Support NeoGAF

[Incognito]

http://haaretz.com/hasen/spages/1156467.html

Israel's ambassador to the United States, Michael Oren, has told the country's diplomats there that U.S.-Israeli relations face their worst crisis in 35 years, despite attempts by Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's office to project a sense of "business as usual."

Oren was speaking to the Israeli consuls general in a conference call on Saturday night.

...

Earlier Sunday, Netanyahu continued to consult with the forum of seven senior cabinet ministers over a list of demands that U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton made in a telephone conversation Friday.

Clinton harshly criticized the announcement last week of plans to expand the Ramat Shlomo neighborhood in East Jerusalem while U.S. Vice President Joe Biden was visiting Israel.

Haaretz has learned that Clinton's list includes at least four steps the United States expects Netanyahu to carry out to restore confidence in bilateral relations and permit the resumption of peace talks with the Palestinians.

1. Investigate the process that led to the announcement of the Ramat Shlomo construction plans in the middle of Biden's visit. The Americans seek an official response from Israel on whether this was a bureaucratic mistake or a deliberate act carried out for political reasons. Already on Saturday night, Netanyahu announced the convening of a committee to look into the issue.

2. Reverse the decision by the Jerusalem District Planning and Building Committee to approve construction of 1,600 new housing units in Ramat Shlomo.

3. Make a substantial gesture toward the Palestinians enabling the renewal of peace talks. The Americans suggested that hundreds of Palestinian prisoners be released, that the Israel Defense Forces withdraw from additional areas of the West Bank and transfer them to Palestinian control, that the siege of the Gaza Strip be eased and further roadblocks in the West Bank be removed.

4. Issue an official declaration that the talks with the Palestinians, even indirect talks, will deal with all the conflict's core issues - borders, refugees, Jerusalem, security arrangements, water and settlements.

...

In Oren's Saturday conference call with the Israeli consuls general, he said that the current crisis was the most serious with the Americans since a confrontation between Henry Kissinger and Yitzhak Rabin in 1975 over an American demand for a partial withdrawal from the Sinai Peninsula....

...Oren told participants in the conference call of a meeting he was summoned to on Friday with Deputy Secretary of State James Steinberg for a reprimand. Oren spoke of his surprise at being summoned after believing that the crisis had ended on Thursday.

"Steinberg read to me from the [American] letter of protest, whose content was extremely harsh," Oren reportedly said. Despite several requests for a reaction from the embassy, no response was forthcoming at press time.

 

[SouthernDragon]

And America starts to find it's collective testicles re: Israel.

 

[JoeBoy101]

http://notlarrysabato.typepad.com/doh/2010/03/cooch-gone-wild.html

Call it my half-assed defense that it is a POSSIBILITY that Obama was born in Kenya. Its also a POSSIBILITY that tomorrow the sun will turn into a bran muffin.

 

[Particle Physicist]

Call it my half-assed defense that it is a POSSIBILITY that Obama was born in Kenya. Its also a POSSIBILITY that tomorrow the sun will turn into a bran muffin.

I disagree. Those are not possibilities in the realm of reality.

 

[mckmas8808]

Why is the president of the US afraid of standing up to Israel? Apparently even criticizing them is crossing the line according to AIPAC.

Because you will lose Flordia and maybe some other states in a national election. But as that article put it, what Israel did is putting American troops in danger. So now Washington has figured out American troops > Israel.

And if that's true then maybe we will keep saying nasty stuff about their decision. And maybe just maybe we will actually pull some financial support from Israel show them our stick.

 

[JoeBoy101]

I disagree. Those are not possibilities in the realm of reality.

Ah, but reality is defined by what we know and understand of science, logic, etc. When talking whether something is possible, it can go beyond the realm of reasonable into fantasy. In other words, I think he was weaseling with lawyer definitions as opposed to just being straightforward. Whether it was to avoid angering birthers or because he really is one, I leave to the audience. Either way, makes him look like a raving idiot.

 

[mckmas8808]

Ah, but reality is defined by what we know and understand of science, logic, etc. When talking whether something is possible, it can go beyond the realm of reasonable into fantasy. In other words, I think he was weaseling with lawyer definitions as opposed to just being straightforward. Whether it was to avoid angering birthers or because he really is one, I leave to the audience. Either way, makes him look like a raving idiot.

