How the Health Care Bill Passed - In Plain English

New Family Economics | 3/22/2010 | Brad Hamill

[politicket]

How the Health Care Bill Passed – In Plain English

Our nation has come a long ways since the days when Schoolhouse Rock taught all of us kids “How a Bill Becomes a Law”.

We learned archaic things such as where our US Constitution states in Article I Section 7 that:

“All bills for raising revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with amendments as on other Bills.”

We also learned quaint things – such as a bill can ONLY become a law after going through the legislative process and then being signed by the President of the United States.

Everything that we learned is so old school. It doesn’t represent the “new and enlightened” way that our current politicians operate. After all, who wants to follow the old rules set forth by a bunch of men who wore powdered wigs?

Let’s review the new way that our “esteemed” representatives operate.

First off, what happens when the US Senate wants to create its own revenue generating bill? Does it look at the words of the US Constitution and back off? No…that’s too proper.

Instead, the Senate looks for a bill that the House of Representatives has already sent them, and they proceed to butcher it. First, they add an “amendment” to the House bill that contains the entire bill that they actually want to pass – but don’t have Constitutional standing to introduce. Then they remove all of the original language of the House bill so that the “amendment” is the only thing left.

We’ll take HR 3590 as an example. HR 3590 - Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009 was introduced in the House of Representatives on September 17, 2009 (Bill History). It was sponsored by Rep. Charles Rangel from NY.

The text of HR 3590 stated that the bill’s purpose was:

“To amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to modify the first-time homebuyers credit in the case of members of the Armed Forces and certain other Federal employees, and for other purposes.”

Not too many people would argue with helping out the members of our armed services, so the bill was passed by the House of Representatives on October 8, 2009 by a “call of the roll” which resulted in a vote of 416-0 (with 16 not voting).

It should be pointed out that a “call of the roll” is different than the times where the House just allows an electronic vote on a bill. A “call of the roll” is a voice vote. It gives the politicians the opportunity to stand and vocally cast their vote. In this case, it made for them look like patriotic Americans.

The truth is that Charles Rangel never introduced HR 3590 with the purpose of seeing it become law under its originally stated purpose.

Instead, Congressman Rangel introduced HR 3590 as a means to create a bill that absolutely no representative in their right mind would be against – all for the purpose of getting the House bill to the US Senate so that it could be gutted and replaced with the Health Care bill as an amendment. Rep. Rangel used our brave service members as a decoy to get the bill to the Senate.

You might be interested in reading the “engrossed” version of HR 3590 as it was passed by the House.

HR 3590 was received in the US Senate for deliberation on October 8, 2009. It was placed on the Senate calendar on October 13, 2009 with this text.

November 19, 2009 was the beginning of the Health Care travesty in the US Senate. Senator Harry Reid offered Senate Amendment 2786 that began with the words: “Strike after the enacting clause and insert the following”

The original language of HR 3590 was now GONE! Our brave service members saw the text of the original bill vanish before their very eyes! In its place were 2,076 pages of the new Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act.

Senator Reid also set aside around 400 “spaces” for additional amendments to be offered on the “new” bill. Each “placeholder” amendment contained the following words: “AMENDMENT PURPOSE: Purpose will be available when the amendment is proposed for consideration. See Congressional Record for text.”

HR 3590 was voted on by the Senate on Christmas Eve 2009 – by a recorded vote instead of a “call of the role”. The bill passed the US Senate by a vote of 60-39 (with 1 not voting).

On December 29, 2009 the US Senate notified the US House of Representatives concerning the Senate’s action on HR 3590.

Now the House of Representatives had a decision to make. The bill sent back to them by the Senate had no resemblance to the bill that was originally sent to the Senate. It was now all about health care, instead of giving aid to our military members.

The House could have assigned the bill to a “joint committee” made up of both House and Senate members to hash out the final language for the bill. However, this posed a problem – since any changes made by the joint committee would have caused HR 3590 to be voted on again by both the House and the Senate.

The recent election of Senator Scott Brown in Massachusetts meant that the Senate Republicans now had enough members to “filibuster” the bill if it came up for vote again. The Democrat Senators would have needed 60 votes to break the filibuster – a number which they did not possess.

The only option was for the House of Representatives to vote for the US Senate version of HR 3590 as it was passed in the Senate – with the exact same language. It could then bypass any joint committee (since both sides agreed on the language) and be sent to the President for his signature.

Many Democrat Representatives were uncomfortable with this option – since it would render their own pork-barrel version of a health care reform bill (HR 3962) as moot. They would be letting the US Senate decide the ENTIRE language for health care reform through the unconstitutional takeover of HR 3590.

The “solution” arrived at involved the creation of a Health Care Reconciliation bill (HR 4872 - Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010).

This 2,310 page monstrosity is to reintroduce many of the provisions of the House version of the Health Care bill that never made it to HR 3590 that was just passed.

