Sunday, March 21, 2010

HEALTH CARE VOTE TODAY

 Breaking news this morning:

CNN:  House Democrats have 216 votes needed to pass health care reform, chairman of House Democratic Caucus tells CNN.

Updates will be added as events unfold.

Update:  Latest poll from Rasmussen:

The latest Rasmussen Reports national telephone poll, taken Friday and Saturday nights, shows that 41% of likely voters favor the health care plan. Fifty-four percent (54%) are opposed. These figures have barely budged in recent months.

Update:  Here's what's happening today...

The House Rules Committee late Saturday night approved the terms of debate for the Democrats’ major health care legislation, officially setting the stage for a historic floor fight and a decisive vote on Sunday.
Under the rule approved by the committee shortly before midnight, the House will spend two hours debating both the Senate health bill and a budget reconciliation measure that includes revisions to the Senate bill.
Once that debate is completed, the House will vote on the Senate bill — a step that some Democrats have been reluctant to take because they dislike aspects of the Senate bill and will not support it without changes.
If the Senate bill is approved, the House would then vote on the budget reconciliation measure. The terms of debate restrict the ability of Republicans to derail the legislation, but there are still a number of parliamentary weapons at their disposal, and they have vowed to use all of them.
The committee did give Democrats an escape hatch, allowing for the proceedings to be postponed at the discretion of the speaker.

59 comments:

  1. A wise man once said "A house divided against itself cannot stand".

    Regardless of how the final vote tallies, our House is divided against itself.

    This is a dark day.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I am not so sure that they have the votes -- CNN may be trying to pump things up.

    It may be dark now, but it will be lighter in November when these people are voted out of office.

    As far as I know, the vote today is still on whether to "deem" that the Senate bill has passed through the house, even though it has not actually been introduced. Unless both Houses vote on the same bill, then nothing has been enacted.

    I have been thinking that should the House vote to "deem" the Senate bill has passed then the American People should "deem" that the House has acted in defiance to the Constitution and therefore resigned their positions -- and any further legislation they vote on is null and void because we do not recognize them as being Congress.

    If they want a revolution, let’s give it to them.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Matt, the "deem" was scrapped yesterday.

    Today's vote is propped up by reconciliation. They just need a simple majority to PASS health care "reform".

    ReplyDelete
  4. I thought I had heard that, but could not find a confirmation when I did a quick scan this morning.

    This means they are doing a straight up or down vote on the Senate bill. If the House adds anything it has to go back to the Senate. Hopefully there are too mnay things in the Senate bill for many members of Congress to vote for.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Wouldn't it be funny if Pelosi called for the vote and the Blue Dogs sandbagged her? Funny in a "our Congress has more clowns than Cirque du Soleil" kind of way.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Pelosi was just running her yap on TV. It appears she has the votes.

    Oh Lord, this is gonna be bad.

    ReplyDelete
  7. According to MSNBC, Stupak just caved.

    It's a done deal.

    ReplyDelete
  8. There are reports of protesters spitting on congresspeople. Classy, huh? Good grief.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Not really OT but has anyone else noticed the horrifying picture of Nancy Pelosi on Drudge? eeeeek!

    It's sad if Stupak folded; they may win this by one vote but it's far from over. It must be amended in the Senate (as promised to various House members in order to get their votes)and then return to the House once again. In between all that, voters are making themselves heard and may well change some votes when it goes back and forth. This is also being challenged in court already by many states.

    ReplyDelete
  10. "There are reports of protesters spitting on congresspeople. Classy, huh? Good grief."

    And these reports have been blown to hell.

    Liberals would not know the truth if it bit them in the ass.

    ReplyDelete
  11. I've heard that someone spit at a pol and that there were racial slurs. This has already been condemned by the tea party people and are from a crazy fringe (of either side, BTW) element. As we have seen over and over, the only violence at these gatherings was when SEIU thugs assaulted someone.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Thanks for posting that, Matt, I figured it was a lunatic fringe or just bullshit.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Matt, the spitting I'm talking about just happened a few minutes ago, as reported by Fox.

    The other was lies, told by lying liars. I'm so glad that someone videotaped the whole thing.

