House leaders plan separate health vote, rejecting 'deem and pass'

[Chappy]

Excerpted from “House leaders plan separate health vote, rejecting 'deem and pass'” By Lori Montgomery, Washington Post Staff Writer, The Washington Post, Saturday, March 20, 2010; 2:31 PM
[SIZE="+2"]H[/SIZE]ouse leaders have decided to take a separate vote on the Senate health-care bill, rejecting an earlier, much-criticized strategy that would have permitted them to "deem" the unpopular measure passed without an explicit vote.

Rep. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) said Saturday that the House would take three votes Sunday: first, on a resolution that will set the terms of debate; second, on a package of amendments to the Senate bill that have been demanded by House members; and third, on the Senate bill itself.

Van Hollen, who has been working on the issue with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), said House leaders concluded that that order -- approving the amendments before approving the Senate bill -- makes clear that the House intends to modify the Senate bill and not approve the Senate bill itself. …

I support two separate up and down House votes on the Senate bill and on the reconciliation bill. I am glad that the ‘deem and pass’ process will not be used to pass the most important health care initiative in nearly half a century.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

I support two separate up and down House votes on the Senate bill and on the reconciliation bill. I am glad that the ‘deem and pass’ process will not be used to pass the most important health care initiative in nearly half a century.

While I disagree on the bill, I'm glad you don't support the ethically challenged "deem and pass" rule.

 

[Deuce]

While I disagree on the bill, I'm glad you don't support the ethically challenged "deem and pass" rule.

Ethically challenged is a good word for it, along with the filibuster and reconciliation.

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Ethically challenged is a good word for it, along with the filibuster and reconciliation.

I don't mind a simple majority in the House but the Senate should always have a super majority vote.

Truth be told, if I had my way perfectly; all bills would require a super majority to become law and all repeals would require a 25% vote.

We have to many damn laws.

 

[The Prof]

leadership was all set on the DEEM as of THIS MORNING

something's changed

that's a very, very bad sign for passage

they now have to vote on the senate bill as is?

very dicey

why the change in approach so late?

obama just got finished addressing the caucus

he sounded first off very defensive

this is NOT a bad bill...

doing nothing is WORSE...

then, he became kinda beggarly

we really need you to do this...

i'll tell you, he did NOT sound confident

the room felt very sad, a lot like this forum

i was sincerely quite surprised

looks like something might be up

why was pelosi meeting with stupak this morning, only to call it off?

why are they still working it so hard?

why all the changes?

we'll see

 

[The Prof]

chief actuarial at hhs writes letter to mcconnell and fellow gop'ers, saying:

1. there is NO TIME to score the reconcile

2. by the white house's OWN FIGURING---hhs, jan 8---the senate bill bends the cost curve UP by 222B

3. it will also result in a shortage of services

Republican.Senate.Gov - Blogs

 

[The Prof]

rasmussen has pieface at an all time low approval of 43%

against FIFTY SIX PERCENT PISSED OFF!

Daily Presidential Tracking Poll - Rasmussen Reports

ouch!

DEEMS damn

even when they're DUMPED

da noib!

rasmussen was the #1 pollster in the nation in 08, he pegged obama/mccain within one point

he's also number one in 04 and 06

http://www.fordham.edu/images/acade...ccuracy in the 2008 presidential election.pdf

sorry

scott rasmussen, by the way, is the creator of espn, a little human interest

 

[Deuce]

I don't mind a simple majority in the House but the Senate should always have a super majority vote.

Truth be told, if I had my way perfectly; all bills would require a super majority to become law and all repeals would require a 25% vote.

We have to many damn laws.

Why should the Senate require a super majority?

If you had your way, we'd never have won WW2.

 

[RightinNYC]

Why should the Senate require a super majority?

If you had your way, we'd never have won WW2.

The votes to declare war against Japan, Germany, and Italy were 82-0, 88-0, and 90-0 respectively. How do you figure that the filibuster would have made us lose WWII?

 

[Deuce]

The votes to declare war against Japan, Germany, and Italy were 82-0, 88-0, and 90-0 respectively. How do you figure that the filibuster would have made us lose WWII?

More than 25% voted against the lend-lease act, for instance. There were a lot of other war provisions that I'm sure more than 25% might have voted against if that were enough to repeal something. However, that's off-topic and I'm not willing to put any more effort into researching it

 

[Chappy]

Since this thread is about the House and not the Senate, and the House leadership's wise decision to hold two separate votes, the first on the reconciliation bill and only the second on the Senate's flawed health care reform bill; I wonder what people think about that: we pass the corrections first, then the underlying bill.

I say: whatever!

 

[Harry Guerrilla]

Why should the Senate require a super majority?

To check the power of the people.
The mob can act irrationally, just as much as any other branch of government.

If you had your way, we'd never have won WW2.

And the terrorists would win, right?

 

[The Mark]

Since this thread is about the House and not the Senate, and the House leadership's wise decision to hold two separate votes, the first on the reconciliation bill and only the second on the Senate's flawed health care reform bill; I wonder what people think about that: we pass the corrections first, then the underlying bill.

I say: whatever!

No, they vote on one, then the other. Passage is not guaranteed.

 

[Chappy]

Explain. I think you're saying that they could pass the reconciliation and not the underlying Senate bill. Or vice versa (although I doubt they'll bring the Senate bill up if the reconciliation bill fails).

Personally I think there'll be two votes, but the totals will be virtually identical.

 

[Deuce]

Quite frankly I barely even understand what's going on anymore. The Democrats have managed to run hard to the right in a process of negotiating with their own party, and at the end of it, can barely pass a bill in what was supposed to be the more-progressive House!

At this point I think you could get more votes for single-payer. Plus, that would be way better.