Should healthcare bill be a 51 vote rather than 60?

[spursncowboys]

Health Bill Can Pass Senate With 51 Votes, Van Hollen Says
Share Business ExchangeTwitterFacebook| Email | Print | A A A
By Jonathan D. Salant

Jan. 16 (Bloomberg) -- Even if Democrats lose the Jan. 19 special election to pick a new Massachusetts senator, Congress may still pass a health-care overhaul by using a process called reconciliation, a top House Democrat said.

That procedure requires 51 votes rather than the 60 needed to prevent Republicans from blocking votes on President Barack Obama’s top legislative priorities. That supermajority is at risk as the Massachusetts race has tightened.

“Even before Massachusetts and that race was on the radar screen, we prepared for the process of using reconciliation,” said Chris Van Hollen of Maryland, chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee.

“Getting health-care reform passed is important,” Van Hollen said in an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “Political Capital with Al Hunt,” airing this weekend. “Reconciliation is an option.”

Using reconciliation would likely force Democrats to scale back their health-care plans. The procedure is designed to make deficit-cutting easier by reducing the number of votes needed to pass unpopular tax increases and spending cuts. Lawmakers can’t include policy changes that the parliamentarian deems have only an “incidental” connection to budget-cutting, and senators would need 60 votes to override those rulings.

Van Hollen also said he expects Democratic Senate candidate Martha Coakley to win in Massachusetts.

‘Pure Hallucination’

Van Hollen said Republican predictions that the political climate had changed so much that they can capture the 40 seats needed to regain control of the House was “pure hallucination.”

“Why would you hand the keys to the car back to the same guys whose policies drove the economy into the ditch and then walked away from the scene of the accident?” Van Hollen said. “For the Republicans to say vote for us and bring back the guys who got us into this mess in the first place, I don’t think it’s a winner.”

He said Democrats expect to see their majority shrink this year because the party that occupies the White House traditionally loses congressional seats in the first midterm election.

At the end of a week dominated by images of death and destruction after the Jan. 12 earthquake in Haiti, Van Hollen said lawmakers likely will approve whatever relief money the president requests. Obama has already asked for $100 million.

“We want to help people who need relief immediately, and so to that extent I support it,” Van Hollen said.

Haitians in U.S.

Separately, Homeland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano announced yesterday that Haitian nationals now in the U.S. will be allowed to stay for an additional 18 months because of the quake devastation.

On other domestic issues, Van Hollen said Congress won’t raise the gasoline tax this year to fund a new long-term construction program for roads and mass transit. The current six-year, $286.5 billion transportation legislation is expiring.

Jobs legislation passed by the House includes $50 billion for construction projects, Van Hollen said. Longer-term legislation with a gas-tax increase will require “some kind of bipartisan consensus before you more forward,” he said.

On the decision to call Treasury Secretary Timothy Geithner to testify before the House Financial Services Committee, Van Hollen said that while he didn’t believe Geithner was in political danger, it was appropriate for him to come before Congress.

New York Fed

Lawmakers want to know why the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, which Geithner formerly led, agreed to payments of 100 cents on the dollar to companies that held American International Group Inc. credit-default swaps tied to subprime mortgages.

Van Hollen said the New York Fed’s decision was wrong and the U.S. needed to “understand how that decision was made, because that kind of decision should not be made in the future.”

As Democratic congressional leaders worked with the White House to meld House and Senate versions of the health-care overhaul legislation, Van Hollen said there was no deadline for completing the measure.

“Our more important goal is to make sure we get it right,” he said.

While polls show opposition to the legislation -- a Quinnipiac University survey found 58 percent of Americans opposing the way Obama was handling the issue -- Van Hollen said the individual components were popular and most people will support the measure once it clears Congress.

“It’s been subject to a lot of demagoguery, a lot of misinformation,” Van Hollen said. Once the measure is finished, “people will see the benefits.”

To contact the reporter on this story: Jonathan D. Salant in Washington at [email protected].

[EmptyMan]

It really does not matter at this point.

They had to buy votes to get to 60. It's basically the same thing.

[boutons_deux]

If Kennedy's seat goes Repug, then Dems have 59.

If the Repugs can force through tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) with reconciliation, then the Dems can force through health care with reconciliation.

60 votes is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional rule.

