home

Dems Say Health Care Vote is Secure

By Jeralyn, Section Legislation
Posted on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:07:01 AM EST
Tags: health care reform bill (all tags)
Share This: Digg! StumbleUpon del.icio.us reddit reddit

The Democrats say they have the 216 votes needed to pass health care. They are already pounding their chests. Here's House Democratic Caucus Chairman John Larson on ABC's "This Week":

"President Roosevelt passed Social Security. Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare. Today, Barack Obama will pass health-care reform.”

The vote will take place between 6 p.m. and midnight.

< Accolades Start Streaming In for Obama and Pelosi | March For America in D.C. Today >

  • The Online Magazine with Liberal coverage of crime-related political and injustice news

  • Contribute To TalkLeft


    • Display: Sort:
    Dems Say Health Care Vote is Secure | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

    Why do I feel so Insecure ? (5.00 / 2) (#5)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:12:46 AM EST
    There has been so much manipulation and spin around this bill by Dems and Reps........

    Not sure (none / 0) (#171)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:58:23 PM EST
    Aren't you a doctor? Don't you guys have benefits, and a decent income?

    Parent
    If they think this is the end of it all (5.00 / 2) (#10)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:20:10 AM EST
    though, they are nuts.  This is nothing more than a toe in the water, and it took forever because of how stupid the leadership is/was.  I just realized that when my husband deployed we were arguing this like a vote was going to happen any day....six long months have passed....to get this victory after all this isn't really a victory at all.  Just get on with it because a ton of crap has to be fixed now or they have sunk the middle class even more in the midst of a total economic meltdown.

    The whole (5.00 / 2) (#16)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:28:20 AM EST
    thing has devolved into a lose/lose situation. I mean even if the bill passes it took a year to get this crap passed?

    Parent
    Yes, well, if someone were to do a (5.00 / 2) (#21)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:34:34 AM EST
    comparison chart of how many hours were spent writing the bill vs. how many hours were spent trying to strong arm "yes" votes, I think we'd get an eye-popping visual of how these guys "earn" their pay. All those lunches, dinners, and cocktail hours with lobbyists and the WH must be gruelling. They hold-out until the invitations stop :)

    Wouldn't one think after all the polls, letters, and truths were exposed months ago that this would be a significantly different bill than the one the Senate passed?

    Parent

    I can't even think about the whole of (none / 0) (#19)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:31:58 AM EST
    the situation without developing a migraine.  It's a POS

    Parent
    The creative financing around this bill (5.00 / 1) (#29)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:48:41 AM EST
    Will create a disaster for this country. This double counting formula is dishonest. The country desperately needs Healthcare reform. A patient of mine with a pre-existing condition paying $12000.00 / year for health insurance was absolutely ecstatic that they may have extra money for her family......my understanding of the bill for this patient going forward is the premiums will continue to increase and the patient will have to remain with the present insurer until benefits kick in 2014. However if they were one of the 32 million uninsured entering the system they will be able to take advantage of the new insurance reforms immediately??????? The rules change every hour and the MSM certainly doesn't seem to have their facts in order.

    As one (5.00 / 2) (#33)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:52:36 AM EST
    with experience in the insurance industry I can tell you that your patient's premium is not going to change and there are no cost controls so premiums will continue to increase. Even the "new" policies could be too expensive for the currently uninsured. The insurance companies are setting the premium prices and they will set them high enough that it will be out of the reach of most of the people with preexisting conditions.

    Parent
    See (none / 0) (#32)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:50:42 AM EST
    This is why we need people like you out there explaining it (or helping write the d@mn bill)

    Parent
    Positive Symbolism (5.00 / 2) (#97)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:36:02 PM EST
    Nancy Pelosi walks up the steps of the capital with the gavel used to pass the 1965 Medicare in 1965.  Crooks and Liars

    I choose to appreciate this day for the 'winners' and the history that they are achieving and I like the symbolism Pelosi displayed.

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#102)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:41:59 PM EST
    I would love the symbolism too if the bill was any good.

    Parent
    Today's HCR is not exactly (5.00 / 1) (#140)
    by brodie on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:34:55 PM EST
    the unqualified liberal success that passing Medicare was in 1965.  And of course back then you had real bipartisanship -- a fair number of mod to lib Rs (70 in the House, 13 senate) backing the Dems' bill.  Zippo Republicants today.

    I also doubt if Dems then worried about having to go out and sell their product to a divided public.  Different set of challenges today for Dems.

    Still, technically it probably (if it passes) will qualify as the most important liberal social legislation since Medicare, and so Pelosi (if she's properly counted heads) is fairly on the mark in her symbolism.

    Parent

    I think there was fine symbolism... (none / 0) (#126)
    by EL seattle on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:17:45 PM EST
    ...in the selection of the USS Abraham Lincoln for the historic "Mission Accomplished" speech.

    But symbolism is pretty much worthless until the job is actually finished.

    Parent

    Who gave BTD the day off? (5.00 / 2) (#108)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:54:20 PM EST


    Heh (none / 0) (#118)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:10:08 PM EST


    Parent
    Do (none / 0) (#1)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:08:38 AM EST
    they not realize how bad this bill is? I guess not.

    Is this is historic as the Nixon (5.00 / 2) (#3)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:11:56 AM EST
    bill which led to HMO's?

    Also, is it too late to buy Wellpoint stock?

    Parent

    It REALLY IS historic: (5.00 / 7) (#41)
    by Dr Molly on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:08:20 AM EST
    Democrats are passing Republican health care reform - if that's not historic, then what is?

    Parent
    Vote time pushed back (none / 0) (#2)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:11:06 AM EST
    presumably because Loretta Sanchez skipped town.

    No (none / 0) (#4)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:12:35 AM EST
    it now means the votes aren't there IMO. Sanchez sounds like an excuse.

    Parent
    Excuse me, (none / 0) (#6)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:15:59 AM EST
    how is what I write inconsistent with the votes not being there?

    Parent
    Sorry (5.00 / 1) (#13)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:25:49 AM EST
    no offense meant.

    Parent
    It does sound a little sketchy (none / 0) (#7)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:16:16 AM EST


    Parent
    Well (5.00 / 2) (#14)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:26:46 AM EST
    she's listed as a No so that's really weird.

