat several other Dem candidates in the primary. So she wasn't a bad candidate, nor unlikeable, by any stretch.

Maybe she should have campaigned harder, instead of thinking she had it in the bag. But she had a very big lead until the end. But I think events outside of her control doomed her. She was leading by a healthy margin until the backroom deals in HC reform became known. The Admins treatment of the Christmas bomber was also highly unpopular there IIRC. No, I think if she was unlikeable or a bad candidate she wouldn't have won previous elections, won the primary, or had a huge lead until near the end.

Fern

I also tend to agree with this, that the Mass race was more about what was going on nationally than local factors having to do with the candidates. However, a piece of the puzzle that is missing here is the way progressives in the media - your aforementioned Ed Schultz being one example of a multitude - helped turn Mass liberals off to the healthcare bill, for reasons totally opposite of why conservatives opposed the bill. How many of these liberals either voted for Brown or sat out the election is an open question, but some polling data suggests it was a significant number for each.

- wolf

 

[shadow9d9]

Laughable.
The Democrats controlled the house (majority), senate (super majority), and white house for over a year and they couldn't agree on what THEY wanted.

You simply do not understand that the American people do not want the current legislation and the moderates in the Democratic party understand this.

Repeating lies don't make them true. They never had supermajority in the Senate. Lieberman is not a democrat and doesn't vote like one. Scumbag liars here.

 

[Patranus]

Repeating lies don't make them true. They never had supermajority in the Senate. Lieberman is not a democrat and doesn't vote like one. Scumbag liars here.

Lieberman caucuses with the Democrats and that makes him a Democrat for all intensive purposes. If Lieberman is so against the main stream Democrat party, why does the party allow him to continue to caucus with them?

The only lies here are the ones you tell yourself.