Man screw that noise. That guy was agreeing that he (like many birthers) believes Obama may not be an American citizen. Straight up! Stop taking up for these dumb ass people JoeBoy! At some point many here will begin to think that you are a Teapartier or a birther sympathizer yourself.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Gibbs says health care will be law by next Sunday
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002607/

Hard to believe him after this roller coaster ride. But whenever it passes I wonder what the reaction will be on the right. They've billed this as the apocalypse for some time now, so when it finally passes will there be some massive protest/march/whatever, will republicans sign a pledge to repeal it, etc.

They'll be able to fear monger for years considering many provisions don't go into effect for years.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

Gibbs says health care will be law by next Sunday
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002607/

Hard to believe him after this roller coaster ride. But whenever it passes I wonder what the reaction will be on the right. They've billed this as the apocalypse for some time now, so when it finally passes will there be some massive protest/march/whatever, will republicans sign a pledge to repeal it, etc.

They'll be able to fear monger for years considering many provisions don't go into effect for years.

Folks can say all that they want that dems don't have the votes but I will tell you this, there is no way that Pelosi and other front and center dems would show such confidence without being 99% sure it will pass. I will go out on a limb (not really) and say when this passes and becomes law, it will catapult Obama and the dems into much success come November. By much success I say they will lose neither the House nor the Senate.

 

[speculawyer]

But how we gonna bring back Jeebus?

 

[speculawyer]

Call it my half-assed defense that it is a POSSIBILITY that Obama was born in Kenya. Its also a POSSIBILITY that tomorrow the sun will turn into a bran muffin.

Well, should the evening news start with a story about the POSSIBILITY that the sun will turn into a bran muffin?

Should NASA form a team to study the problem of the POSSIBILITY that tomorrow the sun will turn into a bran muffin?

Would those be good uses of resources?

 

[mckmas8808]

Gibbs says health care will be law by next Sunday
http://www.dailykos.com/tv/w/002607/

Hard to believe him after this roller coaster ride. But whenever it passes I wonder what the reaction will be on the right. They've billed this as the apocalypse for some time now, so when it finally passes will there be some massive protest/march/whatever, will republicans sign a pledge to repeal it, etc.

They'll be able to fear monger for years considering many provisions don't go into effect for years.

I don't think this is a good idea. I don't really like seeing the White House this precise unless they are 1000% sure it's going to pass.

And no the right won't run to repeal it. If they do, they will probably win less seats this November.

 

[ClovingWestbrook]

I don't think this is a good idea. I don't really like seeing the White House this precise unless they are 1000% sure it's going to pass.

And no the right won't run to repeal it. If they do, they will probably win less seats this November.

I disagree. I prefer to see them this confident. Coming out and saying "Its going to pass" is much better than being Debbie Downers and not showing confidence. They most likely have the votes but just aren't saying so publicly.

 

[PhoenixDark]

The confidence is a welcome thing, I just hope it's true. And I hope the senate quickly follows through with the reconciliation bill vote; of course the second Obama signs the bill we'll hear lots of stories about the Nebraska deal and some of the other stuff to be taken out of the bill.

 

[cntr]

The Morning Plum
from The Plum Line by Greg Sargent

* This is it — the final week that determines whether the year-long push by Dems to overhaul the health care system produces a historic victory, or collapses in failure. Okay, it may be the week that determines this. The health care narrative has taken more twists and turns than a Slinky. The only certainty right now is that nothing is certain.

But here’s something we do know. With the final, frenzied push to round up votes in the House for the Senate bill kicking off today — the reconciliation fix will be released this week, followed by a vote set for Friday or Saturday — the sobering reality is this: Every single House Dem’s decision has the potential to be decisive.

* Obama is set to take his health care road show to Dennis Kucinich’s Ohio district today, but the Congressman is still saying he doesn’t “think” he can vote for the Senate bill.

* And: Virginia Rep Rick Boucher, a former Yes, is now strongly leaning No.

* But: National Republicans are convinced two key House Dems who were undecided — Scott Murphy and Bill Owens — have moved into the Yes camp. The NRCC has concluded this because both Dems have enjoyed strong backing from the SEIU, which has been privately sounding out House Dems and pledging to yank support from No votes.

* Jonathan Cohn offers a useful procedural roadmap.

* Nate Silver runs the numbers on House Dems and emerges cautiously optimistic.

* David Dayen’s whip counts have been very useful, and here’s the latest.

* Pressure from the left ramps up: MoveOn asks members chip into a new fund for primary challengers to any House Dems who vote No.