    Parent
    The thinking must be that she (none / 0) (#17)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:30:25 AM EST
    would cave if she showed up.

    Parent
    but is she coming back? (none / 0) (#8)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:17:36 AM EST


    Parent
    Sanchez (none / 0) (#12)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:24:46 AM EST
    Is now being listed as a "No", so my guess is, she'll come back from the fundraising in Florida.

    Sanchez was nowhere to be found on Saturday -- she was in Florida on a fundraising jaunt, two Democratic sources said -- and while leaders expected her to return for the Sunday vote on final passage, they weren't assured. What's more, leaders now list the Orange County Democrat as a "no" vote.


    Parent
    So if they have the votes (none / 0) (#15)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:27:13 AM EST
    Her not being available would not matter.  Things are sounding so FIRM now and they just tried to smoke and mirror everyone.

    Parent
    Will the GOP Reps. show up to vote "no" (none / 0) (#34)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:53:06 AM EST
    on a Sunday night?  Or will they heed the advice of the blowhards that it is the work of the devil to even have the vote on Sunday.  "Not present."

    Parent
    You mean some of them won't come and (none / 0) (#40)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:01:18 AM EST
    vote 'no' on the 'Cornhusker Kickback', etc? If I were making campaign ads in the fall I could have fun with that.

    Likewise with Senators that vote 'No' on the reconciliation packages. My ad:  Dark video, foreboding music and deep voice 'Senator McConnell voted YES to keep the Cornhusker kickback...he was against it before he was for it'

    Od course it would be ridiculously misleading, but as such it would eat up 30 minutes of Meet the Press the week before the election.

    Parent

    FDL reporting (none / 0) (#51)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:49:43 AM EST
    That Sanchez will make the vote.  According to their whip count it's YES = 206, NO = 207.

    (Even The Hill has 12 undecideds / Uncommitted)

    Parent

    Would be funny (none / 0) (#9)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:19:18 AM EST
    If it came down to a 215-215 vote.

    Parent
    I agree and that would be its death knell (none / 0) (#58)
    by BTAL on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:11:09 PM EST
    The major push to get this done this week is what will happen when they go home for the Easter break.  The August townhalls and meetings would be like a picnic in the park in comparison.

    No passage during the Easter break would result in ~30 new No votes.

    Parent

    Nancy Pelosi gaveled in the session herself (none / 0) (#59)
    by andgarden on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:13:43 PM EST
    I think they've got the votes.

    Parent
    Of course she's got (5.00 / 3) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    the votes.  She's had them for a while. This whole process these last days has been about trying to get MORE, so she can release some endangered Dems. to vote no.  On a bill liek this, the goal is to win with precisely the number you need to win and no more than that.

    Parent
    Stupak has control issues, no? (none / 0) (#63)
    by MKS on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:40:33 PM EST
    What the heck is motivating this guy?  The Hyde Amendment is not affected by this bill.

    Stupak disses the nurses and says only the Bishops' views are authoritative.....

    Guess what Stupak's profession was before becoming a Member of the House?  His first profession before becoming a lawyer later on?  Cop.

    Stupak is a typical cop on a power trip....

    Parent

    I honestly think (5.00 / 1) (#72)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:59:07 PM EST
    after listening to him repeatedly that he's not really very bright, can't follow the legislative language with any ease, and he literally got snookered by some GOP saboteur into believing the bill would actually allow funding of abortions.

    I think he's finally been persuaded that's false, and he's been frantically looking for a face-saving way out so he can vote for the bill, which he does want to do.

    I actually think he's one of the few pols who've been acting on principle on this whole thing, much as I vehemently disagree with him.

    His genuine bewilderment that anybody would care what the nuns have to say about this was repulsive, and very telling.

    Parent

    You are way off base. (none / 0) (#77)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:06:33 PM EST
    He's a lawyer, who also happened to be a cop. Hi wife is the former mayor of Menominee, and his one son graduated from Pepperdine Law School.  His other son committed suicide a few years back - a very public case of possible causation by the drug Accutane.

    He is not a dumb man. He is a true conserva -dem and he is doing exactly what his constituents want.  He is winning HUGE accolades from his constituents for 1) sticking to his principles, and 2)fighting for what a majority of them believe.

    They love him.

    Parent

    Mebbe so, but (5.00 / 1) (#110)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:58:18 PM EST
    he still is, or was, clearly unable to comprehend the legislative language.

    Whether he's popular with his constituents or not isn't the issue.  I said he was acting out of principle, and I believe that.  I just think it's a sucky principle.

    As for whether he's doing "exactly" what his constituents want, I don't know that.  Is voting for the HCR bill popular with his constituents?  It may be, but I doubt it.  Yet he's acting, out of principle, to find a way out of his abortion trap so he can vote for the bill.  I doubt either of those things are going to be popular with his constituents, now that he and the GOPers have gotten them all riled up about the "taxpayer funding of abortion" they've been insisting the bill allows.

    He's going to have a lot of explaining to do about why Obama issuing an executive order affirming what's already settled law anyway means it was OK for him to drop his objection to the bill's language and let it go through unchanged.

    I think Bart Stupak is not a happy man.

    Parent

    Digby's top post (none / 0) (#145)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:44:49 PM EST
    is a little more blunt, but in agreement. I believe  her words were "ignorant jacka**".  Worth a read on this whole executive order stupidity. Apparently Stupak is writing it himself.

    If there is any primary challenger I contribute to, it will be his.

    Parent

    Too High IQ? (5.00 / 1) (#119)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:11:39 PM EST
    Many police forces do not allow highly intelligent people to join the force, as they presumably would get bored and not fall in line following (stupid) orders. Arguing that Stupac is smart because he was a cop, is extremely unconvincing.

    As for the fact he is a lawyer, well you are a lawyer, no?

    Again, not too convincing.

    And then you have the man, and his inane utterings...

    three strikes against any argument that he is intelligent, imo.

    Parent

    Once again (5.00 / 1) (#123)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:15:46 PM EST
    Your inane and incoherent rantings take up bandwidth...

    Parent
    Please, how can you pass (5.00 / 1) (#129)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:21:33 PM EST
    judgment? You don't know if he is a lawyer, cop, doctor, or what!