    ReplyDelete
  14. "It must be amended in the Senate (as promised to various House members in order to get their votes) and then return to the House once again.”

    If it goes through all of that, then this bill was not passed in reconciliation. It was all empty promises to get members of the House to vote for it. Once it is done, Pelosi will say, "Promises? What promises? We didn't promise you anything."

    Remember that this bill is being voted on by people who really haven't read the thing. Think about it, how would any member of Congress feel about being told by some previous Congress that they cannot repeal a law? I would vote against that on principle -- even if I agreed with the rest of the bill.

    ReplyDelete
  15. They haven't read it. Their votes are being bought with cold hard cash and empty promises.

    All this "debate before voting" is grandstanding. Sound bites. Rehearsed drama for the TV cameras.

    I'm sickened by the whole process.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Who is to say that the people spitting are not plants? The left found that they were called for lying about it, so why not put people in there to do it for real -- just to detract from the protesters. The left thinks that throwing pies in people's faces is a legitimate form of protest.

    I remember the WTO riots, where the anarchists dressed up like march wardens and intentionally directed innocent protesters to go into an area they were not supposed to go. I saw that personally, wondering why people on one side of the crown told the group to go one way while someone on the other side told them to go into an area that was off limits.

    The left does not seem to complain about the Dems spitting all over the Constitution.

    ReplyDelete
  17. "All this "debate before voting" is grandstanding. Sound bites. Rehearsed drama for the TV cameras."

    LOL! Yeah, I couldn't believe all that garbage. Even the Dear Leader said "debate was over".

    ReplyDelete
  18. Um, this vote was supposed to ba an hour and a half ago. Are things not going as well for Ms. Pelosi as she had hoped?

    Drudge reports:

    "Senate Republicans found a provision in the new House health care bill that likely makes it ineligible for expedited 'reconciliation' procedures in the Senate. Dems refused to meet with GOP and Parliamentarian."

    ReplyDelete
  19. The problem with lying is that it takes a lot of effort to keep your story straight. Maybe the truth is catching up with them.

    ReplyDelete
  20. What a load of crap. The boob tube just said that the final vote may not be until nine or ten tonight. Are you kidding me?

    ReplyDelete
  21. In other words, they do not have the votes.

    ReplyDelete
  22. You're right, Matt. They still don't have the votes and that Drudge teaser is very interesting. I'm still keeping my fingers crossed that it fails.

    ReplyDelete
  23. I think I'll go work outside during a break in the rain and maybe something will have happened by the time I get back. See you all in a bit...

    ReplyDelete
  24. I found this timeline at Weasel Zippers:

    2 p.m.: The House will debate for one hour the rules of debate for the reconciliation bill and the Senate bill.

    3 p.m.: The House will vote to end debate and vote on the rules of the debate.

    3:15 p.m.: The House will debate the reconciliation package for two hours.

    5:15 p.m.: The House will vote on the reconciliation package.

    5:30 p.m.: The House will debate for 15 minutes on a Republican substitute and then vote on the substitute.

    6 p.m.: The House will vote on the final reconciliation package.

    After 7:00 p.m.If the reconciliation bill passes, the House will immediately vote on the Senate bill, without debate.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Stupak: Agreement reached...no public funding for abortion. Prez to sign executive order..no public funding for abortion.

    ReplyDelete
  26. What is there to reconcile if the Senate bill passes?

    If the reconciliation bill meant anything, then there would be no need to vote on the Senate bill. If the Senate bill passes, it goes stright to the White House and the reconciliation is forgotten -- and with it, the bribes, er, promises that were made to get the Senate bill passed.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Are they all still grandstanding, er, I mean, debating this thing??

    ReplyDelete
  28. Does Stupak really believe that Obama will issue an executive order directing that no federal funds will go to provide abortions? Is Stupak really that stupid?

    "You knew darn well I was a snake before you brought me in."

    ReplyDelete
  29. Matt, Obama or any other president can rescind that executive order with a swipe of a pen. Anytime.

    Or, Obama may never execute the order at all.

    Stupak has bought a pig in a poke.

    ReplyDelete
  30. My bet is the latter.

    I hope Stupak has a bridge in Brooklyn to go with that promise.