* Ad spending is set to approach $1 million per day.

* Joe Klein wonders whether AIPAC will side with Israel over its ill-timed announcement of new housing in East Jerusalem, proving that they “approve of foreign leaders who insult the American Vice President (and, by extension, the President).”

* Whereupon AIPAC promptly sides with Israel.

* And: U.S. officials are reportedly pressuring the Israelis to scrap the plan.

* New DNC Web vid slams Pat Toomey for opposing job creation, another sign that Dems have placed their chips on an economic turnaround.

* And an interesting point from Brad DeLong, who notes that filibuster reform is inevitable and that the only outstanding question is who ends up reforming it:

The Democratic Party has a choice: it can either break the filibuster when it has the majority, or it can let Republicans stall and then let them break the filibuster when they have the majority.​

 

[mckmas8808]

I disagree. I prefer to see them this confident. Coming out and saying "Its going to pass" is much better than being Debbie Downers and not showing confidence. They most likely have the votes but just aren't saying so publicly.

If they have the votes then I don't mind them saying this. But I don't think they have the votes.

But it doesn't matter. At the end of the day all I care about is the bill passing. So I hope they know what they are doing.

 

[cntr]

 

[JoeBoy101]

Man screw that noise. That guy was agreeing that he (like many birthers) believes Obama may not be an American citizen. Straight up! Stop taking up for these dumb ass people JoeBoy! At some point many here will begin to think that you are a Teapartier or a birther sympathizer yourself.

Did you miss the part where I called him a raving idiot?

Well, should the evening news start with a story about the POSSIBILITY that the sun will turn into a bran muffin?

Should NASA form a team to study the problem of the POSSIBILITY that tomorrow the sun will turn into a bran muffin?

Would those be good uses of resources?

I would like to think that journalism is a little more responsible than just to run with that.

*waits for the laughter to subside*

Alright, well to not look like raving idiots, they would have to show some good reason or proof why its a possibility. The good AG has neither, much like the rest of the birthers, so it puts him with a grasp of reality right up there with Jim Ignatowski.

 

[mckmas8808]

Obama talking about Health care reform in Dennis Kucinich’s Ohio district right now on MSNBC for anybody interested.

 

[Zero Hero]

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/c_03152010_520.gif[IMG][/QUOTE]

:D

 

[GhaleonEB]

A few random things:

A screenshot of what the cable news channels were covering at 10:11AM Pacific time​

Pelosi met today with some bloggers to talk about the final push to pass the bill. A few reports on that here and here.

And an article going over the full-court press before the vote - Obama has been meeting 1:1 with undecided or 'no' vote Dems and will be doing so all week.

Meanwhile, still no CBO score, the lack of which threatens to throw the entire timing into disarray. They expected it over a week ago.

 

[mckmas8808]

Obama just called out Dennis Kunicich live on TV about doing what's right and voting for the bill. Took me by surprise.

 

[CharlieDigital]

Kind of slightly tangential, but I caught a good piece on This American Life last night: "Act Two. I'd Like to Spank the Academy."

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/402/save-the-day

It's a great little episode that succinctly summarizes the state of political discourse today.

Edit: Actually, it relates nicely to the recent discussions around the Texas state education curriculum changes in the context of basic information and knowledge vs critical thinking.

 

[PhoenixDark]

Interesting insight on the process of passing the bill in the house. Technically the house won't be passing a bill that includes the Nebraska and Florida deals afterall

"My biggest fight has been between those who wanted to do something incremental and those who wanted to do something comprehensive," Nancy Pelosi said in a meeting with reporters this morning. "We won that fight, and once we kick through this door, there'll be more legislation to follow."

Easier said than done, as anyone who's been watching this process knows. Democrats have been on the verge of passing health-care reform for many months now, but for all the doors they've kicked in, they've found more doors waiting on the other side. But today, Pelosi made her clearest statements yet on how she means to finish this bill. There are a number of options on the table for passing the Senate legislation and the reconciliation fixes -- fixes, Pelosi said, that include the elimination of the Nebraska and Florida deals, the delay of the excise tax, more affordability and oversight provisions and more funding of community health centers -- but Pelosi favors the “deem and pass” strategy.

Here's how that will work: Rather than passing the Senate bill and then passing the fixes, the House will pass the fixes under a rule that says the House "deems" the Senate bill passed after the House passes the fixes.