Put back a Medicare-for-all robust/aggressive public option available to everybody (including those on employer plans), and ram it through with reconciliation. Fuck the avaricious health insurance companies in every orifice, and make some new ones.

[Wild Cobra]

In this case, where what is planned, will clearly infringe on constitutional rights... It should require a constitutional change.

Remember, the 60 votes is the required 3/5th to stop a senate debate. It's a senate rule that has been in place for as long as I can remember, maybe as long as our nation has existed. You cannot change it for just one agenda.

[spursncowboys]

I'd hate to see the precedent set from doing something like this with only 51.

[boutons_deux]

"in place for as long as I can remember"

only since the mid-70s. (1970s, not 1870s)

[boutons_deux]

"You cannot change it for just one agenda."

... for an "agenda" of which you don't approve, but reconciliation for "one agenda" [sic] oftax cuts for wealthy, you be kool widdit.

[baseline bum]

If Kennedy's seat goes Repug, then Dems have 59.

If the Repugs can force through tax cuts for the wealthy (themselves) with reconciliation, then the Dems can force through health care with reconciliation.

60 votes is a Senate rule, not a Constitutional rule.

Put back a Medicare-for-all robust/aggressive public option available to everybody (including those on employer plans), and ram it through with reconciliation. Fuck the avaricious health insurance companies in every orifice, and make some new ones.

:tu

Fuck the blue dog douchebags who have destroyed healthcare reform.

[Marcus Bryant]

With all this desire for fucking someone it's clear most Americans are going to get screwed. Good job.

[TheProfessor]

No. They need to recognize this tidal wave for what it is - a repudiation of their current tactics. Go back to the table, invite moderates, and make it transparent.

[spursncowboys]

no. They need to recognize this tidal wave for what it is - a repudiation of their current tactics. Go back to the table, invite moderates, and make it transparent.

+1.

[Spursmania]

I think bleeding liberals will continue to bleed all over this bill and do whatever it takes to pass this atrocity. 51 votes is ok with them. They'll do anything to pass a bill, any bill.

[Spursmania]

:tu

Fuck the blue dog douchebags who have destroyed healthcare reform.

Yeah, it's all the blue dogs fault...:rolleyes

[baseline bum]

Yeah, it's all the blue dogs fault...:rolleyes

The blue dogs (Obama included) are the reason this bill is basically extending the status quo, so yes, it is clearly their fault.

[spursncowboys]

The blue dogs (Obama included) are the reason this bill is basically extending the status quo, so yes, it is clearly their fault.

Barry is a blue dog?

[TheProfessor]

Barry is a blue dog?
He's just not the "liberal" everyone wants him to be. On both sides, it seems.

[baseline bum]

Barry is a blue dog?

Judging him on his actions and not his words, yes.

[ChumpDumper]

In this case, where what is planned, will clearly infringe on constitutional rights... It should require a constitutional change.Upon what part of the constitution is it infringing?

Please post it.

[EmptyMan]

Fuck the blue dogs? haha

You seriously think blue dogs were the problem??? :lmao Sucks to be that blind for a lifetime.


No. They need to recognize this tidal wave for what it is - a repudiation of their current tactics. Go back to the table, invite moderates, and make it transparent.

Reinforces my belief that Common Sense > I.Q. w/ Agenda. Nice Ivy League Obama brah

[baseline bum]

Fuck the blue dogs? haha

You seriously think blue dogs were the problem??? :lmao Sucks to be that blind for a lifetime.



Reinforces my belief that Common Sense > I.Q. w/ Agenda. Nice Ivy League Obama brah

Common sense is liking paying the highest price in the world for a lousy healthcare system? It's hilarious how the Glenn Beck crowd has redefined "common sense" to mean utter stupidity.

[Trainwreck2100]

:tu

Fuck the blue dog douchebags who have destroyed healthcare reform.

yeah i hate when senators to what their constituents want

[baseline bum]

yeah i hate when senators to what the tea-baggers want

fify

[balli]

Or what the corporations giving them money want...

But just as a matter of argument, is a senator's role to do what his/her constituents want, or is their role to act in the best interest of their constituents?

[spursncowboys]

Or what the corporations giving them money want...

But just as a matter of argument, is a senator's role to do what his/her constituents want, or is their role to act in the best interest of their constituents?