What is a “reconciliation” bill? Actually, it’s a shorthand reference to the full description: Budget reconciliation bill. Here’s where it gets even more interesting!

A Budget Reconciliation Bill (such as HR 4862) contains changes to EXISTING LAW that are recommended pursuant to “reconciliation bill instructions” – which are provisions directing committees to submit legislation making changes to EXISTING LAW in order to bring spending and revenue in line with an existing budget resolution.

Budget reconciliation maneuvers only need to be passed by a majority in the US Senate – and are protected from being filibustered. The Democrats are incorrectly using a budget reconciliation bill in order to avoid having their desired changes blocked by a Republican filibuster in the US Senate.

The HR 4872 budget reconciliation bill was passed by the House of Representatives on March 21, 2010 by a recorded vote of 220-211.

There’s only one “slight” problem. The House voted to make changes to the EXISTING LAW of HR 3590 – when the President of the United States hadn’t even signed HR 3590 INTO LAW yet. The House of Representatives voted to make changes to something that didn’t even exist at the time of the vote!

Hopefully this helps to outline the tyrannical and treasonous activities of our Federal Government. The Republicans have used many of the same tactics when they have been in power.

Schoolhouse Rock certainly made things seem simpler – and less blatantly corrupt and conniving!

[Jeff Head]

In plain english?

Lies, deciet, and treachory. They used trickery, sculldruggery, bribery, threats, and lawlessness to pull their Health Care Vote out by the skin of their teeth...and the battle is still far from over.

The man who despises America

Stupak was not padding to a democrat victory. No the EO deal was the democrat leadership's last ditch gasp to gett the votes they needed...because the vote makes clear that they did not have them before. And Stupak and those listening to him fell for it and will be forever remembered for being duped, bribed, and sashayed into supporting a bill that will use tax payer money to pay for abortion...and ruin the best health care services in the world as they are found in this nation...and enslave our children and grandchildren in debt. I do not know what all they were promised, or threatened with...but you can bet that it had a lot more to it than a rediculous Executive Order which will not stand or be used to stop it anyway.

We have a band of traitors running this country. I know of no other way to state it or express it. That is the truth about Barrack Hussein Obama and those in league with him.They have proven by their words, their deeds, and their stances...for decades...what they are, and now they have punctuated it with this God-forsaken, monstrocity social health care bill, and intend to continue punctuating it with amnesty for illegal aliens, a world-wide socialist cap and trade effort...among many other things. They are marxist ideologs who hate the free market, who hate free enterprise, who disdain the constitution and its attending, foundational principles, who reject freedom and personal responsibility, and who promise the wrteched masses that they themselves have created through dependancy, anything they think they want, so they can amass power to themselves and destroy this Republic, its liberty and way of life, and make it over into a decrepid socialist/marxist state where they and their cronies amass tyranical power unto themselves.

This cannot stand...indeed, this MUST NOT STAND. We must press forward to the elections of 2010 and throw these enemies out with such resounding clarity that it cannot be denied either here or abroad what is occurring. We must do so by turning to the constitution and the principles that are its foundation and then electing only those candidates who swear their allegiance to that constitution and those principles.

Nothing else will do.

If, as a people, we do not turn away from the course these quislings and traitors have set us on, then, as history and God are our witness, we will ultimately be left only with same course our own forefathers were compelled to take...that is, the force of arms, in the hands of citizens and citizen soldiers of this country to route these traitors out.

We are at a monumental crossroads in our nations history. We are on a path to self destruction and the loss of our freedom and way of life. But we have the opportunity to turn off that path and return to the principles that have made America free and prospered her.

Rise up O America, your liberty is calling!

Get involved with the effort to find and support constitutional candidates : RESTORE THE CONSTITUTION EFFORT

Come together with, discuss, and plan activities to take back our Republic at : FREERPUBLIC.COM CONSERVATIVE ACTIVISM

Join a TEA PARTY like our founders, to turn this marxism/socialism around TEA PARTY NATION and, or TEA PARTY PATRITOTS

Stay true to your oath to protect and defend the Constitution at OATHKEEPERS - NOT ON OUR WATCH

Sincerely, and in liberty,

Jeff Head
Emmett, ID
March 22, 2010

[TheThinker]

The Republicans have used many of the same tactics when they have been in power.

I'd like to see examples.

[politicket]

I'd like to see examples.

Of stripping a bill in the Senate? It happens all the time - both on the Federal and State levels.

It's a pretty common tactic.

[Star Traveler]

Where’s the reference link to this article?

[politicket]

Don’t have one. Is it not newsworthy?

[T-Bird45]

So you’re telling me that “Schoolhouse Rock: I’m Just a Bill” is as big a fiction as Jefferson Smith in “Mr. Smith Goes to Washington”? No, get outta here — say it ain’t so, Jeff!

