Democrats may pass healthcare without a vote!

[1bad65]

No such option exists you are arguing against a conservative phantasm.

Are you serious?!?!

[1bad65]

Why don't you start being a bit more adult by simply saying President Obama, much like how you'd like to see someone write Fmr. President Bush? Hell, even use their last name by itself, but don't try and mock his name. That's childish. I expect that from BD, not you.

Hey, yesterday the guy said he was Irish. So I decided to have a bit of fun with his ridiculous pandering. It's pointing out absurdity by being absurd.

I also laughed at Bill Clinton when he referred to himself as "the first black President".

I'll likely stop now anyway. I really wanted to see if anyone would ask about it.

[KC Elbows]

I thought Toni Morrison called Clinton that.

[SnowDog]

Hey, yesterday the guy said he was Irish. So I decided to have a bit of fun with his ridiculous pandering. It's pointing out absurdity by being absurd.

I also laughed at Bill Clinton when he referred to himself as "the first black President".

I'll likely stop now anyway. I really wanted to see if anyone would ask about it.

You do realize Obama is 1/2 white right???? And his mom is of Irish decent......that's why he said he was Irish.

[SanHeChuan]

Are you serious?!?!

Yes, and we have tried to explain it to you several times already in this thread.

You are crying because you say the senate bill will not be voted on, but will be deemed to have been passed. The FACT is that the senate bill will be voted on in conjunction with the corrections the House wants to make to the senate bill. They will vote for both at the same time using the “Self-Executing” Rule to deem the senate bill passed when they vote on and pass the corrections to the senate bill. Everyone taking the vote knows that a vote for the corrections will equal a vote for the senate bill, and voting in the corrections to the senate bill without passing the senate bill would be a waste of time. There is no trickery here. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this.

Will the American people get their promised 72 hours to review and comment on the proposed legislation that O'bama promised we would get?

I'll bet not.

Legislation revealed: Democratic leaders unveiled the text of the reconciliation act for health care on Thursday. They had earlier promised to put the act up online 72 hours before a vote, meaning the House will take up the act on Sunday at the earliest.

Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (pdf)

Section-by-section analysis (pdf)

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS...h.care.latest/

[1bad65]

I thought Toni Morrison called Clinton that.

He agreed with him, and said so right then.

[1bad65]

You are crying because you say the senate bill will not be voted on, but will be deemed to have been passed.

You typed this with a straight face, right?

You read the part of the Constitution I posted, right? It clearly said VOTE in it. More than once, actually. And it never said the word 'deem' either.

[SanHeChuan]

You read the part of the Constitution I posted, right? It clearly said VOTE in it. More than once, actually. And it never said the word 'deem' either.

You read the part of my post where I said it WILL be VOTED on right? More than one, actually.

[1bad65]

You read the part of my post where I said it WILL be VOTED on right? More than one, actually.

Let's try this yet again.

"Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010...the-president/

[1bad65]

You read the part of my post where I said it WILL be VOTED on right? More than one, actually.

Yes I did.

And you are saying it "WILL be VOTED on". But what you didn't say was that it will be voted on AFTER it is deemed to have passed. Do you not get this?

[SanHeChuan]

Yes I did.

And you are saying it "WILL be VOTED on". But what you didn't say was that it will be voted on AFTER it is deemed to have passed. Do you not get this?

No I don't get that.

Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010...the-president/

I've bolded the problem above. How does the House "deem" the Senate bill passed before a vote on the "sidecar" amendments? It can't. that’s not a correct statement.

In order to "deem" the senate bill passed they need to pass a "self executing" rule first. To pass a self executing rule they have to vote it in. In this case they will vote in the "sidecar" amendements with the "self executing" rule first which will state that if the amendements pass the senate bill is good. "If the full House votes to approve a legislative rule that contains such a provision, the House then deems a second bill as also approved without requiring a separate vote, as long as that second bill is specified in the rule."

The Dems rightfully don't want to be on the record as approving the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc, because it won't be in the final version of the bill that will be signed into law.

Also by passing the "sidecar" amendments first they make sure that the president cannot sign the senate version of the bill into law without those corrections, because, "The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law."

They are doing a good thing by making sure the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc don't get into the bill.

[1bad65]

No I don't get that.

You're smarter than this. Right?

How can anything pass BEFORE it is voted on?

[1bad65]

The Dems rightfully don't want to be on the record as approving the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc, because it won't be in the final version of the bill that will be signed into law.

LMFAO!

They got that in there because DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson asked for it, DEMOCRAT Barack Obama agreed to it, and a DEMOCRAT-controlled Senate passed it. With every Senate DEMOCRAT voting for it, btw.

[SanHeChuan]

How can anything pass BEFORE it is voted on?

Exactly, that's my point. It will be voted on first, so your claim that there won't be a vote is erronous. I'm glad you understand now.

They got that in there because DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson asked for it, DEMOCRAT Barack Obama agreed to it, and a DEMOCRAT-controlled Senate passed it. With every Senate DEMOCRAT voting for it, btw.

Then you can criticize the senate for passing that legislation. The house is taking steps to make sure you cannot extend them the same courtesy.

[1bad65]

Exactly, that's my point. It will be voted on first, so your claim that there won't be a vote is erronous. I'm glad you understand now.

No, it will not be voted on FIRST. It will be "deemed to have passed" without a vote. Then the amendments will be voted on. The ones that pass will now be included in the bill. Then the bill, with the new amendments, will be voted on. But the bottom line is this: It will have been FIRST "deemed to have passed" before ANY votes are taken.

Then you can criticize the senate for passing that legislation. The house is taking steps to make sure you cannot extend them the same courtesy.

So Obama gets a pass on the Cornhusker Kickback? He did approve it.