As a matter of argument, are we talking about how the founding fathers originally meant for the senator, who weren't supposed to be elected in but appointed?

[Marcus Bryant]

As a matter of argument, are we talking about how the founding fathers originally meant for the senator, who weren't supposed to be elected in but appointed?

Yes, the Founding Fathers who were clearly for mob rule and unchecked power of the state.

[spursncowboys]

Yes, the Founding Fathers who were clearly for mob rule and unchecked power of the state.
What are you talking about?
NM. Their opinion doesn't count because some of them owned slaves.

[angrydude]

Upon what part of the constitution is it infringing?

Please post it.

they'd say the commerce clause.

but I'm not entirely convinced yet.

[Trainwreck2100]

Or what the corporations giving them money want...

But just as a matter of argument, is a senator's role to do what his/her constituents want, or is their role to act in the best interest of their constituents?

Yeah they haven't done that in like, have they ever done that?

[FromWayDowntown]

I'm baffled by the argument that the Constitution is in any meaningful way implicated by this health care bill.

But it's hardly a surprise that Wild Cobra's response to legislation that he dislikes is to immediately make a vague claim that the legislation infringes upon some constitutional right.

What comes next is Wild Cobra's effort to construe the Constitution in some entirely unique fashion.

[balli]

I'm baffled by the argument that the Constitution is in any meaningful way implicated by this health care bill.

But it's hardly a surprise that Wild Cobra's response to legislation that he dislikes is to immediately make a vague claim that the legislation infringes upon some constitutional right.

What comes next is Wild Cobra's effort to construe the Constitution in some entirely unique fashion.


Area Man Passionate Defender Of What He Imagines Constitution To Be

ESCONDIDO, CA—Spurred by an administration he believes to be guilty of numerous transgressions, self-described American patriot Kyle Mortensen, 47, is a vehement defender of ideas he seems to think are enshrined in the U.S. Constitution and principles that brave men have fought and died for solely in his head.

"Our very way of life is under siege," said Mortensen, whose understanding of the Constitution derives not from a close reading of the document but from talk-show pundits, books by television personalities, and the limitless expanse of his own colorful imagination. "It's time for true Americans to stand up and protect the values that make us who we are."

According to Mortensen—an otherwise mild-mannered husband, father, and small-business owner—the most serious threat to his fanciful version of the 222-year-old Constitution is the attempt by far-left "traitors" to strip it of its religious foundation.

"Right there in the preamble, the authors make their priorities clear: 'one nation under God,'" said Mortensen, attributing to the Constitution a line from the Pledge of Allegiance, which itself did not include any reference to a deity until 1954. "Well, there's a reason they put that right at the top."

"Men like Madison and Jefferson were moved by the ideals of Christianity, and wanted the United States to reflect those values as a Christian nation," continued Mortensen, referring to the "Father of the Constitution," James Madison, considered by many historians to be an atheist, and Thomas Jefferson, an Enlightenment-era thinker who rejected the divinity of Christ and was in France at the time the document was written. "The words on the page speak for themselves."

According to sources who have read the nation's charter, the U.S. Constitution and its 27 amendments do not contain the word "God" or "Christ."

Mortensen said his admiration for the loose assemblage of vague half-notions he calls the Constitution has only grown over time. He believes that each detail he has pulled from thin air—from prohibitions on sodomy and flag-burning, to mandatory crackdowns on immigrants, to the right of citizens not to have their hard-earned income confiscated in the form of taxes—has contributed to making it the best framework for governance "since the Ten Commandments."

"And let's not forget that when the Constitution was ratified it brought freedom to every single American," Mortensen said.

Mortensen's passion for safeguarding the elaborate fantasy world in which his conception of the Constitution resides is greatly respected by his likeminded friends and relatives, many of whom have been known to repeat his unfounded assertions verbatim when angered. Still, some friends and family members remain critical.

"Dad's great, but listening to all that talk radio has put some weird ideas into his head," said daughter Samantha, a freshman at Reed College in Portland, OR. "He believes the Constitution allows the government to torture people and ban gay marriage, yet he doesn't even know that it guarantees universal health care."

Mortensen told reporters that he'll fight until the bitter end for what he roughly supposes the Constitution to be. He acknowledged, however, that it might already be too late to win the battle.