[Star Traveler]

It might be, but I don’t know where it came from.... unless you supply a reference link...

[OrioleFan]

bump

[Kenny]

So, if they voted on the amendments before the bill was actually law, doesn’t that make it part of the conferencing process rather than actual legislation?

[politicket]

So, if they voted on the amendments before the bill was actually law, doesn’t that make it part of the conferencing process rather than actual legislation?

The proper process is for budget reconciliation instructions to be administered while the bill is still in committee(s) of the respective chamber.

Also, the budget reconciliation instructions can only be administered and sent to the floor on legislation that is already previous law.

That is one of the many areas where this falls short. HR 4862 was voted on as law when Obama hasn't signed the legislation it reconciles into law yet.

In answer to your question...the House vote was technically no better than voting something out as a "committee of the whole" to be actually voted on at a later time.

[mulligan]

Would like the author to site examples of when and for what the Republican’s used this approach.

[Star Traveler]

It appears to me, that this article you've got (wherever it came from) is a bogus article, because it doesn't exist as an article with the author's name or at the website name that you gave for the article.

A search for the author, "Brad Hamill," showed the website "The Christian Economic Report"... with his articles listed ...

A search for the article - "How the Health Care Bill Passed" at "The Christian Economic Report" shows that it doesn't exist at that site.

However, a search for the author "Brad Hamill" at "New Family Economics" shows he doesn't exist there.

The "New Family Economics" website is at ... http://www.newfamilyeconomics.com/

But, a search for the article you have under the title of the article shows that it doesn't exist at that site of "New Family Economics".

So, there is an author by that name, but he didn't write such an article. There is a different website that has other articles written by that author, but that author is not at the website you gave, above. The website you gave, doesn't have that author or that article.

It appears that this article simply does not exist..., except here, in this thread, of course -- and if so, it appears to be something that you wrote, rather than from another source.

If you want to write an article, then just say so and put the article in, but don't put some author up there where he has no such article, or put a website up, where the website doesn't have any such article nor the author... doncha know... LOL ...

BUT, if you've got a reference for it, I would be glad to see it... :-)

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

Would like the author to site examples of when and for what the Republican’s used this approach.

Ummmm..., it appears that this author did not write this article. He's not even at that website listed up above. He has written other articles, but not this one.

And, the website listed up above, doesn't have the author or the article.

I did a search on all this information and it simply does not exist, so I don't think you're gonna get the author to give you what you're asking for, since he didn't write it in the first place (at least not from my search) ... LOL ...

You can see my searches in Post #13 ...

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

I'd like to see examples.

See Post #13 ... as this appears to not be the author that wrote this article or the website that contains it, either.

I don't think you're going to get your answer from this listed author...

[Admin Moderator]

Please provide a working link to this article for the source and author which you have attributed. Hit the abuse button when you have the working link.

Thanks.

[politicket]

Go ahead and pull it. After all, it's not as interesting as many of the other salicious stories about Tiger Woods and celebrity gossip that would replace it.

By the way, the author is me. The domain is mine.

Sorry that I'm not an AP reporter - then I might have some "street cred" from those around here.

FR is sliding down hill fast. And I've been around longer than most.

[Star Traveler]

You were saying ...

By the way, the author is me. The domain is mine.

Then there's no problem... just give the link to the article and that's it... that's all that is being asked... for verification... doncha know...

I asked for it and I didn't think it was that complicated, it's just verification of a source.

[politicket]

Who assigned you to be a brother's keeper?

You better go check all of the citations on the Tiger Wood's articles as well. Ya' never know...

[Admin Moderator]

"Go ahead and pull it. After all, it's not as interesting as many of the other salicious stories about Tiger Woods and celebrity gossip that would replace it. By the way, the author is me. The domain is mine. Sorry that I'm not an AP reporter - then I might have some "street cred" from those around here. FR is sliding down hill fast. And I've been around longer than most."

Yes, you have been here a long time, and by the way, long enough to know that nearly everyone else who has been on Free Republic for the same length of time, has posted at least one vanity if not dozens of vanities over the years.

You also have been here long enough to have heard at least once that everyone is required to provide a working link for all published material.

You have also been here long enough to have heard that if you do not have a working link to an article, and if you are the author of the article, then the topic of choice would be "Vanity" and you could also place the word "Vanity" in the source space so that no one will question "where's the link?"

Getting upset over someone requesting a link to the article's original site of publication seems rather silly. If you really are the author, it seems that instead of becoming upset, you might have been flattered. After noting the source and author's name which you typed in yourself, one of your admiring readers asked for a link. That's a big compliment because obviously the reader thought the article was published somewhere. Perhaps a thank you is in order to the reader(s) instead of a complaint.

If you still want us to pull this thread, please hit the abuse button again. Thank you.