Ramming healthcare thru via reconciliation?

NigelTufnel said:
Reconciliation involves zero rules changes and is an already established process. The "nuclear option" referred to a change in the rules. They aren't the same at all.
Click to expand...

Clearly not the same... More republican PR, but it often seems to win the day no matter how untrue it is!
 
NigelTufnel said:
Reconciliation involves zero rules changes and is an already established process. The "nuclear option" referred to a change in the rules. They aren't the same at all.
Click to expand...
This application is definitely a new establishment of precedent for reconciliation.
 
Damocles said:
This application is definitely a new establishment of precedent for reconciliation.
Click to expand...


Not really. All sorts of major policy initiatives have passed through reconciliation and, frankly, until you know what matters may be addressed through the reconciliation process you really have no basis to make such a claim.

Welfare Reform passed through the reconciliation process. The Bush Tax Cuts passed through reconciliation. COBRA, reconciliation. CHIP program, reconciliation. And there are others. It really isn't much different from the uses to which Republicans put reconciliation when they are in the majority.
 
NigelTufnel said:
Not really. All sorts of major policy initiatives have passed through reconciliation and, frankly, until you know what matters may be addressed through the reconciliation process you really have no basis to make such a claim.

Welfare Reform passed through the reconciliation process. The Bush Tax Cuts passed through reconciliation. COBRA, reconciliation. CHIP program, reconciliation. And there are others. It really isn't much different from the uses to which Republicans put reconciliation when they are in the majority.
Click to expand...

OUch!
 
Jarod said:
Pill Bill
Click to expand...


The Pill Bill didn't pass through reconciliation because it wasn't filibustered. That was back in the day when not all legislation was required to have a supermajority for passage. You know, when Democrats were in the minority.

And if people want to get into a pissing match about who is abusing Senate rules we can certainly have that discussion. I'll start:

The frequency of filibusters -- plus threats to use them -- are measured by the number of times the upper chamber votes on cloture. Such votes test the majority's ability to hold together 60 members to break a filibuster.

Last year, the first of the 111th Congress, there were a record 112 cloture votes. In the first two months of 2010, the number already exceeds 40.

That means, with 10 months left to run in the 111th Congress, Republicans have turned to the filibuster or threatened its use at a pace that will more than triple the old record.
Click to expand...


http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/201...ter-Gone-Awry-Analysis.html?_r=2&ref=aponline
 
"Congress shall make no law...abridging...the right of the people peaceably to assemble"! (unless they are naked)


So why cant I get a large group together to protest without a permit?
 
Last edited:
"and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation" (unless terrorist blow up the WTC and we want to listen in on phone conversations)
 
"No person shall be...deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law" (unless he has droopy drawers or was suspected of being in Al Queda during the Bush administration)
 
"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people." (unless you are a strict constructionist, then the right to freedom AKA privacy do not exist.)
 
Chapdog said:
so there is no stopping it?
Click to expand...
Only if the House fails to reconcile with the Senates version and they only need a simple majority in the house to do so. The only one who can stop it after that would be the President via Veto or the Courts via judicial review.
 
Southern Man said:
The 'Rats called this the "nuclear option" when the GOP threatened to use it during the Bush Administration. Now it has a nice-sounding name. :)

What it will do though is effectively eliminate the Senate filibuster, hence make voting this thing out much easier after Obama's retired on January 20, 2013...
Click to expand...
You're confused. It was called "The Nuclear Option" when it was suggested that the Senate rules be changed so that a simple majority would be enough for cloture and bring a straight up and down vote.

The Republicans have used reconciliation far more then Democrats have and it's never been called "The Nuclear Option."
 
TuTu Monroe said:
Let them. It will be the death of the Democratic party.
Click to expand...
That's possible. If health care reform crashes the economy and makes a mess of our health care system. The Dems will be in the wilderness for a long time to come. Conversely, if it works and reduced health care expenditures and we see a rise in quality of our health care system then it will be the Republicans who will have a serious political problem on their hand.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top