"The freedoms our Founding Fathers spilled their blood for are vanishing before our eyes," Mortensen said. "In under a year, a fascist, socialist regime has turned a proud democracy into a totalitarian state that will soon control every facet of American life."

"Don't just take my word for it," Mortensen added. "Try reading a newspaper or watching the news sometime."
http://www.theonion.com/content/news/area_man_passionate_defender_of

[baseline bum]

I'm baffled by the argument that the Constitution is in any meaningful way implicated by this health care bill.

But it's hardly a surprise that Wild Cobra's response to legislation that he dislikes is to immediately make a vague claim that the legislation infringes upon some constitutional right.

What comes next is Wild Cobra's effort to construe the Constitution in some entirely unique fashion.

Wild Cobra, like all dittoheads, wraps every one of his warped views in the flag, the constitution, and libertarianism (the last one is really hilarious :lol). You don't like his interpretation, then get the fuck out of the country because you're not a real American and are a threat to his fascist utopia.

[Marcus Bryant]

What other products/services are required by the federal government to be purchased by all citizens as a condition of their existence (as opposed to say, a passport or postage)? And, yes, under which Article of the Constitution is that permitted?

[balli]

What other products/services are required by the federal government to be purchased by all citizens as a condition of their existence (as opposed to say, a passport or postage)? And, yes, under which Article of the Constitution is that permitted?
I have no idea, I'm not a constitutional scholar. I don't know if it's federal, but I'm pretty sure every single state requires auto insurance be purchased by anyone who wants to drive. Lest they become a risk to the overall system.

Now, if people want to sign away their rights to the healthcare system, commit to not using it when they become ill, that's fine. But it seems like there's at least some precedent calling insurance a requisite for a populace that intends to use a particular service.

Certainly these state requirements aren't called into question, at least legally, by anyone using a constitutional argument.

[Marcus Bryant]

Difference is, you are required to purchase auto insurance for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road.

[boutons_deux]

I heard a Constitutional lawyer say this morning that Congress can impose taxes for the General Good, and that personal mandate to buy health insurance would be interpreted by SCOTUS as a tax and for the General Good.

I'm completely for a personal mandate, but only if the insurance is available under a public option.

The health insurance companies have successfully bribed enough Congressional whores to force citizens to buy their shitty products, a truly disastrous precedent.

[Marcus Bryant]

Sure, possible, given that the Constitution has been deconstructed over the years to mean whatever will expand the scale and scope of the federal government.

Of course, the robustness of the national economy, or the enhancement thereof, could also be deemed to be part of the "General Good." So perhaps we'll be required to spend a certain amount of our incomes and wealth to enhance the General Good soon enough. Or, there's always unintended consequences of finding what you want at the time in the Constitution.

[ChumpDumper]

On the other hand, is a health insurance mandate inherently unconstitutional?

I haven't seen that argument made anywhere. It's just all death panels and British people dying in the streets.

[baseline bum]

I'd completely for a personal mandate, but only if the insurance is available under a public option.


I'm not really even for that; universal health care is the best route, but a public option is the best anyone could ever hope for in a nation whose "center" is so far to the right.

[balli]

Difference is, you are required to purchase auto insurance for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road.
Ah okay, but like I said, they can opt out, not drive.

Now obviously we don't have a public healthcare system, such as we do roadways. Therefore, the private sector provides the only existing option for healthcare. And so this system largely finds itself performing the services of what would be a public healthcare system, for the uninsured. At least to a degree. Which drives my costs up as an insured citizen. Which makes me feel like the uninsured are a threat to the system, to the responsibly insured like myself. Just like an uninsured driver were to be.

Now you show me the guy who gets cancer, doesn't have insurance, and just says, 'fuck it,' and I'll admit I'm wrong.

But the way I see it, uninsured people having access to my healthcare system, however limited the access, is just driving up my costs and the burden taken on by the private sector. Rather than deny them care, it might be best that we simply require they assume responsibility for their inevitable participation in America's healthcare system?

[Marcus Bryant]

Then there's the provision that an insurer cannot deny someone signing up with a pre-existing condition. Quite conceivable that many will not obtain insurance until they are sick, and will pay whatever fine for not having insurance.