The virtue of this, for Pelosi's members, is that they don't actually vote on the Senate bill. They only vote on the reconciliation package. But their vote on the reconciliation package functions as a vote on the Senate bill. The difference is semantic, but the bottom line is this: When the House votes on the reconciliation fixes, the Senate bill is passed, even if the Senate hasn't voted on the reconciliation fixes, and even though the House never specifically voted on the Senate bill.

It's a circuitous strategy born of necessity. Pelosi doesn't have votes for the Senate bill without the reconciliation package. But the Senate parliamentarian said that the Senate bill must be signed into law before the reconciliation package can be signed into law. That removed Pelosi's favored option of passing the reconciliation fixes before passing the Senate bill. So now the House will vote on reconciliation explicitly and the Senate bill implicitly, which is politically easier, even though the effect is not any different than if Congress were to pass the Senate bill first and pass the reconciliation fixes after. This is all about plausible deniability for House members who don't want to vote for the Senate bill, although I doubt many voters will find the denials plausible.

But the question remains: Will the bill pass? Pelosi seems confident. "I have no intention of not passing this bill," she said. Her political argument was a lot clearer than her procedural preference. Time, she argued, has been the Democrats' worst enemy. "Every interest group that doesn't want this bill, including the Republicans, benefits from continued delay." The absence of a single bill that's not changing or being merged or being amended has meant that Democrats can't explain what's actually in the bill with any confidence or clarity.

That will end in a matter of days. "The bill is locked down," Pelosi says. "We're just waiting for the Congressional Budget Office." When the bill emerges, Democrats will be able to say "definitively" what is in it. And then, Pelosi believes, her caucus will see that this is "the most important bill most of us will ever pass," that it is legislation on par "with Social Security and Medicare." The bottom line, Pelosi says, is that "I have faith in my members." In a couple of days, we'll see if that faith is well-founded.

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/nancy_pelosis_strategy_for_pas.html

 

[Pimpwerx]

Obama just called out Dennis Kunicich live on TV about doing what's right and voting for the bill. Took me by surprise.

Someone should have yelled back, "why didn't you do what's right and push for the widely-supported public option." I guess loud-mouthed protesters don't show up at the right events. PEACE.

 

[mckmas8808]

Interesting insight on the process of passing the bill in the house. Technically the house won't be passing a bill that includes the Nebraska and Florida deals afterall

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/nancy_pelosis_strategy_for_pas.html

Very smart on Pelosi's end. If this passes she will go down in the history books as one of the most influential women in American politics ever!

 

[spiderman123]

I from Canada and I hope you Americans get you health care honestly It sucks when you hear stories about ppl suffering just out of spite/profit/greed.......but though I like Obama i fell that he really needs to get rid of Rahm Emanuel that guy is hijacking his office with alot of B.S I personally believe that you guyz would have a public option if Rahm wasn't there.

 

[spiderman123]

A few random things:

A screenshot of what the cable news channels were covering at 10:11AM Pacific time​

Pelosi met today with some bloggers to talk about the final push to pass the bill. A few reports on that here and here.

And an article going over the full-court press before the vote - Obama has been meeting 1:1 with undecided or 'no' vote Dems and will be doing so all week.

Meanwhile, still no CBO score, the lack of which threatens to throw the entire timing into disarray. They expected it over a week ago.

LOL when does FOX news care about the president. Seriously hahaha love it when John Stewart and Colbert rip Fox and Mad Cow disease Glenn Beck

 

[JoeBoy101]

Interesting insight on the process of passing the bill in the house. Technically the house won't be passing a bill that includes the Nebraska and Florida deals afterall

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/nancy_pelosis_strategy_for_pas.html

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion

To become law—hence eligible for amendment via reconciliation—the Senate health-care bill must actually be signed into law. The Constitution speaks directly to how that is done. According to Article I, Section 7, in order for a “Bill” to “become a Law,” it “shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate” and be “presented to the President of the United States” for signature or veto. Unless a bill actually has “passed” both Houses, it cannot be presented to the president and cannot become a law.To be sure, each House of Congress has power to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.” Each house can thus determine how much debate to permit, whether to allow amendments from the floor, and even to require supermajority votes for some types of proceeding. But House and Senate rules cannot dispense with the bare-bones requirements of the Constitution. Under Article I, Section 7, passage of one bill cannot be deemed to be enactment of another.

