Scrambling for Votes, Democrats Face Uphill Climb to Pass Healthcare Reform

I agree that at the end of the day, they won't use it - but for different reasons. I just don't think there's any benefit from it. I don't see any Congressperson being better off under the deem and pass scenario. I don't think it would incite any kind of revolt or negative reperscussions. The reality is that most people don't follow House rules and methods, and those that do are politically informed and already strongly support one side or another. There aren't going to be many people that would say "I support Dems and HCR, but not this method!" or "I support the GOP and oppose HCR, but I'd have liked Dems if not for this method!"

 

Oooooh, that's scary. Everyone knows if a legal filing has been drafted it's game over. Just look what happened to Obama after all those legal filings about his Kenyan birth were drawn up.

 

I've forwarded your concerns to the House Leadership. They will be pleased to know you are looking out for their best interests.

 

It's sad but true. No one cared or remembered when the Republicans did the same things.


But I hear Teabaggers are experienced at dealing with forced and unrestrained thrusts and movements. They will show their wonkish nature soon enough...

 

Bimbo eruption?

 

You are so ****ing dumb.

 

One thing about this deem and pass "controversy" is that nobody's talking about reconciliation anymore (which is sort of evidence that few will care if deem-and-pass is used). If the Democrats don't combine the votes, then it will look like they decided against the controversial procedural maneuver, when in fact they'd still be using reconciliation, which is actually a more legitimate point of debate about use of procedural rules.

So silly...

 

You and those drawing up the legal filings need to realize the courts have already said that deem and pass is a legal proceeding. It was used time and time again by the GOP. Now they and you are whining and crying about it.

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/opin...rtisan-Consensus-Against-'Deem-and-Pass'-2853

It's ironic because at that time, Pelosi and Slaughter were the ones who lost the court case.

Anyway the case has already been to court, and the court found that deem and pass is a valid legal procedure.

 

You seem to have no clue of what happened. Obama used the financial crisis to redistribute wealth from middle class Americans to rich bankers and wall street guys. That isn't socialism. It's the opposite. There is no left wing agenda.

 

please show me the passage in the constitution where it allows deem and pass?

 

Article I, Section 5:

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.

 

basso, major responded to your question. Respond to his.

 

Roberts and his activist cabal on the court laugh at your precedent

 

the CBO score is in on the reconciled bill

CBO Says Health Bill Cuts Deficit, Costs $940 Billion

The bill would reduce the deficit by $130 billion in the first ten years, and potentially by $1.2 trillion in the second ten years (though CBO always warns that projections into the second decade are extremely unpredictable).

According to the source, CBO finds that the bill reduces annual growth in Medicare expenditures by 1.4 percentage points per year, extending Medicare's solvency by at least 9 years.

And, in a small, but significant improvement over the Senate bill, the combined package will expand health insurance coverage to 32 million Americans, as opposed to the Senate bill's 31 million.

 

I still want to see how accurate the CBO has been in forecasting before I believe those numbers.

 

This post is addressed to the individual posting as "MojoMan"

This thread is a nice little illustration of hubris.

Speaking of illustrations, if and when the bill is finally passed, here is how I plan on celebrating:

 

Terrific news. I eagerly wait Space Ghost, and Mojo to come in here and contort every which way to explain why cutting the deficit, and insuring more Americans is a bad thing.

It's so strange to see people routing against something like this. They are actually cheering against extending medicare solvency, cutting the deficit, and helping Americans get health care.

 

I'm not sure, but the CBO doesn't have a side in the argument. They are completely non-partisan. They aren't trying to skew the numbers for one side or the other.

 

I know that, but if they are consistently off with the predictions, it doesn't assure me anything by citing their opinion.