Costs are driven up by improvements in the quality of care, paying for routine, small medical expenditures through a 3rd party payer (the price to the insured is much less than full price), and doctors seeking to make an extra buck from the insurer. As long as you want a top down approach with various mandates, cost control doesn't come except through some sort of rationing or forced economizing. Not to mention that paying less and expecting the same quality of care takes some faith.

If you want to expand coverage, provide a subsidy to those who want it and can't afford it, and be done with it. Otherwise, there are plenty of other things which politicians could deem to be in the interest of the General Good and require you to buy.

[boutons_deux]

"you are required to purchase auto insurance for the privilege of operating a motor vehicle on a public road."

The uninsured are privileged to get "safety net" medical care from public (taxpayer supported) hospitals MANDATED to turn away no one.

If public hospitals could turn away the uninsured (let that hemorrhaging mother and baby both die), then the uninsured should be able to stay uninsured. But that ain't the case.

public hospitals are one of the very few humanitarian/civilized aspects of US health care.

Universal coverage should be supported by universal (uncapped) contributions.

[Marcus Bryant]

Obviously a more robust economy would reduce welfare expenditures so let's require everyone to spend more to stimulate the economy. Or, down with evil repug pitbull bitch savers.

[Marcus Bryant]

Further, let's bear in mind that the current bill, IIRC, requires working and middle class Americans to be forced to pay Fortune 500 companies a rather significant part of their income. Not that being forced to buy something from Uncle Sam would be that different. So much for personal liberty, so much for the Democratic Party as the party of the little guy. But we know what's best for you...

[Marcus Bryant]

But yeah, why should one expect that the Constitution would be anything more than a speed bump to the latest and greatest bad idea of state expansion?

[boutons_deux]

"require everyone to spend more to stimulate the economy"

I read an economist saying disease (health care) has become a major driver of the economy.

Ain't America Just Beautiful?

Most of the national health budget is from self-inflicted and corporate-inflicted, ie, elective diseases (aka, modifiable risk factors).

[boutons_deux]

"requires working and middle class Americans to be forced to pay Fortune 500 companies a rather significant part of their income"

That's the status quo, has been as long as employee health plan costs have been forcibly taken off the employees' paycheck and handed to the health insurers.

A direct subsidy, tax deductible for the employer, to health insurers with employee salary.

It's a fuckin racket, sucking wealth out of everybody's pockets.

[Marcus Bryant]

Right, so double down instead of addressing the actual reason that's occurred? That's the true racket. But, of course, we cannot expect individuals to take care of themselves and their families. Their hands must be held. Better, they must be instructed by the wise.

[Wild Cobra]

Wild Cobra, like all dittoheads.....

That's why you are a totally ignorant shithead. You assume the most insane things.

[baseline bum]

That's why you are a totally ignorant shithead. You assume the most insane things.

You should go fuck your mother so she can have another baby for the welfare.

[Wild Cobra]

You should go fuck your mother so she can have another baby for the welfare.
Sorry, just because you have such experience, doesn't mean others want it.

[baseline bum]

I'd never fuck your mother. Don't need another little WC on the taxpayer's dime.

[spursncowboys]

You should go fuck your mother so she can have another baby for the welfare.
That's pretty bad even for you. Try and show a little class. No one expects much.

[spursncowboys]

I'd never fuck your mother. Don't need another little WC on the taxpayer's dime.
You are the biggest piece of shit.

[baseline bum]

You are the biggest piece of shit.

I thought people on welfare were the biggest pieces of shit.

[jack sommerset]

The old go fuck your mommy line. Classsic.

[spursncowboys]

I thought people on welfare were the biggest pieces of shit.
No people who vote to keep them enslaved, knowing the lack of success it has.

[baseline bum]

No people who vote to keep them enslaved, knowing the lack of success it has.

So you then agree with me that this nation cannot keep on the destructive path Reagan set it on where the disparity of wealth between the people and the elites shot to levels not seen since the depression era?

[ChumpDumper]

No people who vote to keep them enslaved, knowing the lack of success it has.What the hell are you talking about?

[temujin]

They are talking about spreading the risk of disease.
Spreading it to 1 million has a cost.
To 10 millions is proportionally less, to 100 millions is even less.

A lot of other people got it.
A long time ago, thanks God.
That's why they (we) spend 6-8% of their (our) GDP by spreading the risk,
as opposed to US 14%.

And actually ending up living longer.