    Parent
    Wow (none / 0) (#135)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:27:51 PM EST
    Stunning intelligence, were you once a cop too?

    Parent
    LOL (5.00 / 1) (#139)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:34:42 PM EST
    More intelligent comments from squeaks - can't make productive comments to the discussion, so it's easier to insult folks.

    But I expect another witty and pithy comment, just to get the last word in.

    Parent

    Source? (5.00 / 2) (#151)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:51:36 PM EST
    Many police forces do not allow highly intelligent people to join the force, as they presumably would get bored and not fall in line following (stupid) orders.


    Parent
    Facts (5.00 / 1) (#154)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:02:31 PM EST
    are so 20th century to some.

    Parent
    An overactive imagination (5.00 / 2) (#163)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:05:30 PM EST
    You mean you use real facts?

    Old school ...

    Parent

    Links (none / 0) (#167)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:35:14 PM EST
    Judge Rules That Police Can Bar High I.Q. Scores

    Robert Jordan, a 49-year-old college graduate, took an exam to join the New London police, in Connecticut, in 1996 and scored 33 points, the equivalent of an IQ of 125.
    But New London police interviewed only candidates who scored 20 to 27, on the theory that those who scored too high could get bored with police work and leave soon after undergoing costly training.....

    .....The average score nationally for police officers is 21 to 22, the equivalent of an IQ of 104, or just a little above average.



    Parent
    That's one law enforcement agency. (none / 0) (#168)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:45:40 PM EST


    Parent
    Test Case (none / 0) (#170)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:11:20 PM EST
    The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in New York upheld the appeal, and now it is a standard.

    I do not think arguing that because Stupak was a cop, that means he is smart, considering the average intelligence of cops is 104.

    PENNSYLVANIA STATE Trooper Andrea Young just wanted a promotion. So the 13-year veteran - her smarts already proved as a Mensa member - took the Pennsylvania State Police's promotions exam, scoring sixth out of 2,000 test-takers. But, despite her scores and an unblemished disciplinary record, her bosses passed her over for promotion. Male co-workers joked about her sex life. Colleagues accused her of cheating on the exam. Superiors suspended her, stripped her of her badge and gun, transferred...

    Seems logical, from a group theory perspective, to me that having someone around who is much smarter than the average cop is undesirable, particularly if you are a woman in a male dominated job. And evidentially the courts agree that it is ok to exclude anyone who do not fit the profile.

    It is hard to imagine that Mr. Jordan is alone.

    Parent

    One = "many"? (none / 0) (#169)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:04:23 PM EST
    Must be that "new math" I keep hearing about.

    Parent
    Insulting (4.00 / 4) (#150)
    by Spamlet on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:49:05 PM EST
    If you are going to insult politicians by questioning their intelligence, at least spell their names right.

    Just adapting your own advice:

    Insulting (5.00 / 1) (#99)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:39:15 AM EST
    If you are going to insult artists by recontextualizing their music, at least do it with people, like Lotte Lenya, who are no longer around.

    Now go and have fun today, blogclogging little Hillary troll. Oh, and just for the record, my former screen name and I both think you are a pain in the @ss.

    Over and out.

    Parent

    Spamlet (5.00 / 1) (#156)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:03:02 PM EST
    I think I heart you.  :)

    Parent
    Telling (5.00 / 1) (#158)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:39:39 PM EST
    Spelling police.. nice to know that you are keeping the spelling of Pol's names on TL accurate, a dirty job, but for those like you a perfect vocation.

    And either you hate the Dixie Chicks because they like Obama and are applaud Anne for co-opting one of their songs to express Hate for Obama, or your ability to make reasonable comparisons is extremely poor.  

    Both "Not Ready to Make Nice" and second single "Everybody Knows" were largely ignored by U.S. country radio[72] and failed to penetrate the top 35 of the Hot Country Songs chart. In June 2006, Emily Robison noted the lack of support from other country music performers: "A lot of artists cashed in on being against what we said or what we stood for because that was promoting their career, which was a horrible thing to do. ... A lot of pandering started going on, and you'd see soldiers and the American flag in every video. It became a sickening display of ultra-patriotism."[

    Wiki

    Always disgusting when those who are supposed progressives support wingnut positions in order to trash one of our own.
    Lots of that gone on here at TL in the last couple of years.

    Parent

    Heavens to Betsy! (none / 0) (#86)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:16:53 PM EST
    He was a cop!  He must be bad!  Because only cops are ever on power trips, unlike politicians, lawyers, doctors, and engineers, and [fill in the blank].

    So much for logic....

    BTW - he's still a no for now.

    Parent

    Digby says hold on, even if House passes (none / 0) (#73)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:00:14 PM EST
    HCR, still has to go back to Senate.  Is that correct?  Or is she talking about follow-on reconciliation bill?

    Parent
    That's a good question (none / 0) (#80)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:08:50 PM EST
    If the Senate doesn't vote again, that means only the original bill is approved, right?
    It's hard to believe that the Senate doesn't need to vote again.

    Parent
    She's talking about the follow-on (none / 0) (#111)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:00:09 PM EST
    unless she, like a lot of us, is now hopelessly confused...

    Parent
    My adult daughter, who is usually (none / 0) (#113)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:01:56 PM EST
    quite well-informed, sd. last night she missed the factoid the benefits of HCR will not kick in until 2014 for most.  

    Parent
    Does she know whether she (none / 0) (#115)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:07:26 PM EST
    personally will receive "benefits "such as losing the good insurance she has now, after the excise tax kicks in?

    Parent
    She is uninsured and unemployed. (none / 0) (#124)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:15:59 PM EST
    Not sure how this will effect her.  

    Parent
    Yes, she is talking about the reconciliation (none / 0) (#143)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:41:47 PM EST
    bills. Reid and Durbin are promising they will pass. FWIW.

    Seems like this would be the most embarrassing day ever if they are wrong, but it's not over till it's over.


    Parent

    Actually (none / 0) (#71)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:54:58 PM EST
    If it turned out to be a tie vote, I believe the bill dies.  There is no tie-breaking vote or mechanism like in the Senate.

    Parent
    I think the oversell definitely helps (none / 0) (#11)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:21:42 AM EST
    passage of the bill, but it creates very unrealistic expectations which will result in  a lot of disappointment in the future.