    ReplyDelete
  31. I just read a link from Drudge that says the reconciliation bill may be dead before it gets to the Senate because it violates legal procedures.

    So what? The reconciliation bill is a smoke screen. All they need is the Senate bill. The Democratic leadership probably hopes the reconciliation bill is dead because it is just a bunch of promises they made to get the Senate bill passed -- promises the leadership never meant to keep.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Lady Red said "Stupak has bought a pig in a poke"

    Not at all. He "bought" CYA cover when he realized he was going to lose...and foresaw repercussions in the future from his own party. Now he can say he fought a good fight for his constituancy with Bam Bam as cover. The words proposed for the XO are wholly meaningless...basically saying Bam Bam "authenticates" ("attests to") the terms of the senate Bill...never mind that that is a Judicial Branch prerogative, upon petition, not Executive.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Frankly, in my less than humble opinion, both parties have given new defintion to the term Cluster Fuck.

    If you think you have a say in any of it, you deceive yourself.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Just read this on Yahoo News:

    "'We will be joining those who established Social Security, Medicare and now, tonight, health care for all Americans,' said Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., as the vote neared."

    Makes sense to me, holding up two bankrupt systems to call for another that will go down the same road.

    Phyllis Schlafly commented on Stupak:

    "It is naive for any elected official, especially one who describes himself as 'pro-life,' to expect that a promise to issue an Executive Order that reasserts the intentions of the Hyde Amendment will be fulfilled by the most pro-abortion president to ever sit in the White House. Perhaps Mr. Stupak and his fellow pro-life Democrats forget that President Obama's first Executive Order was the repeal of the Mexico City Policy to allow for international funding of abortion."

    "Not only would an Executive Order be rendered meaningless in the face of Congress passing legislation which actively provides for the massive expansion and funding of abortion services, but anyone who doubts the abortion tsunami which awaits this bill becoming law lives in a fantasy world."

    Gimme that swamp land in Florida.

    ReplyDelete
  35. But it still looks like no vote has come. If the Dems had the votes, one would think that it would have come by now.

    Or am I smoking crack?

    ReplyDelete
  36. OK, Fox says someting passed, but is it the reconciliation or the Seante bill?

    ReplyDelete
  37. Done deal. 219-212.

    Madison weeps.

    ReplyDelete
  38. img:"http://i627.photobucket.com/albums/tt358/redhawkclan/madison.jpg"

    ReplyDelete
  39. Now Yahoo News reports on another subject:

    "President Barack Obama, who promised to make overhauling the immigration system a top priority in his first year, sought to reassure those at the rally with a video message presented on giant screens at the National Mall. The president said he was committed to working with Congress this year on a comprehensive bill to fix a 'broken immigration system.'"

    Does he want cities to burn or what?

    ReplyDelete
  40. Headline at CNN: "House passes health care reform, the most sweeping social legislation in more than four decades."

    They're voting now on some last ditch effort by the Republicans to undo the vote. More impotent chest-thumping and grandstanding.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Matt, health care, education, amnesty. All by November.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Matt, I hope and pray it doesn't come to that. There will be millions of hard-working Americans on their knees tonight, praying for strength and guidance.

    I'm going to bed. I'm weary.

    Tomorrow we wake up to a new world, with decisions to be made.

    ReplyDelete
  43. OK, it was the Senate Bill. With all of its illegal provisions, unequal treatment of citizens, etc.

    These elitists don't know know the fury they have unleashed.

    ReplyDelete
  44. I hope Stupak sleeps well tonight, knowing that he has sold out his beliefs for the promises of liars.

    ReplyDelete
  45. RadioMattM...

    Stupak figured he was going to lose, would thus suffer repercussions from his own party, so he flipped....he's a politician and he arranged a CYA via a purported Obama Executive Order, which with the wording presented tonight, is wholly meaningless. It let's him tell his constituancy he fought the good fight, yada yada, and got the best deal he could.

    The actual vote results indicate he was gamed...his group counted between 4 and 8 votes. 4 nay would have defeated the bill.

    I am more interested now in seeing the vote tally by member names. Then I will be fascinated in how they implement the "immediate" aspects of the bill. There's a bit more to that than a bunch of talking heads sitting around yakking it up.

