Brown's election may ending up being a positive for health-care reform [Confirms Planned Ruse]

Wapo ^ | 03/07/10 | Shailagh Murray

[freespirited]

Remember how Republican Scott P. Brown's victory in January's Senate race in Massachusetts was supposed to represent a mortal blow to health-care reform?

"Probably back to the drawing board," Sen. Russell Feingold (D-Wis.) declared the next day. "Might be dead," Rep. Anthony Weiner (D-N.Y.) surmised....

But rather than dooming the effort, Brown's win appears to have helped Democrats refocus the legislation and their strategy for selling it. ... Democrats now expect to unveil legislation that costs less and more aggressively tackles health-care inflation -- a package they say could leave them less vulnerable in November. It drops the "Cornhusker Kickback" that so infuriated voters, and includes a few Republican ideas tacked on by President Obama....

The House and Senate will launch the final legislative phase this week, with the aim of holding votes before the end of the month. The action will come in two phases. First the House will vote on the bill the Senate approved on Christmas Eve. Then each chamber is expected to consider a package of "fixes" offered under a budget rule known as reconciliation that will protect it from a GOP filibuster in the Senate.

Democrats could still fail to pass the overhaul for any number of reasons, and Republicans are vowing an epic showdown on the Senate floor to derail the reconciliation package. Sen. Judd Gregg (N.H.), the senior Republican on the Senate Budget Committee, which holds jurisdiction over reconciliation bills, has called the legislation "a giant asteroid headed at the Earth." He has pledged to block it.

[freespirited]

Cat is out of bag. Nanny, Barry, and Harry plan to trick the House into passing the current Senate bill by promising a followup bill to be passed by reconciliation. Which will never happen. With the result that the current Senate bill will become law the instant that the House passes it and Obama signs it.

If Stupak & Company fall for this they are dumber than Patty Murray.

[SmartInsight]

This is just Dem spin.

[lewislynn]

If Stupak & Company fall for this they are dumber than Patty Murray

Or complicit.

[hinckley buzzard]

I don't think it will play out as a ruse. It is too facile, and transparent. No congressman truly would trust Reid/Pelosi on this. If they go along with it, it is because they were bought out and will not make any noise about it after the fact.

[Graybeard58]

With the result that the current Senate bill will become law the instant that the House passes it and Obama signs it.

Not a single doubt in my mind.

[WOSG]

More media disinformation.

I am amazed at how the media is nothing moer than Democrat spin sock-puppets, with nary a clue nor care for the balanced truth.

... “But rather than dooming the effort, Brown’s win appears to have helped Democrats refocus the legislation and their strategy for selling it. ... Democrats now expect to unveil legislation that costs less and more aggressively tackles health-care inflation” ....

NONE of the Democrat bills do any of that.

[Fee]

Healthcare IS the Dems Waterloo. If they lose this, the extreme leftwing of the party will bolt just like the Tea Party members left the GOP. Pres Clinton basicly explained this to the Dems on their retreat. Granted passing the bill may cost the Dems seat in 2010, but the party will survive and remain intact. That is why the Dem party leaders are fighting tooth and nail to pass it and this is a chance for the GOP to cause discord in the Dem coalition.

[Williams]

Wage and price controls never work.

[max americana]

Regardless, at least 30 states are already passing laws to repeal and protect against this debacle..in case Dumbo passes it.

[RedMDer]

This looks like cover for zero’s Waterloo to me.

[OCC]

So a Republican winning a 40+ year Kennedy seat is somehow good for Democrats?

[SecondAmendment]

However (and I am quite amazed that this has not gotten more traction), the House cannot vote on the Senate bill, since this violates Article 1, Section 7 of the constitution, since which says that:

• Spending bills much originate from the House
• The senate can only make amendments to a spending bill

In a typically dishonest manor, the Dems in the senate took a spending bill from the house, HR 3590 originally intended deal with tax credits for Armed Forces members, and completely replaced it (or substituted as worded in the bill) the entire text with the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

However (due to Article I sect 7 ), they are only allowed to make amendments to a house bill, not completely replace it with a new one, so the act of voting on this bill in the house is clearly unconstitutional and must not be allowed.

I will (and I urge all of you to do this as well), to inform your representatives of this ASAP and insist that they bring up a constitutional challenge to voting on this bill.

[Cementjungle]

I don’t believe a word of what WaPo says...ever.

[thulldud]

So a Republican winning a 40+ year Kennedy seat is somehow good for Democrats?

Sure it is. Same way that 3 feet of snow is evidence of AGW.

[Will88]

Spending bills much originate from the House

I've wondered about that often lately, but thought the Dims must have some scheme to bypass that requirement just as they're scheming to bypass all Senate rules if necessary.

[PaleoBob]

If pro-LIfe Dems vote for the Senate bill they will be on the record voting FOR public funding of abortion. It won’t matter what they are promised, or that they voted against it before they voted for it, the record is the record and a vote is a vote and this is something everyone on the Hill understands. Nobody votes FOR this and then says they are pro-Life. Some lies are just too transparent.

I don’t think the Dems have the votes on this. I could be wrong, but if they had them it would have passed by now.

[vbmoneyspender]

And Stalingrad was a winner for the Wehrmacht.

[PaleoBob]

I don’t believe a word of what WaPo says...ever.

---

Their front page two days ago had a photo of two men kissing. Unfortunately, it was believable.

[SecondAmendment]

> I've wondered about that often lately, but thought the > Dims must have some scheme to bypass that requirement just > as they're scheming to bypass all Senate rules if > necessary.

The scheme or trick was done by the senate, when HR 3590's original text was completely gutted and replaced with the current health care bill text. The senate never voted on the text of the house's bill via this ruse.

Sen Leahy confirms this on his website ( http://leahy.senate.gov/issues_and_legislation/issues/issue/?id=ae79fcb8-2f2d-4856-bb2c-5c6c0514e3ff ):

On December 24, 2009 the Senate passed The Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act as a substitute amendment to HR3590, the Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009. Because the health care reform legislation would raise revenue, the Origination Clause of the Constitution requires that the bill originate in the House of Representatives and therefore the Senate will use HR3590 as a shell bill, with health care reform legislation offered as a substitute amendment.

The problem is this "substitute amendment" is a complete replacement of the original bill (i.e. shell bill), and is unconstitutional.

[denydenydeny]

Democrats now expect to unveil legislation that costs less and more aggressively tackles health-care inflation -- a package they say could leave them less vulnerable in November.

This almost reads like a DNC press release.