    So someone lied (none / 0) (#18)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:30:39 AM EST
    They must have the Stupak 8 and we get the executive order on abortion.  They are meeting right now about the "language".

    Hey (5.00 / 4) (#24)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:40:14 AM EST
    As conservative blogs are pointing out - an EO can be rescinded by another EO. So maybe that's the 11-dimesion chess.  Obama signs an EO now, then in 6 months or so, signs another one - away from the cameras and spotlight, rescinding the original one.

    He is the master!

    Parent

    Are you inferring that or do you (none / 0) (#23)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:38:15 AM EST
    have news?

    Parent
    Luke Russert twittering (none / 0) (#25)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:41:58 AM EST
    I suppose it could be news if tweeting is accurate :)

    Parent
    Digby really dislikes Little Luke's (none / 0) (#39)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:01:08 AM EST
    public observations.  

    Parent
    I tend to have my own doubts about it too (none / 0) (#148)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:46:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Ha. I never watch the programs on which (none / 0) (#153)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:54:26 PM EST
    he appears and am not sure why Digby does.

    Parent
    The Hill:possible Obama antiabortion executive ord (none / 0) (#27)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:46:18 AM EST
    er with Stupak.  If they can't get the votes from everyone else, looks like that's the route Obama's going to take.

    Parent
    They were bluffing (none / 0) (#28)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:48:34 AM EST
    down to the wire trying to shrink up the Stupak crew.

    Parent
    Nope (5.00 / 1) (#75)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:03:01 PM EST
    Not true.  They have the votes without Stupak.  They'd like to have Stupak and his BFFs, though, and the Obama executive order reaffirming Hyde changes nothing and costs them nothing to do (in Obama's mind).

    Parent
    Maybe not (5.00 / 1) (#122)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:14:29 PM EST
    Unless a deal is struck with Stupak, Dems appear to be short on votes

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#125)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:17:08 PM EST
    this would explain the wanting to delay the votes etc.

    Parent
    Excellent news, but I'm skeptical. (none / 0) (#127)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:19:31 PM EST


    Parent
    Obama's (none / 0) (#84)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:15:31 PM EST
    executive order banning abortion payment is a big deal because right now it's a budget item and his EO changes it's status as I understand it.

    He's raising the white flag to the Stupak coalition.

    Parent

    They do need Stupak (none / 0) (#87)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:18:23 PM EST
    He's still a no for now.  This vote will be decided by 1 or 2.  they can't afford to lose 6, despite all the gaming going on saying "We got it."

    No one knows for sure until the vote is actually taken.

    Parent

    Wanna bet? (5.00 / 1) (#112)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:01:40 PM EST
    They absolutely have the votes and have had them for a number of days.

    Parent
    I don't think they have them (5.00 / 1) (#146)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:44:53 PM EST
    without Stupak.  The last whip count I saw had more no votes than yes votes and they still needed six yes votes.  And why court him if you don't need to him?  Are they really interested in completely destroying the female base of the Dem party?

    Parent
    Exactly (none / 0) (#149)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:46:52 PM EST


    Parent
    Not only that, who's to say there aren't (none / 0) (#152)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:53:10 PM EST
    one or to yes's that will change if Stupak gets his way.

    It really doesn't makes sense to me that Pelosi would expend enormous energy to protect a small number of reps in conservative districts.


    Parent

    No idea how many it is (5.00 / 1) (#159)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:49:11 PM EST
    it may be more than a small number.  But if she doesn't knock herself out to protect them, she won't be Speaker for long.

    Look, think what you want.  I'm just trying to tell you how this stuff actually works, and it's not as dramatically touch-and-go, down to the wire as it appears from the public statements only and as the media narrative likes to present it.

    You don't schedule the vote until you have the votes.  But you want to win without doing too much damage to your membership, so you do, yes, knock yourself out to do what you can to protect the ones who are vulnerable.  To do anything less would be gross political malpractice, as well as self-defeating.

    You can win ugly or you can win good.  Pelosi, sensibly, wants to win good.  She has.  They got the Stupak gang to cave, so they can release some other reluctant Dems.  My guess is you'll see a handful or more of the ostensibly undecided come out against by the time of the vote and the bill will ultimately pass by only a small number, maybe as few as 2 or 3.

    I wish Donald from Hawaii who's worked so long with his own legislature were here to back me up on this.

    Parent

    Apparently (none / 0) (#160)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:54:26 PM EST
    Nancy was overheard on the phone this morning with Steny Hoyer saying they need not to get to 216 but to 217 so the last vote wouldn't be the deciding vote.

    They may have been a little more confident than they let on, but I disagree with you - they didn't have the votes until now.

    Parent

    Whip count? (none / 0) (#162)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:58:10 PM EST
    Nancy showed you her own whip count?

    The supposed "whip count" of anybody outside the inner confines of the Speaker's office is by definition no more than approximate at best.

    C'mon, MT.  You know that the political promises and demands and trade-offs that count on something like this aren't made out in public for Wolf Blitzer to put up on a tote board.

    Parent

    I personally think they were bluffing (none / 0) (#165)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:08:59 PM EST
    to attempt to get some the Stupak bunch to jump ship because you Dems don't not want their name on this.

    Parent
    If they had them days ago (none / 0) (#117)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:09:42 PM EST
    The vote would have happened by noon, and they still wouldn't be talking to the press about how "they're close" to 216.  And the Republicans wouldn't have spent all all weekend crowing that the Dems don't have the votes.

    They would had this vote the minute they could have today and no one would have been out of town and allowed to do all this dithering.

    They'll get it ,but they'll be dealing for votes until 6:15.

    Parent

    Absolutely not so (5.00 / 1) (#161)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:54:50 PM EST
    It's just not as cut-and-dried as you imagine it is.

    And if you really truly think you can believe a word the GOPers have to say about any of this, including "crowing about having the votes," well, what can I say.  The GOPers have been increasingly hysterically trying to mau-mau the Dems, which is one of the reasons I've been so certain they were on the losing end and they knew it.

    You don't resort to the kind of random desperation tactics all over the map that the GOPers have been using these last few days unless you're pretty sure you're going to lose.  They've been throwing everything they can think of up against the wall and hoping something, anything sticks.  They're toast on this bill and they know it.