The Slaughter solution attempts to allow the House to pass the Senate bill, plus a bill amending it, with a single vote. The senators would then vote only on the amendatory bill. But this means that no single bill will have passed both houses in the same form. As the Supreme Court wrote in Clinton v. City of New York (1998), a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”

These constitutional rules set forth in Article I are not mere exercises in formalism. They ensure the democratic accountability of our representatives. Under Section 7, no bill can become law unless it is put up for public vote by both houses of Congress, and under Section 5 “the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question . . . shall be entered on the Journal.” These requirements enable the people to evaluate whether their representatives are promoting their interests and the public good. Democratic leaders have not announced whether they will pursue the Slaughter solution. But the very purpose of it is to enable members of the House to vote for something without appearing to do so. The Constitution was drafted to prevent that.

The Slaughter Rule is going to drag this out much further than trying anything else.

 

[gcubed]

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704416904575121532877077328.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEFTTopOpinion



The Slaughter Rule is going to drag this out much further than trying anything else.

beyond that, i thought it was already shot down by the senate parliamentarian a few days go... unless the linked article was old

 

[GhaleonEB]

beyond that, i thought it was already shot down by the senate parliamentarian a few days go... unless the linked article was old

The Senate parliamentarian is just that - he rules on Senate procedure. The rules in the House are different. The House can pass both the healthcare bill and the reconciliation bill at once, but Obama needs to sign the former before the Senate can pass their reconciliation bill.

What they're doing with the bill is not new, or especially creative. (Or smart, but that's another issue.)

 

[mckmas8808]

The Senate parliamentarian is just that - he rules on Senate procedure. The rules in the House are different. The House can pass both the healthcare bill and the reconciliation bill at once, but Obama needs to sign the former before the Senate can pass their reconciliation bill.

What they're doing with the bill is not new, or especially creative. (Or smart, but that's another issue.)

Why don't you believe it's smart? Is it because it could possibly be ruled down in the Supreme Court and HCR bill could be deemed unconstitutional? Or are you saying it's not politically smart?

 

[gcubed]

Why don't you believe it's smart? Is it because it could possibly be ruled done in the Supreme Court and HCR bill could be deemed unconstitutional? Or are you saying it's not politically smart?

i'm sure it would cause more a shitstorm then it would prevent

 

[Blergmeister]

So with the way the House is passing the reconciliation bill without passing the original Senate Bill, and say the Senate then does not pass the reconciliation bill... does that mean that the bill is dead or that the Senate Bill passes the house without the reconcilation piece with it?

I'm sure that the Democrats will have their act together and that its just a formality for all the votes to go through if they even attempt this, I'm just curious.

 

[Matt]

So with the way the House is passing the reconciliation bill without passing the original Senate Bill, and say the Senate then does not pass the reconciliation bill... does that mean that the bill is dead or that the Senate Bill passes the house without the reconcilation piece with it?

I'm sure that the Democrats will have their act together and that its just a formality for all the votes to go through if they even attempt this, I'm just curious.

No.

Once the House passes the Senate bill (either by itself or with the reconciliation bill), health care reform is PASSED, and just needs the President to sign it.

 

[cntr]

TPMDC Morning Roundup
from TPMDC by Eric Kleefeld

Millions Being Spent On Health Care Reform TV Ads
CNN reports that spending on TV ads about health care reform could reach $1 million per day this week, as interest groups attempt to influence the final votes in Congress. Evan Tracey, president of the Campaign Media Analysis Group, noted that interest groups spent a combined $200 million on ads in 2009, and at peak levels were exceeding $1 million per day.

Obama's Day Ahead
President Obama will lave the White House at 10:40 a.m. ET, and depart from Andrews Air Force Base at 10:55 a.m. ET, arriving at 12:05 p.m. ET in Cleveland, Ohio. He will deliver remarks on health care reform at 1:05 p.m. ET, then depart from Cleveland at 2:25 p.m. ET. He will arrive back at Andrews Air Force Base at 3:35 p.m. ET, and at the White House at 3:50 p.m. ET. He will meet at 4:15 p.m. ET with senior advisers.

Biden's Day Ahead
Vice President Biden will travel in the morning to Cincinnati, Ohio. He will attend an event at 1:15 p.m. ET for Rep. Steve Driehaus (D-OH). AFterwards, he will travel to Cleveland, where he will attend an event for Gov. Ted Strickland. He will return to Washington in the evening.

