Posted on 03/14/2010 7:48:42 PM PDT by conservativefunhouse
To provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010.
2300+ pages and includes student loans. Happy reading...
(Excerpt) Read more at budget.house.gov ...
Excert From Michell Malkin.com....comment The Hill
...you can read it on Scribd thanks to the Senate Republicans....
Michael O’Brien of The Hill points out that “the bill is a procedural step, it DOES NOT make the substantive changes yet to the Senate’s bill.” These recommendations were first proposed in October by the House Ways and Means and Education and Labor Committees (so the public option is still in here).
Philip Klein reminds us that GOP Rep. Paul Ryan warned last week of the Dems’ strategy ramming this “shell” HC Bill through committee tomorrow. The budget committee approves the shell, sends it to the rules committee, then strips out the language and stuffs the actual reconciliation changes into the burrito, Klein explains.
In other words: What you see below is the tortilla shell fake-out.
A sizable percentage of the American public couldn't define the difference between a Senator and a Representative.
Will it make a difference? It will certainly make a difference to people who are politically engaged. To the people who spend their days watching Oprah and Jerry Springer, it's completely over their head.
Thank you public education system.
Kill Bill, Hang em High, Death at Dawn
"Death Wish" seems a likely addition to that list - for multiple reasons.
Thanks for the ping!
I love Lonesome Dove and the scene where they hung the murderers (including their friend Jake Spoon). And THAT’S the kind of JUSTICE we need NOW.
does it mention student loans, or not?
That's the question historians will be wondering about (hopefully) in a free America generations from now. (fingers crossed and prayers sent).
student loan crap starts @ page 2098
The Slaughter rule is the crux of this whole scam and the most blatantly unconstitutional.
In order to go into reconciliation. The House must approve the Senate bill as is, then the Furher must sign it. Then the senate bill and that version of Obamacare becomes law.
You can then do Reconciliation on that, but it quite possible it could go no further, so then the House is stuck with the Senate bill they don’t like.
Slaughter rule, which blatantly disregards Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the Constitution which deems the Senate bill as law and then they go on to modify it with the reconciliation crap.
I know Mark Levin said that if they use the Slaughter rule to pass this , his Landmark Legal foundation would file suit in federal court. I expect others and probably several States, would do so too.
I see your point. I guess 2+2=4 100% of the time. Given the same tax rate increase to the same economic structure, you will see an X% decrease in production with a variance of Y%. I still think the analogy holds, with some tweaking.
Yes, we are entering the era of doublespeak. Hey, today is Pi day, the birth date of Einstein. The libs take that to mean everything is relative to what they currently perceive reality to be.
Nope, it’s called the Slaughter Solution and it’s posted in the Breaking News sidebar as of now.
Cure for all of the above: Abandon all liberal ideas and listen to Rush!
Let's divide it (by it, I mean the legislation itself) from the process. The legislation (once and IF enacted) will certainly face Constitutional challenges, many of which - IMHO - are very likely to prevail given the current makeup of the court. Some things in this bill are plainly unconstitutional.
The process in which this is actually passed, is an entirely separate matter. The Judiciary is HIGHLY RELUCTANT to interject themselves into matters involving the internal workings of the Congress. There is some indirect precedent, namely Powell v McCormack, but nothing has ever been entertained on a question of pure parliamentary procedure. While it's possible the Supremes would hear such a challenge, I think it's probably unlikely.
It’s not the FINAL reconcilliation bill, but one from October, which will be gutted by the Democrats and replaced with the language of the FINAL Reconcilliation bill - which hasn’t been crafted yet.
I think more and more Americans are crying out for the party of NO, that is if they can grow some.
Good point. Pelosi will try to limit House losses in Nov. by dumping blame on the Senate.
“DEEM something passed and actually voting to pass something?”
Deeming it passed end runs an actual vote. It’s like ‘ditching in line’ or saying, “I got that.”
It’s cheating the record and in violation of Parliamentary Procedure, as it removes the choice and the voice.
.....The Slaughter rule......
Would declare that the House of Representatives “deems” the Senate health care bill “passed” by the House.
House members would have to vote on whether to accept the rule, but would then be able to claim they only voted for a rule, not for the bill itself.
In other words, Democrats will avoid a direct vote on the health care bill while allowing it to become law!
They will take over one-sixth of the US economy without voting on it in direct violation to the legislative process defined by the U.S Constitution. Article I, Section VII, Clause II specifically states,
(19) QHBP OFFERING ENTITY.—The terms
17 ‘‘QHBP offering entity’’ means, with respect to a
18 health benefits plan that is—
19 (A) a group health plan (as defined, sub20
ject to subsection (d), in section 733(a)(1) of
21 the Employee Retirement Income Security Act
22 of 1974), the plan sponsor in relation to such
23 group health plan, except that, in the case of a
24 plan maintained jointly by 1 or more employers
25 and 1 or more employee organizations and with
12
•J. 55–345
1 respect to which an employer is the primary
2 source of financing, such term means such em3
ployer;
4 (B) health insurance coverage, the health
5 insurance issuer offering the coverage;
6 (C) the public health insurance option, the
7 Secretary of Health and Human Services;
8 (D) a non-Federal governmental plan (as
9 defined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health
10 Service Act), the State or political subdivision
11 of a State (or agency or instrumentality of such
12 State or subdivision) which establishes or main13
tains such plan; or
14 (E) a Federal governmental plan (as de15
fined in section 2791(d) of the Public Health
16 Service Act), the appropriate Federal official.
17 (20) QUALIFIED HEALTH BENEFITS PLAN.—
18 The term ‘‘qualified health benefits plan’’ means a
19 health benefits plan that meets the requirements for
20 such a plan under title I and includes the public
21 health insurance option.
22 (21) PUBLIC HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—
23 The term ‘‘public health insurance option’’ means
24 the public health insurance option as provided under
25 subtitle B of title II.
Obama comforts House liberals: Don’t worry, this bill is just the beginning of what we’ll do with health care
posted at 7:24 pm on March 4, 2010 by Allahpundit
Memo from The One to progressives: Keep the dream alive.
Obama argued to the group of progressive members that his health care reform bill should be looked at as the foundation of reform, that can be built on in the future. He asked them to help gather votes for the final health care battle and promised that as soon as the bill was signed into law, he’d continue to push to make it stronger. But in a matter of weeks, he stressed, he could sign into law legislation that would lead to 31 million new people being insured, including the woman who wrote him…
“He just said that the public option, something that he has supported along the way, is not something that we can pass. And he emphasized the fact that the decision now is between doing as much as we can do and doing nothing. That’s it. He thought the whole foundation thing — that this is definitely something we could be proud of, something we could build off [of],” said Schakowsky.
Woolsey told Obama that she’d be introducing legislation to create a public option and Obama said he encouraged the effort, according to Schakowsky.
snip None of the members, including Kucinich, indicated that they would vote any differently this time around. “I think [Kucinich] left the meeting leaving the impression with the president that he’s a no-go,” said Schakowsky.
But, said one attendee, Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill. Kucinich fought for an amendment that would allow states to adopt single-payer systems without getting sued by insurance companies. Obama told Kucinich that Sanders’s measure was similar but doesn’t kick in for several years. “He definitely wrote it down,” said one member of(about) Kucinich, suggesting that he’d look into it.
*******************
Sneaky muthah!!! I am telling you, this needs to be shouted from the rooftops.
REPEAT THIS!
Obama pointed Kucinich toward single-payer language that Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.) was able to get into the bill.!
IT'S IN THE BILL ALREADY!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.