    Parent

    Look, sorry but they said (none / 0) (#166)
    by Militarytracy on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 07:10:53 PM EST
    they had the votes without Stupak.  And they didn't.  You are not going to risk the wrath of the female party base unless you have to.  They had to.

    Parent
    That makes more sense. (none / 0) (#120)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:13:37 PM EST


    Parent
    Not Following? (none / 0) (#128)
    by squeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:21:20 PM EST
    Of course she's got (5.00 / 2) (#68)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:50:56 PM EST
    the votes.  She's had them for a while. This whole process these last days has been about trying to get MORE, so she can release some endangered Dems. to vote no.  On a bill liek this, the goal is to win with precisely the number you need to win and no more than that. [emphasis mine]



    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#121)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:13:54 PM EST
    if they had them days ago then they really look even more inept. They are all over the place trying to explain/excuse what's going on here. Then we've got all these appeasement issues coming up too.

    Parent
    Kaptur is a yes (none / 0) (#20)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:32:53 AM EST
    Nye is a no

    Wassermna-Schulz (none / 0) (#22)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:34:50 AM EST
    Disagrees with Larson.  She's a deputy whip, and said they don't have a hard 216 yet.

    I like this quote from the linked article: (5.00 / 1) (#26)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:45:11 AM EST
    House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer (D-Md.) told NBC's "Meet the Press" that "there are still members who are looking at it and making up their mind, but we still think there are going to be 216-plus votes when we call the roll."

    Must be tough on some of them...kind of a Loves Me, Loves Me Not daisy exercise. Only the words are: Lose My Job, Keep My Job.

    After all this time, there shouldn't be one congressperson in DC who can't recite word for word what that bill says and what it means. They should not still be trying to figure out where they stand on it.


    Parent

    Now now (5.00 / 1) (#30)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:49:21 AM EST
    Now you're just being crazy, IG.

    The fact that they still don't really know how many votes they have should give everyone pause.  I think they'll wrangle it out, but you gotta figure something this acrimonious, and this confusing, and for something that really doesn't solve lots of problems - oooh boy, there's gonna be trouble for someone when the public finds out.

    Parent

    You're right - I expect too much (5.00 / 1) (#35)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:53:10 AM EST
    from these spoiled, over-paid representatives the voters trusted with their well-being.


    Parent
    They know how many votes they have (none / 0) (#76)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:06:04 PM EST
    Larson just didn't quite understand the message about how far to go with the PR at this stage, so he told the truth instead of pretending.

    This is not a basketball game, guys, where all the moves are visible out in the open.

    Parent

    Good (none / 0) (#31)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:49:43 AM EST
    grief. Vote it up or vote it down. I'm sick of hearing about it. They are going to keep delaying voting until they think they have the votes but I hate to tell them that they've set it up that they have to vote today one way or the other. If tehy dont vote today then the bill is rejected without a vote.


    Parent
    Yup. I may have to maintain radio silence today (none / 0) (#36)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:54:19 AM EST
    Just do it, or don't do it.

    Parent
    Go ahead (none / 0) (#78)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:07:26 PM EST
    They have the votes and the bill will pass.  It's not in doubt.

    Parent
    Apparently they plan 159 new agencies to oversee (none / 0) (#37)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 10:58:35 AM EST
    The implementation of this bill !!!

    you're joking, right? (none / 0) (#38)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:00:58 AM EST


    Parent
    NO (none / 0) (#43)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:10:59 AM EST


    Parent
    Any explanation? (none / 0) (#44)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:11:08 AM EST
    I can understand that if those agencies are divided up by states giving an average of 3/state. There are hundreds of healthcare insurance providers. Thousands of policies to revise and oversee, and every state has its own regulations.

    I trust they are obligating themselves to give the jobs to unemployed people rather than hiring from the already employed pool.

    Parent

    Doubt it (none / 0) (#79)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:08:23 PM EST
    That was one of the earlier GOP talking points.  IOW, it's GOP math.

    Parent
    My greatest fear (none / 0) (#42)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:10:34 AM EST
    Bureaucrats will be in charge and will have the authority to dictate what will be done for patients. They will have the protection of federal laws. The Canadian government has had them in place for years...they vary from province to province.These are not death panels however bugetary constraints do influence doctors reimbursement,treatment and methods of treatment.I despise insurance companies but if I have an issue with them at least I don't have the fear I might be prosecuted if I don't follow the program.

     

    why (5.00 / 2) (#46)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:14:29 AM EST
    woudl that be an issue with this bill? This isn't single payer. It's goign to be more insurance people deciding what you can and cannot do though.

    Parent
    I'm not sure to be honest (none / 0) (#47)
    by samsguy18 on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:35:46 AM EST
    However with the worsening economy I've seen a huge rise in medicare and medicaid recipients. ......I fear as we've seen they will have to change the rules going forward because of the increased costs.


    Parent
    Medicare increases have absolutely (5.00 / 2) (#50)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:47:17 AM EST
    nothing to do with the economy. Babyboomers are only now starting to turn 65 when they become eligible. It is eligibility that will increase the number of Medicare patients the doctors will see, or turn away, depending on what they choose to do.


    Parent
    Uh (5.00 / 3) (#56)
    by cawaltz on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:00:51 PM EST
    The way the system is set up right now bureaucrats are already in charge. Or did you really think the nice men and women sitting in your insurance providers office REALLY cared whether or not you go the care you needed? Did you think the stories where people are denied care just to force them to go through some extra hoops to save money were made up stories?

    I fail to see how government bureaucrats could do much worse damage then the private enterprise ones.

    Parent

    Yet another GOP talking point (5.00 / 1) (#81)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:09:47 PM EST
    Boy, you're really churning them out today!  Do they pay you by the post for this or what?

    Parent
    how will bureaucrats be in charge, (none / 0) (#45)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:14:27 AM EST
    when people are being forced to buy private insurance?

    Parent
    Fear being the operative word (none / 0) (#60)
    by ruffian on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:13:56 PM EST


    Parent
    Trying to foster it (none / 0) (#82)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:10:50 PM EST
    is my guess, not expressing it personally.