Report: Israeli Ambassador Says 'Historic Crisis' In Relationship With U.S.
Israeli Ambassador to the United States Michael Oren has reportedly pronounced that there is a "historic crisis" in the relationship between his country and America. "Israel's ties with the United States are in their worst crisis since 1975 ... a crisis of historic proportions," Oren reportedly told a briefing of other Israeli diplomats, according to the newspaper Yedioth Ahronoth.

Dodd To Roll Out Financial Reform Proposal
Sen. Chris Dodd (D-CT) is set to unveil his financial regulation proposal today, though he has not won any Republican support and has also faced criticism from some Democrats and consumer advocates. "Members have to make up their minds," Dodd told the Associated Press. "While they may not like everything here, I'm not going to give them much room to say we shouldn't do anything."

Roll Call: GOP Split Over Earmarks
Roll Call reports that Congressional Republicans are divided on whether to ban earmarks. Senate Republicans will meet this week to discuss whether to follow their House colleagues with a moratorium on earmarks. Meanwhile, one unnamed House Republicans said it was a move forced by the leadership, and another House GOPer said it might have been rejected it had been decided on a secret ballot.

House Dems Say Move On Student Loans Could Win Health Care Votes
The Hill reports that senior House Democrats believe they could be able to gain votes for the health care bill by attaching a student aid bill, which previously passed the House with 247 Democratic votes. "It makes it easier for people to vote for this bill," said Rep. George Miller (D-CA), chairman of the House Education and Labor Committee.​

 

[JoeBoy101]

So with the way the House is passing the reconciliation bill without passing the original Senate Bill, and say the Senate then does not pass the reconciliation bill... does that mean that the bill is dead or that the Senate Bill passes the house without the reconcilation piece with it?

I'm sure that the Democrats will have their act together and that its just a formality for all the votes to go through if they even attempt this, I'm just curious.

Its not the reconciliation bill, but the amendment bill. Essentially, if I have it right (which might be a big if) the House wants to pass an amendment bill that would count as them passing the senate bill, even though not voting on the senate bill. Then the whole shebang, amendment bill and senate bill, goes to Obama for signature. Then, with his signature, the bill comes back to the Senate for reconciliation.

That's assuming it all goes according to plan. Frankly, if they go this route, expect legal challenges and alot of them. In effect, if they go this route, the Supreme Court will likely get dragged into it.

No.

Once the House passes the Senate bill (either by itself or with the reconciliation bill), health care reform is PASSED, and just needs the President to sign it.

Problem is, the House would not be voting on the Senate bill, but on their Amendment bill. That's where the whole rub arises from. Each congressional housing passing different versions.

 

[gcubed]

Its not the reconciliation bill, but the amendment bill. Essentially, if I have it right (which might be a big if) the House wants to pass an amendment bill that would count as them passing the senate bill, even though not voting on the senate bill. Then the whole shebang, amendment bill and senate bill, goes to Obama for signature. Then, with his signature, the bill comes back to the Senate for reconciliation.

That's assuming it all goes according to plan. Frankly, if they go this route, expect legal challenges and alot of them. In effect, if they go this route, the Supreme Court will likely get dragged into it.



Problem is, the House would not be voting on the Senate bill, but on their Amendment bill. That's where the whole rub arises from. Each congressional housing passing different versions.

the house would vote on the senate bill with the fixes already applied, then back to the senate to vote on the fixes only via reconciliation... imo it makes things more complicated then they need to be

 

[Blergmeister]

Your responses are helpful but I don't think I had my main question answered. What happens to the bill if the Senate fails on their part?

 

[Skiptastic]

Very smart on Pelosi's end. If this passes she will go down in the history books as one of the most influential women in American politics ever!

Yeah, the American people are going to understand that House members didn't really vote for the health care bill, they just voted on fixes to the health care bill that was implicitly understood as passed once they voted on those fixes. The American people will smile knowingly, give an approving nod, and say, "I see what you did there" before breaking into a slow clap.

 

[Matt]

Problem is, the House would not be voting on the Senate bill, but on their Amendment bill. That's where the whole rub arises from. Each congressional housing passing different versions.

No, that's not what the case would be. If the so-called "Slaughter Rule" is used, the House would be passing the Senate bill, and also passing another, separate bill. It would not be one big bill.

 

[JoeBoy101]

Your responses are helpful but I don't think I had my main question answered. What happens to the bill if the Senate fails on their part?

Well, if the Senate fails on Reconciliation (and assuming everything else succeeds), then you get the Senate healthcare bill as is.

