Skip to main content

View Diary: Stupid headline tricks (148 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  I think they should just vote for the Senate (6+ / 0-)

    bill and the reconciliation bill on the same day.

    However, I personally don't care if they want to do the "deem and pass" to pass the reconciliation bill.

    All of this is PROCESS which I don't give a shit about.

    Also, in a few months people are NOT going to care a hoot about the process but rather they will be asking what this bill will do for them?

    Of course the Republicans want to just focus on process instead of what the bill will do for millions of Americans.

    Obama 1/10: "We don't quit. I don't quit."

    by Drdemocrat on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:34:26 AM PDT

    •  They're going to. (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      dotster, axel000, Eric Nelson

      The plan you don't like calls for them to vote on and pass both exactly as you said you wanted them to: on the same day.

      •  Mr Waldman, hoping you would analyze the (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        Eric Nelson

        Budget Rec meeting yesterday and what it accomplished, if anything. I did not understand the last measure they voted on, with Repubs saying this was the Public Option.

        This guy is saying that Public Option included:

        This afternoon the House Budget Committee reported The Reconciliation Act of 2010 to the House of Representatives by a vote of 21 yays to 16 nays.  Included in the release is a Public Health Insurance Option on page 116.

        The Public Option appears to have made it into the last incarnation of a reconciliation bill in the US House.  


        by divineorder on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:45:56 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I think they moved the shell bill (1+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:

          to the Rules committee where the real action is happening.  I guess they just needed to go through the Budget Committee as a formality maybe? Other than that I'm not sure they did anything.

        •  Quick answer: (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          joynow, divineorder, Eric Nelson

          The quick answer for why it looked like the public option was in the bill is: read this post.

          Hmm. Maybe that's not the quickest answer in the world.

          The Budget Committee, in order to use reconciliation in a way the parliamentarians would allow, had to start by considering the bills sent to them in October, when the House still thought it might pass its own bill that way. The Budget Committee basically was just starting where they last left off, with a bill that had the public option in it.

          By the same token, reconciliation rules don't allow the Budget Committee to make any substantive changes to that bill, so they had to send it in its old form to the Rules Committee, which CAN make the necessary changes, and will swap out the old stuff for the new, smaller and targeted reconciliation bill that just fixes stuff in the Senate bill.

          •  Thanks, will go study the longer version. nt (0+ / 0-)


            by divineorder on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 10:53:31 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Ok, had read that one and the one you mention (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              Eric Nelson

              in the update.  Only now is it sinking in:

              The Budget Committee basically was just starting where they last left off, with a bill that had the public option in it.

              The Republican reaction near the end of the session   confused me yesterday.  


              by divineorder on Tue Mar 16, 2010 at 11:00:35 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site