    Parent
    Playing with words (none / 0) (#48)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:44:19 AM EST
    "President Roosevelt passed Social Security. Lyndon Johnson passed Medicare. Today, Barack Obama will pass health-care reform."

    SS and Medicare were both passed with easy majorities and bi-partisan support. They were very good legislation, which, I believe, is where the dramatic difference is here.

    I just heard Trent Lott claim that the heavy burden on Medicare right now is the surge of babyboomers. BABYBOOMERS are NOT YET 65 years old, and are ineligible for Medicare until they reach it.

    Medicare and SS are in trouble because of the poor handling of the money.

    Being lied to by the gov't is standard because the gov't representatives firmly believe we are too stupid to see through their claims...no matter how illogical they are.

    Wow (5.00 / 1) (#83)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:13:26 PM EST
    Besides the fact that you're flat-out wrong on the Baby Boomers, the parties were far, far more mixed ideologically back when those things were passed than they are now.  In fact, there were probably more actual conservatives in the Dem. party than there were in the GOP in those days.

    Please.  The two situations aren't remotely comparable politically.

    Parent

    Did you even consider the level (none / 0) (#99)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:40:02 PM EST
    of insult your comment held before you hit POST? I can think of hundreds of ways you could have stated you thought your information was more accurate without the level of rude you used.

    Parent
    No, actually (none / 0) (#114)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:06:37 PM EST
    If you didn't have the facts, and you demonstrably didn't, making flat out pronouncements about how somebody lied, even if it was a GOPer, is an invitation to rudeness to which I responded.

    Parent
    And also (none / 0) (#116)
    by gyrfalcon on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:08:08 PM EST
    "flat-out wrong" is hardly a "level of insult."  Embarrassing, yes.  Insult, no.

    Parent
    The first boomers are 67-68 now (none / 0) (#61)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:32:35 PM EST
    because it began in 1942.

    Watch out for five or so years from now -- those  born in the peak year, 1949, start turning 65.

    But worry not.  They already pushed back the full Social Security year for us '49ers, and I fully expect that my Medicare kick-in soon will be pushed back, too.  It has been that way for us peak-year types all of our lives, just getting to the point that meant good times for those ahead of us and finding out that the good times have been pushed back to cope with our massive numbers.

    What the heck, the economic crash and the pay cuts have conveniently pushed back retirement to the Twelfth of Never, anyway.

    Parent

    Social Security pushed age for (none / 0) (#70)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:53:37 PM EST
    "full" benefits to higher age than 65 even for non-Boomers.

    Parent
    Really? It kicked in at 65 (none / 0) (#94)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:29:53 PM EST
    for some I know born at the end of 1941, from what they tell me.  And for someone I know born in 1942.

    Or do you mean the age was pushed back at the other end, for post-boomers, too?  Yes, I know; pushed back for everyone past some birth year a bit before mine.

    Ah well, I'm having too much fun learning new tricks for this old dog to retire yet, anyway. I'm teaching young 'uns some new technologies I'm learning in workshops almost every week and warning them that this will be their lives in our field for the rest of their lives, as it has been in mine for the last twenty years.  So now I've got to go try out this new program I found. . . . :-)

    Parent

    "Full Retirement Age" per AARP (none / 0) (#101)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:41:50 PM EST
    publication:

    Year of Birth * Full Retirement Age
    1937 or earlier 65
    1938 65 and 2 months
    1939 65 and 4 months

    1940 65 and 6 months
    1941 65 and 8 months
    1942 65 and 10 months
    1943-54 66
    1955 66 and 2 months
    1956 66 and 4 months
    1957 66 and 6 months
    1958 66 and 8 months
    1959 66 and 10 months
    1960 and later 67


    Parent

    Ah, that's it -- thanks, my friends (none / 0) (#104)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:45:55 PM EST
    born in '41 and '42 are not funning me; they did get SS at 65.  This seems a bit off from what SS sends me for my kick-in date, though -- 66 and some months, almost to 67, I thought.  I'm going to go find that annual mailing that depresses me to see. :-)

    Parent
    I suppose technically your friends were (none / 0) (#105)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:48:07 PM EST
    still in their 65th year.  Just not on their birthdays.  

    Parent
    Right. (none / 0) (#131)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:22:19 PM EST
    In part, I'm bad at remembering birthdates.

    So I couldn't have told you how many months past their birthdates -- I just knew they were 65 and cashing in on my continued contributions.:-)  

    Parent

    US Census Bureau: Boomers born from 1946 to 1964 (none / 0) (#91)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:24:18 PM EST
    Link

    "the baby boomers, the generation born between 1946 and 1964,"  Therefore the oldest boomers are 64 because 2010-1946=64.

    Parent

    Yes, this has been debated here (none / 0) (#96)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:35:36 PM EST
    before, and I used to go with that -- until I was sent to another part of the census site that goes with the general agreement now to go with 1942.  If you look at birth-rate graphs and numbers, that is when the birth rate that had been declining for decades did begin to turn around, in 1942.

    The old thinking for 1946 was seeing it as a postwar phenomenon.  But the greatest generation of guys and gals got married a lot (see marriage rate stats, too) before the guys were shipped overseas, too -- and apparently they had very romantic and productive honeymoons, brief but sufficient to start having all those babies even during the war who were toddlers by the time that the guys got home for good.  And remember, as I have been reminded by some of them, there were all those leaves from base training before being shipped overseas, too -- and then the oldsters get these marvelous looks on their faces, recalling some very lively leaves. :-)

    Parent

    That was my understanding (none / 0) (#103)
    by Inspector Gadget on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:45:49 PM EST
    and as a BB '49er, I've found it a difficult thought to adjust. BBer definition has been adjusted for a variety of industries (particularly marketing). I knew my SS age had been raised.


    Parent
    The difference is "demographic boom" (none / 0) (#107)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:53:32 PM EST
    for when there is reproductive replacement, it seems, and that starts in 1946 (affected greatly by the small size of the previous generation) vs. when the birth rate began to go up, and that starts in 1942.  And then there are those who define it as the "cultural boom," also starting in 1942, for shared values shaped by the war and postwar era.