 

[Blergmeister]

Well, if the Senate fails on Reconciliation (and assuming everything else succeeds), then you get the Senate healthcare bill as is.

Thats what I thought but the process the healthcare bills is following it leaves me confused. So then if there were court hearings on this they would only be able to touch things in the reconciliation portion of the bill, not the Senate bill, since the way reconciliation was handled was the wierd part?

 

[Matt]

Thats what I thought but the process the healthcare bills is following it leaves me confused. So then if there were court hearings on this they would only be able to touch things in the reconciliation portion of the bill, not the Senate bill, since the way reconciliation was handled was the wierd part?

Court hearings on what exactly?

 

[JoeBoy101]

Court hearings on what exactly?

The House can pass the self-execution rule (aka Slaughter rule) and send it to the President for signature. The legality argument arises from a position that the President would be signing a bill that has not passed in both Houses. The Senate bill would have, but that amendment bill from the House would not have. But the Senate cannot do reconciliation without a signed bill.

 

[gcubed]

The House can pass the self-execution rule (aka Slaughter rule) and send it to the President for signature. The legality argument arises from a position that the President would be signing a bill that has not passed in both Houses. The Senate bill would have, but that amendment bill from the House would not have. But the Senate cannot do reconciliation without a signed bill.

the average citizen would have no idea what was going on, and the noise machine will be pretty good at saying "Dems are trampling on the constitution!", and its just bringing way more problems then making it appear that house dems didnt vote for the senate hand outs

 

[Matt]

The House can pass the self-execution rule (aka Slaughter rule) and send it to the President for signature. The legality argument arises from a position that the President would be signing a bill that has not passed in both Houses. The Senate bill would have, but that amendment bill from the House would not have. But the Senate cannot do reconciliation without a signed bill.

But again, that is NOT the case. The President would be signing the original Senate HC Bill, which would have passed the House in ADDITION to the reconciliation bill. Then, the Senate can vote on the reconciliation bill, and the President can sign that after it is passed.

The "Slaughter Rule" just allows two bills to pass under one vote, but the bills would still be separate pieces of legislation.

 

[worldrunover]

I'm consistently amazed how well the Republicans drive the argument. I have not heard one democrat properly explain reconciliation, i.e. that the senate bill, which got a 60-vote senate majority and will hopefully have a House majority, will be signed into law as-is before anything ever happens with reconciliation.

To someone not being a political wonk the GOP makes it sound like the dems are passing the bill via reconciliation, but that is not the case at all, and not how the process works. It just seems like democrats are afraid to even bring up the word, but if they just explained it, I think people would understand.

Also, lol @ Republicans saying they will run on a platform of repealing healthcare, since the bones of it (Senate Bill) will not be able to be repealed, just the extra stuff in reconciliation.

 

[JoeBoy101]

But again, that is NOT the case. The President would be signing the original Senate HC Bill, which would have passed the House in ADDITION to the reconciliation bill. Then, the Senate can vote on the reconciliation bill, and the President can sign that after it is passed.

The "Slaughter Rule" just allows two bills to pass under one vote, but the bills would still be separate pieces of legislation.

But the Senate Bill passed with changes. Your saying the House links the two bills together (amendments and original bill) for one vote. Then decouples them so only the original bill gets signed by Obama. Well, the House didn't vote JUST for the original bill, it voted for those amendments as well. So, it links for the House vote, unlinks for the Presidential signature, and then re-links again for the Senate?

Again, a legal challenge is likely and I don't think its going to be an easy sell for the Democrats.

 

[Matt]

But the Senate Bill passed with changes. Your saying the House links the two bills together (amendments and original bill) for one vote. Then decouples them so only the original bill gets signed by Obama. Well, the House didn't vote JUST for the original bill, it voted for those amendments as well. So, it links for the House vote, unlinks for the Presidential signature, and then re-links again for the Senate?

Again, a legal challenge is likely and I don't think its going to be an easy sell for the Democrats.

Ah, I see where your confusion is (I think). The reconciliation bill isn't "amendments," it is a whole different bill. The House will pass the original senate bill, with no changes, at the same time it passes the reconciliation bill. The President will then sign the HC bill, making it law. The Senate will then pass the reconciliation bill without any changes to it. Then the President will sign that. Done.

All the "Slaughter Rule" will do is allow two entirely separate pieces of legislation to pass with one vote. There is no coupling or decoupling, the Senate Bill will be passes as-is by the House.