    ReplyDelete
  46. And I spent this "historic" day... appropriately enough... too dog sick to f**king care.

    (Influenza. I'll be fine, I'm well looked after.)

    ReplyDelete
  47. Sorry you are sick Lewy.

    Am I wrong or does the new health care bill not take efect until 2014?

    ReplyDelete
  48. Lots of people could be dead before then, I guess that's Bush's fault.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Take care, lewy, hope you're better soon...

    ReplyDelete
  50. Fay said: "Am I wrong or does the new health care bill not take effect until 2014?"

    Major portions don't take effect until 2013 or 2014, but the tax increase portions kick in sooner, and things like pre-existing condition exclusions and coverage cap prohibitions are purportedly "immediate."

    It will be interesting to see how they implement that "immediate" part and what new hurdles they have to get over.

    This isn't quite like Medicare when it was implemented, since Medicare/Medicaid is not elective insurance per se and still allowed states to set their own rules, which included criteria that prohibited interstate sales of private coverage. The "argument" now is that the Commerce Clause of the Constitution covers health insurance due to the magnitude of its portion of the total Gross Domestic Product in dollars. Nice talk, but it's yet to be court tested. It will be sooner than later IMO.

    Since I am already on Medicare, I am anxious to see how much my Medicare premium goes up, my supplemental HMO premium goes up, and how much coverage under both features declines. Or vice versa as the bill proponents assert, to be fair.

    You'd be surprised at how much forensic diagnostics and preventative medicine is already not covered by Medicare (hence the need for supplemental coverage), so with the cuts now in law, something even further has to give way IMO. At age 65 when Medicare kicked in my aggregate health care coverage costs doubled, but remained manageable.

    Without supplemental coverage, and just Medicare, my one month bill for out of pocket simple (all of 1 hours time total including travel time) diagnostic preventative medical care last month would have been $1280+ ...should be "fun" to see where it goes now.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Lewy said:"And I spent this "historic" day... appropriately enough... too dog sick to f**king care."

    Ah, ha!! Stupak blinked and flipped, & Lewy ducked out for sick call...no wonder Nancy P won the day!! Bad Ju Ju.

    ReplyDelete
  52. One would think that Stupak's position on abortion is between him and his maker. I do not think his maker is going to take too kindly to him weaseling out for an "executive order."

    The taxes begin immediately.

    Where is Canada going to send its emergency heart surgeries once the US medical system is dismantled? Canada will find out that its system is not as good as all that. Canadians have been very quick to condemn the US system, while it did the heavy lifting the Canadian system could not do.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Aww, I hope you feel better soon lewy!

    Aridog, how long before they begin strong-arming people to purchase insurance?

    Do you think the IRS guys will be banging on people's doors, asking to see their papers? Or will those 18,000 new T-men handle Obamacare via the telephone and the postal service?

    Another question; do you think they'll actually throw citizens in jail for non-compliance, or will they use methods such a garnishment of wages for "premiums"?

    ReplyDelete
  54. Lady Red....

    From what I know, the requirement to buy coverage if not provided otherwise starts in 2014, when the "exchanges" open.

    I believe the IRS will implement a system of "reporting," perhaps by providers (A "reverse" version like IRS Form 1090's do now for non-wage income), or if not, by some certifiable proof you will submit with a return. But I'm just guessing.

    A decent summary of the timeline of the bill is HERE

    [h/t:dl]

    ReplyDelete
  55. Lady Red asked: "Another question; do you think they'll actually throw citizens in jail for non-compliance, or will they use methods such a garnishment of wages for "premiums"?"

    The IRS is very systematic. I suspect their procedures will be similar to those used now. "Avoidance" is fined as a "civil infraction", "Evasion" is a criminal act subject to both fine and imprisonment. Not buying insurance would be "Avoidance"...trying to fake it will be "Evasion."

    Here's an take on the subject here from "Dennis the Peasant."

    ReplyDelete
  56. Thanks for your input, aridog.

    It seems to me that Dennis the Peasant's argument has a glaring flaw. His model family has no insurance, but he didn't budget in any health care costs. He only budgeted the $12,000 they would pay for ObamaCare.

    Am I missing something? Wouldn't be the first time...

    ReplyDelete