    It's an interesting debate.  I tend to go with the birth rate turnaround, as it is so simple to see (for students) -- and especially vs. the incredible decline in previous decades, as that helps them see what the impact will be in following decades.  For example, when does America start decrying "juvenile delinquency" as the death of civilization as we know it, to the point that Congress held hearings to censor comic books, etc.?  The mid-1950s, as early as 1954-1955, as those babies born in 1942 were becoming terrible teenagers.  

    Parent

    I'm resigned to the fact (none / 0) (#49)
    by mentaldebris on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:46:56 AM EST
    it's really going to pass and rather doubtful anything will be done to fix it much once it does. Some half-hearted kabuki will no doubt be played out. They've delivered to their sponsors, time to move on. Now it's just a matter of observing what the Republicans are going to do with the passage of the health insurance industry bailout.  

    Have to give Obama credit for some form of dimensional chess.  With the mandate he gets all sorts of goodies for the Democrats from the industry and ties the Republicans hands.  They won't really go after the industry-friendly mandate.

    However, this administration does have a tendency for engaging in too clever by half strategy. I predict the reliably hypocritical Republicans will run on the unpopular mandate, IRS fine enforcement, and taxes on policies and then conveniently forget about fulfilling any of their promises once they've scored their political points with the electorate. Exactly what Obama did with the PO, no taxes on policies,the mandate, etc., etc. etc... It's all about winning the votes, not delivering the promises.

    The historic oversell on this thing? The Democrats are going to own that. The Republicans are going to exploit it.

    Obama: HCR would reduce premiums by 3000% (none / 0) (#52)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:52:08 AM EST
    Link


    How many people are getting insurance through their jobs right now? Raise your hands. All right. Well, a lot of those folks, your employer it's estimated would see premiums fall by as much as 3,000 percent, which means they could give you a raise.
    his poll numbers could fall (5.00 / 2) (#53)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:53:24 AM EST
    by 3000% if people actually  pay attention to what he says.

    Parent
    WH spokesperson later stated (5.00 / 1) (#109)
    by MO Blue on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:57:14 PM EST
    that the president "misspoke." What he meant to say was that it's estimated that premiums could fall by as much as $3,000.

    Of course, only about 16% of employers say that they will raise salaries if they pay less for insurance premiums.


    Parent

    That is impossible (none / 0) (#92)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:24:48 PM EST
    How could a premium decrease by 3000 percent? A 100 percent decrease would put the premium at zero.

    Parent
    Question (none / 0) (#54)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:53:50 AM EST
    I know I should know this, but can someone help me out here?

    If this bill passes, and I leave an employer and go on COBRA - is that considered an "individual plan" or does it still count as me being covered by a "group plan"?

    I'm trying to figure out in this mess how badly someone is going to get screwed. (And yes, I know ti won't happen for 4 years, but it's still good to know)

    Well (5.00 / 1) (#55)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 11:58:40 AM EST
    traditionally COBRA has been considered under a group plan. You also can only get COBRA for a limited amount of time. After COBRA runs out then you are on the individual market.

    Parent
    I'm on COBRA till Medicare kicks in (none / 0) (#66)
    by katiebird on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:49:18 PM EST
    Does that mean I'm stuck with this until then?  That I can't switch to the exchange?

    Parent
    I'm not sure (none / 0) (#88)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:18:32 PM EST
    if they changed that or not.

    Parent
    Continuation (5.00 / 1) (#57)
    by waldenpond on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:10:54 PM EST
    You stay in your group insurance thru your employer.
     Cobra basics.

    the right to continue health coverage sponsored by their employer for a limited time (usually up to 18 months) after their employment ends.
    COBRA applies to group health insurance plans sponsored by an employer in the private sector or state or local government that employed at
    least 20 employees on more than 50 percent of its typical business days in the previous calendar year.

    If an individual chooses to continue her employer-sponsored coverage under COBRA, the employer is not required to continue any premium
    contribution it has been making, and the individual must pay the full cost of coverage herself.

    Continuation coverage must be identical (in terms of covered services, benefit amounts, cost-sharing payments, rules and restrictions, etc.) to
    the coverage currently available under the health plan to similarly situated active employees and their dependents.

    Parent

    Group plan -- but remember that ICBC (none / 0) (#62)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:40:27 PM EST
    (my workplace shorthand for the constant mantra, "in the current budget climate" -- which we have heard every year for decades :-) . . . anyway, remember re the extent of time on COBRA that there have been discounts on it by Congress. I know it well, with laid-off family members who must have health insurance, with their health conditions.  It is horrible, as without the discounts (i.e., kick-ins by the feds), it would be absolutely unaffordable for most unemployed.  And it is something, some coverage, especially for prescriptions.

    So in the last year, we have sweated through a couple of wait-and-see weeks as to whether Congress would get around to passing the COBRA discount extension bills -- always done at the absolute last minute, just to punish the unemployed even more.  Each time, we have had to get ready to find another resort.  That time will come soon, I suspect, as the deficit keeps soaring and as midterms come near, so Congress will have to find some way to say they're cost-cutters.

    I think I'm recalling this correctly.  It is very confusing, just adding to the stress of the times for people already stressed by health problems.

    Parent

    Thanks everyone! (none / 0) (#67)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:50:15 PM EST


    Parent
    Stupak is in (none / 0) (#64)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47:00 PM EST


    Details of Obama's Antiabortion Executive Order (5.00 / 1) (#74)
    by Dan the Man on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:01:45 PM EST
    to placate Stupak.  From FDL.


    it sounds like a reiteration of the Hyde Amendment, and in particular applies it to community health centers. This could potentially tie up some Planned Parenthood clinics, although that's somewhat unclear.


    Parent
    Rather, he's a yes (none / 0) (#65)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:47:24 PM EST


    Parent
    Or, not quite yet (none / 0) (#69)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 12:52:55 PM EST
    Link

    Parent
    So (none / 0) (#89)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:19:36 PM EST
    Obama caved into Stupak. No surprise here.

    Parent
    Not yet (none / 0) (#90)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:23:00 PM EST
    Stupak's not there as of 1:45.  It's still "no"

    Parent
    Well (none / 0) (#93)
    by Ga6thDem on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:27:23 PM EST
    it seems there's one thing that's always consistent with Obama and it's that he'll raise the white flag in a hearbeat.

    Parent
    So, does the Senate (none / 0) (#85)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:15:35 PM EST
    have to vote again? Color me confused.

