Ok, someone enlighten me: how can the Senate version be signed into law until both houses have worked out the differences and voted for the compromise bill? The president doesn’t sign a bill from just one house into law does he?

If the House accepts the version of the Bill just as it passed the Senate, there are no differences to reconcile and the Bill goes immediately to the President for signature. If the House does not accept the Senate Bill exactly as it passed the Senate, then it must go to conference. The Senate Bill still contains the Cornhusker kickback, the Louisiana purchase, the labor union tax exemption for health insurance that others will pay and ten years of tax increases to pay for six years of benefits.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s ruling may make it more difficult to pass the health care reform bill. If I were a betting man, however, I still wouldn’t bet against Obama, Pelosi, Reid, and company finding some other way to jam the bill down our throats. In fact, they may get even more desperate as the possibility of losing control of one or both houses of Congress this November increases.

James1 – I knew that part; did I miss where the House voted on the Senate version? The version with abortion coverage paid for with tax dollars?

This is starting to look an awful lot like TEC.

Sinner,

The auditions for Ed Anger impersonators are that way. ——->

FW Ken, as I understand it, the Parliamentarian’s ruling means that the Senate cannot take up the “reconciliation” bill until the House has passed its original bill and the President has signed it. Since the House leaders don’t have the votes to pass the Senate bill, this effectively kills it.

For now, anyhow. These people are still scheming. Harry Reid could fire the Parliamentarian. VP Joe Biden could overrule him. House leaders could cook up some weirdo scheme like the Slaughter thing.

Sinner, it’s looking like the Dems will lose the House, but I haven’t seen projections on the Senate flipping, unfortunately. Amazing the ideas you Kiwis get in news about the U.S.

I think it is too early to stick a fork in it. If the Constitution doesn’t keep Demorats from doing what they do, then what are a few Senate rules to stop them?

As I said earlier, this is beginning to sound like TEC. The rules mean what we say they mean.

Cleanup on aisles 6 & 7.

Thanks Katherine. That makes sense.

Someone made the point, however, that a Democratic Congress, though with a smaller margin, in 2010 is preferable, since the Dems will take the heat for the continuing disarray, while being unable to do much of anything.

It’s always worth remembering that “gridlock” in Washington is a feature, not a bug. It’s called “separation of powers” and contributes to the sort of federalism intended for this country.

I don’t know. The melted lady (San Fran Nan) hasn’t sung yet. I put nothing past these power drunk assh*les.

I am not sure why everyone wants to give good marks to Obama for playing well with others. Dumping health care and the annoying and ugly “moderate” tools who slavishly promoted it may well all be part of the One’s plan for re-election. Party loyalty, even health care itself, is not; those ideas are for the congressional serfs, the little people.

Dumped health care, realized “resultant” “savings,” “fixed” the economy (I for one will have my IRA contributions in before Election Day this year) … Obama re-election in 2012.

If I look at what Obama has actually *done* (maintained Gitmo, surged in AFG, getting ready to overrule Holder) I don’t see much to dislkike.

It’s what he’d rather be doing that bothers me.

Looks like Congressional Democrats are getting more desperate as time passes. Each new “plan” to pass the “Health Care Overhaul” – another oxymoron! – is sounding more and more bizarre, as if we were watching the legislative actions within some banana republic, not the US House and Senate.

Chaos is not fun to watch, no matter where we see it.

Tying the health care language to different legislation on higher education which presumably would draw necessary support and provide all the cover needed–that’s the game now, apparently, and Rahm Emmanuel says they have just about got it gamed out the way they want it. Republican points of order will be overruled.

There is a separate question as to whether communists should be able to be elected in a democracy. Of course I think not: the courts should be able to vet politicians and parties to ensure that anti-Americans can be elected.

Sinner, I’m curious, do you believe in the concept of ‘inalienable rights’? Ie. to believe that there are certain rights that not even a majority vote by a democracy should have the ability to deny?

both houses is a certainty. the only interesting question is: will the assassination happen before the impeachment!

Only if the Dems spawn off a Trotsky-ite faction.

If you want a real shock, you need to read this inverview with Rep. Stupak. According to him, the Democrats are saying the government needs to be able to abort babies under the bill in order to control costs under Obamacare. Shades of China’s “One Child Policy.” And what’s to say if this is passed, the government will stop at deciding just babies are expendable?

Snip: What are Democratic leaders saying? “If you pass the Stupak amendment, more children will be born, and therefore it will cost us millions more. That’s one of the arguments I’ve been hearing,” Stupak says. “Money is their hang-up. Is this how we now value life in America? If money is the issue — come on, we can find room in the budget. This is life we’re talking about.”

Read whole interview here:

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=MzU0MDYxMWEyOTdiNGU1OGU3ZjYzYmE3Y2ZlZDQ5NTY=

Looks like Sinner got scrubbed this thread.

Yeah, I keep reading responses to something Sinner said, but I don’t actually see any posts by Sinner.

FW Ken: No, you did not miss it. The House vote on the Senate bill, with abortions, the Cornhusker kickback, the Lousiana Purchase, the labor union exemption from taxes everyone else will pay, new taxes (including taxes on medical devices that will increase health care costs) that begin now, but defer benefits for four (4) years, is scheduled for Thursday, March 18. If passed, it will go immediately to the President for signature. Once passed, the Congress may, or may not, “fix” it using the reconciliation process.

Are you surprised, Mr. Matson, at the similarities? You really shouldn’t be. The Left doesn’t really “think”, they “feel” and “emote.” Rules, tradition, protocal, history all just stand in the way of assuaging their emotions. To them the ends justify the means so anything that stands in the way they are justified to ignore. It doesn’t matter if you are secular or religious left, both are the same.

Thanks, James1, for the process update.

The merits of this particular healthcare “reform” effort aside, this bill stinks for political reasons. There is too much manipulation, which has led to widespread public cynicism for a bill that already had widespread public opposition.