    It can get confusing (5.00 / 1) (#95)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:33:35 PM EST
    The House will be voting to pass the bill that has already passed the Senate. The Senate will not have to vote again on that bill. The House is also voting on a second bill, the reconciliation bill. The reconciliation bill contains amendments to the bill that was passed by the Senate (and presumably by the House at this point) which, if passed as planned, will have to go to the Senate for a vote.

    Parent
    And there's room (none / 0) (#98)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:36:03 PM EST
    for more trouble.

    MSNBC lays it out nicely (assuming it's accurate):

    The big moment for House Democrats will be the vote to approve the Senate-passed bill, likely to take place after around 7 p.m. EST. If there are 216 "yes" votes or more, the bill will go to the president's desk to be signed and enacted.

    That moment will be as close as Democrats will get to their own version of the NCAA's "One Shining Moment," but there will be another tough game in the Senate before a real victory dance can take place. Even if the president signs the overhaul into law, there's still work to be done in the Senate as that chamber works to approve "fixes" to that law.

    On Sunday night, after they vote on the bill, House members will vote on a "reconciliation" package, a series of "fixes" to correct problems in the bill passed by the Senate on Christmas Eve in 2009.

    Those fixes must be approved by the Senate before they can take effect. Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid sent a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Wednesday pledging that his caucus would vote to approve the corrections, which require 51 votes for approval, but Republicans may be able to derail that process.

    Here's the key rule of reconciliation that Republicans think they may be able to use to derail the fixes package in the Senate. Under the Senate's "Byrd Rule," named after its author Sen. Robert Byrd, D- W.V., any senator can raise an objection (called "a point of order") to any part of the reconciliation bill that does not address budgetary matters. The extraneous matter would be removed from the bill if the parliamentarian upholds that point of order. Sixty votes would be needed to overturn that decision.

    Republicans believe they have identified several key provisions that could be vulnerable to this rule. The result could be legislation that is the policy equivalent of Swiss cheese, with major pieces missing.

    If a single word of the reconciliation bill is changed in the Senate, the bill will have to go back to the House and approved again.



    Parent
    This sounds like "trust the Senate" (none / 0) (#100)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:41:06 PM EST
    What's the point of having both votes today, if once the Senate bill is approved, it can be signed into law by Obama?
    Even supposing the Senate does TRY to approve the reconciliation fix, if I read what you said correctly, the stand-alone Senate bill will be law if they fail.

    Parent
    No (none / 0) (#130)
    by standingup on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:22:09 PM EST
    If the House passes the bill that has already been passed by the Senate, Obama can sign it into law. The bill for reconciliation would be taken up by the Senate tomorrow, at the earliest. And it does require a leap of faith on the part of the House as they are leaving themselves exposed.

    Parent
    Right (none / 0) (#133)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:24:29 PM EST
    So the Senate bill would be law, but if they can't exactly match the reconciliation bill - the Senate bill remains the law of the land.

    Parent
    Unfortunately, I think House members (none / 0) (#136)
    by observed on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:27:52 PM EST
    will be satisfied with being able to show their constituents they voted for fixes to the Senate bill, even if the fixes don't pass the Senate.

    Parent
    Paging andgarden! (none / 0) (#132)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:23:25 PM EST
    I think that's right, but it's really a matter of the signing of the bills.  I don't think Obama will sign the Senate version of the bill if it passes the House until a reconciliation is also passed because that would be the case - if he signed the Senate bill now, and then waited for the reconciliation, and they couldn't get it, then the Senate bill would be law.

    Parent
    If I understand correctly (5.00 / 1) (#106)
    by cenobite on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 01:50:26 PM EST
    Only on the reconciliation bill that amends the already-passed senate HCR bill, and it can't be filibustered.

    There will probably be some auxiliary votes associated with it for procedural issues like rules for debate and the like.


    Parent

    Funniest push so far (none / 0) (#134)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:27:25 PM EST
    Rep Stephen Lynch (D-Mass) is still getting the full court press. He came off the House floor this afternoon to return a call from Secretary of State Hillary Clinton.

    He sat on the balcony, just off the floor sporting Ray Bans sunglasses. Clinton told him to support the bill. He said he told her he's still a "no", but thought it wouldn't matter because he's hearing that Democrats are close to securing 216.

    Lynch supported Clinton for president and said "they keep moving closer to me. I'm waiting for my mother to call."

    Politico

    Hillary is making calls? (none / 0) (#141)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:39:20 PM EST
    I thought in her position she stayed out of 'politics'?

    Parent
    Please! (none / 0) (#147)
    by jbindc on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:45:56 PM EST
    Someone will think you're trying to relive the primaries!

    Parent
    Actually, it's an honest question (none / 0) (#155)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:03:01 PM EST
    I thought she was out of campaigning etc, and Bill was pulling that load for the pair.

    Parent
    Some great theatre today on C-SPAN. (none / 0) (#137)
    by Joan in VA on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:29:32 PM EST
    I would love to know where all the abortion funding is in this bill and, on the other side, where all the actual health care is.

    I am worried about Planned Parenthood. (none / 0) (#138)
    by oculus on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:32:37 PM EST
    Will they suffer the fate of ACORN?

    Parent
    "Dead babies and women wounded!" (none / 0) (#142)
    by Cream City on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:40:38 PM EST
    is what I heard from some fool, before I opted to switch back to watching anything else for a while.

    Parent
    Dog sports in the snow (none / 0) (#144)
    by nycstray on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 02:42:10 PM EST
    on ABC  ;) Much more fun and relaxing. And honest!

    Parent
    Looks like Stupak ... (none / 0) (#157)
    by Yman on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 03:25:33 PM EST
    ... is on board, now.

    I thought they had the votes on Thursday (none / 0) (#164)
    by FreakyBeaky on Sun Mar 21, 2010 at 05:12:46 PM EST
    http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/house-sets-aside-anti-deem-and.html?hpid=topnews

    222 to whatever it was.  So I've been figuring ball-park 220 yea to fewer nay for today's votes (procedural, Senate bill, reconciliation package).  

    Lots more drama to this one than there really was, methinks.

    Dems Say Health Care Vote is Secure | 171 comments (171 topical)

    Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment