Senate will have to return health bill to House

[Drunken Irishman]

Source: AP

WASHINGTON (AP) -- A spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid says the bill making changes in President Barack Obama's newly enacted health care overhaul will have to go back to the House for final congressional approval, something top Democrats were trying to avoid.

Read more: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/U/US_HEALTH_CARE_OVERHAUL?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2010-03-25-02-29-14

---

This is like the never ending story.

[FrenchieCat]

1. It will be ok, of course, it has to do with something benefitting the poorest!

Senate will have to return health bill to House

Spokesman Jim Manley said Republicans consulting with the Senate parliamentarian had found "two minor provisions" that violate budget rules. The two provisions, dealing with Pell grants for low-income college students, will have to be removed from the bill.
http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/fronts/HOME

[wisteria]

45. That is a damn shame. At a time when we should be promoting continuing education

for all Americans as an investment in America's future on a personal and national level, the Republicans want to make sure the money needed for this investment is not available for those that need it most.

[BlueCaliDem]

2. GOP pro-corporate obstructionism at its most GLARING

I am incensed that these yahoos are allowed to stall the bill based on stupid, minor changes.

These people need to get arses kicked something awful. :grr:

[FrenchieCat]

3. still....

I'm thinking that the Dems in the house who were shaky the last time,
will have more resolve this time....cause of what's been happening over the
last few days. Any Dems switching to a NO vote would look like a big chicken
with absolutely no spine. It may even entice some of the "D"s who had voted against
it the first time to rethink their strategy, considering the direction of the polls
in the last few days. If so, that would only help the Democratic Party
be even more united for the election....because having a message when 39 yahoos with
"D" after their names running around their district talking smack about the bill
wasn't an advantage to us.

We shall see, but that's what I'm predicting; even more votes than the last time....
I Hope!

[BlueCaliDem]

20. You could very well be right, Frenchie. More votes this time around

is what it looks like it's going to be. I've also read on HuffPost that this also gives the Senate the chance to slip in the Public Option since they already have 50 senators behind it. Rep Clyburn has already said that the House has the votes to pass a public option, so it's up to the senate. I doubt Reid has the courage to, but it's possible now.

That's the risk for repubs when they sent this bill back to the House - they can change it too.

Anyway, it's signed into law by the President so the only ones that are going to make hay about this political procedural move are the repubs and their echo chambers. Nothing changes - even Joe Scarborough says so.

[wisteria]

47. I would love to see those no Dems come on board -even if it is the second time around. n/t

[Ms. Toad]

27. Not necesssarily,

Some flaws can render an entire bill unconstitutional. About a decade ago, Ohio had a really major bill declared unconstitutional because of the way it was passed - years after everyone had been following the laws that were passed. It was a major mess requiring most of the laws contained in the bill to be passed again as separate bills (that was the flaw - unrelated matter had been included in a single bill), and since many of the laws were in the criminal law arena there were challenges to a significant number of convictions and sentences imposed under the unconstitutional laws that had been in place for a few years before the law was was challenged.

Don't know that the problems in this bill were of that nature - and I am sure that was not their motivation - but ensuring that the rules governing how the bill was passed will give it some protection from being declared unconstitutional down the road.

[grantcart]

4. fine start passing some of the 'poison pill' pill ammendments that the Republicans were

offering.

Cutting interest on student loans for example.

They put them in there so they can't object that they shouldn't be apart of reconciliation.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

25. Yep.

[optimator]

5. i think it was jon stewart who said

republicans are playing chess...
and democrats are in the nurses office because they superglued their balls to their legs...

[FrenchieCat]

6. I think we will be fine as long as the reactionaries

don't start shitting bricks, and the chicken littles and Eeyores
dont start fretting like there's no tomorrow, once again.

If we keep our Cool like this President does,
it won't be a big thing.

So to some extent, it's up to how the blogs will react to this.
We can start criticizing the Dems, or we can support them
to see this through.

Our choice.

[Drunken Irishman]

7. Well what they voted on is law regardless. It can't be changed.

It just could turn into a PR nightmare.

We'll see what happens. It's either not a big deal or it's going to be a nagging issue that hurts the Dems.

[FrenchieCat]

8. Again, it's up to us.

We know the fucking mediawhores will be all over it,
but that doesn't mean we have to bend down and take it.
They ain't our master! We should be able to deal with
it and see it through. Let's be strong like we are always
demanding from the Elected Dems. Let's show them that we
have spine too!

[Drunken Irishman]

9. I'm not even sure the media makes this a big deal.

What will happen is that the senate will finish voting on it tomorrow. It will go back to the House, they'll vote on the revised bill and that will be that. Probably over by Thursday night.

[FrenchieCat]

11. For the media it's drama and helps their little GOP masters......

so, I'm pretty sure they'll try to blow it out of proportion,
especially if the net overreacts on our side.

Let the crazies get the hopes up....

but let us not give them what the seek....even for a moment.
That's what I'm saying.

[sabrina 1]

52. Up to how the blogs react?

I would say it should be up to whether or not the people are being properly represented and definitely not about making one party or the other look good. Nor should it be about the actions of the far-right fringe groups who should simply be arrested for any criminal acts they engage in like any other criminal.

It would be a shame for Democrats to try to obscure the issues by using the Tea-bagger side-show to manipulate people into blinding themselves to real issues. Such tactics are despicable in my opinion.

[Tx4obama]

10. Obama is playing Tri-level chess, the republicans are playing checkers. n/t

[Pab Sungenis]

24. The problem with that analogy

is that the game both are supposed to be playing is pinochle.

[Iowa]

12. Can someone here please answer a question about this bill?

This will affect my child, so any help would be greatly appreciated. Regarding young adults remaining on their parents' health insurance policy... some web-sites are saying they can remain on the policy until their 27th birthday (like these two):

http://www.headcount.org/blog/?p=4608
http://tinyurl.com/y8eruya

Other sites are saying until age 26 (like these two):

http://tinyurl.com/yh6cn97
http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSN1914020220100319

Which is it? And why is there so much conflicting information on this provision? Is it because there are different ages in the Senate bill (signed into law Tuesday) and the bill of "fixes" this thread is about? I can't seem to find an explanation anywhere. Thanks.

[FrenchieCat]

13. They can remain until the day before they turn 27.

The confusion is because one is covered through age 26,
up until one turns 27.

[Drunken Irishman]

14. Does that start right away, Frenchie? Or what?

[FrenchieCat]

15. as of September.

[Drunken Irishman]

16. And it does go to 27? If so, score DI!

:)

[FrenchieCat]

17. Yes. Guess on your 27th B-Day, you're on your own!

[Posteritatis]

51. September 23rd. (nt)

[Iowa]

54. Are you sure about this?

I just heard Obama live (in Iowa City) use these exact words: "...until you are 26 years old". Many web sites are saying the same thing. So if what you are saying is true, why would he say that? If the correct answer is until the 27th birthday, it would make no sense to say "until you are 26 years old". Instead you'd say something like, "until you turn 27", or "until you are 27 years old", or even "through age 26", right?. Do you see what I'm saying? Is Obama just getting it wrong?

Or is this a regional language thing or something? If I were to say, "until you are 26 years old", would some areas of the country take that to mean until the last day you are 26? Or to put it another way, if I were to tell my daughter that she couldn't go on a date until she was 16 years old, would some areas of the country take that to mean the day before she turns 17? Because if I told my daughter that she couldn't go on a date until she was 16 years old, she'd be counting the days until her 16th birthday - not her 17th. Are some areas different?

The problem is, I can find multiple sources that say two different things, yet nowhere have I found a solid explanation of why this is, or an ironclad explanation of which one is correct.

Thanks for your reply.

[Iowa]

55. Follow-up...

Just called Senator Harkin's office to try and get an ironclad answer. Eventually the staffer said "26" but I think he was just pulling it out of his ass, because his first reply was, "the insurance companies can do whatever they want". Hard to explain, but it was one of those deals where it was pretty clear that the guy was just guessing. I had to back up and explain to him that I was talking about the health insurance reform legislation that had recently passed. This guy seemed to know less than I did. He even criticized the portion of the bill that I was interested in (once he understood what I was talking about)... said that a lot of people don't like it that someone might "have babies" and still be on their parents' plan. It was a weirdest damned call.

So if anyone else can confirm or clarify, I'd appreciate it.

[Lochloosa]

18. Good. And when it does add the Public Option to it and send it back.

Now There.

[babylonsister]

21. Yea, that's what the gop is fighting for. Not. nt

[RBInMaine]

19. No big deal. The Senate will pass it today or tomorrow, and the House will pass it

very quickly, and then done deal !

[Vinca]

22. It should go back with a public option.

[groundloop]

23. Yes, send it back with public option, that would really be change I can believe in !!!

Probably not going to happen, but at least I can wish.

The final bill will be a good start. Not everything I wanted but at least an improvement over the mess we've got now.

[zipplewrath]

26. Yup, the PO should be in there

Teach the darned GOP a lesson. Send the House bill back exactly as written, minus the pell grant language and WITH the PO. The House already passed a PO. Should be fine.

[villager]

28. GOP challenges send health bill back to House

Source: Washington Post

GOP challenges send health bill back to House

By Lori Montgomery and Shailagh Murray
Washington Post Staff Writer

Senate Republicans have successfully identified two minor violations of reconciliation rules in the final piece of the health-care package. The violations will force the Senate to change the reconciliation bill and ship it to the House of Representatives for final passage.

But Democratic leaders said the provisions that will be struck -- from the part of the bill dealing with Pell Grants for college students -- do not significantly affect the student loan program or the health-care bill overall.

The corrected legislation most likely will not be subjected to additional challenges when it is sent back to the House, Democratic staffers said, and is expected to receive final approval before the weekend.

"The parliamentarian struck two minor provisions tonight from in the Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act. But this bill's passage in the Senate is a big win for the American people," said Jim Manley, spokesman for Senate Majority Leader Harry M. Reid

<snip>

Read more: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/25/AR2010032500006.html

[DemoTex]

29. Speaker Pelosi: Deem & Pass, if you can.

Then cram it down the Senate GOP MoFo's throats.

[LiberalFighter]

30. x

[rocktivity]

34. Better yet, toss in a public option.

A lower Medicare eligibility age would do!

:evilgrin:
rocktivity

[flyarm]

31. In a Setback for Democrats, Health Care Going Back to the House for Another Vote

This was on the front page of AOL.


In a Setback for Democrats, Health Care Going Back to the House for Another Vote

http://www.politicsdaily.com/2010/03/24/senate-begins-voting-on-final-health-care-bill/

In a Setback for Democrats, Health Care Going Back to the House for Another Vote
-InPolitics Daily ;


Patricia Murphy
Columnist

In a Setback for Democrats, Health Care Going Back to the House for Another Vote
Posted:
03/24/10


snip:

Democratic senators received word just before 3 a.m. Thursday morning that the reconciliation portion of the health care reform bill will have to go back to the House of Representatives for a second vote once it passes the Senate this week.

The Senate parliamentarian, Alan Frumin, ruled in favor of Republicans on two objections to portions of the student loan reform section of the bill, a decision that changes the text of the reconciliation bill and thus requires the House to vote again. The House and Senate must pass identical bills when using the reconciliation process.

The ruling followed a 10-hour marathon voting session that began in the Senate at 5 Wednesday afternoon and dragged on until 3 Thursday morning, during which senators voted on 29 separate Republican amendments to the bill, all of which were defeated. Democrats agreed to break from voting and reconvene at 9:45 a.m. Thursday to consider more Republican amendments.

The delays were seen as a victory for Republicans, who have made no secret of their desire to derail the bill.

Among the Republican amendments defeated Wednesday were a measure from Sen. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) to prevent convicted child molesters and rapists from getting reimbursed by the government for drugs to treat erectile dysfunction; an amendment from Sen. George LeMieux (R-Fla.) to require all members of Congress to enroll in Medicaid; a measure from Sen. Mike Crapo (R-Idaho) to certify that no households earning less than $250,000 will see increased taxes as a result of health care reform; and an amendment by Sen. Mike Enzi (R-Wyo.) to certify that Americans will not have to change their health insurance as a result of the bill if they do not want to.

[Ian David]

32. Setback? With Harry Reid and Nacny Pelosi in charge? What could POSSIBLY go wrong?

Oh, shit.

[NAO]

33. I hope the momentum, excitement and newly found spine

will make it pass with more votes than before.

[CanonRay]

35. So not that it has to go back anyway,

stick in the Public Option.

[BonnieJW]

36. I heard it was the Parlimentarian who found the problem.

[rocktivity]

38. LOL! A pre-emptive strike!

They can't even brag that they made it happen! They even screw up screwing up!

:headbang:
rocktivity

[tekisui]

40. What idiots. They put up 29 challenges, but missed the

only real challenge.:rofl:

[mahatmakanejeeves]

39. Parliamentarian

That's an interesting but little known position. He has been in the papers a little recently.

Senate parliamentarian: He's the only one both parties trust

By DAVID LIGHTMAN
McClatchy Newspapers

Alan Frumin is barely known and rarely heard, but he could make or break the Senate Democrats' effort this week to put the final touches on President Barack Obama's health insurance overhaul.

Frumin is the Senate parliamentarian, and his advice this week is crucial to Democrats' success as they battle Republican bids to derail the bill that's designed to add important fixes to the health care overhaul that Obama signed into law on Tuesday.

"I compare him to the umpire at a baseball game," said Senate Historian Donald Ritchie. "Everyone is rooting for one team or another, but he's going to call 'em as he sees 'em. His job is the honest broker."

[Hawkeye-X]

41. Declare Parlimentarian a Republican and fire him

and get a liberal Parlimentarian in, and everything from the Republican side is completely shut out.

Hawkeye-X

[wisteria]

48. Yes, and Democrat's repect the deicisions of the Parlimentarian. n/t

[JBoy]

37. GOP will try to spin this as the equivalent of "repealing" the bill

so they can extract themselves from that ridiculous promise. "There, we won!"

[wisteria]

49. I am certain this is being spun as a win of some kind.

And, the poor gullible people who fall for the Republicans lies will beleive it.

[AlinPA]

56. The twit on NBC Evening "news" called it a win for the republicans (O'Donnell). She is the one

that said the HCR bill will cost 900 Trillion dollars.

[SlingBlade]

42. Good, Like Thom Hartman said, This is a chance for some

progressive mined law maker to insert a much needed public option into this Bill

[Gin]

44. with all these death threats...I hope the dems don't cave on the vote

[wisteria]

50. I don't even see this as a possibiliy. We might possible now get a yes vote from a former no. n/t

[wisteria]

43. Yes, it is a slight set back, but it was almost expected.

It is a shame though it was on the Pell grants. I just see this as a very meanspirited thing to do on the Republican side.They really do not give a damn about anyone but the rich.

[Barbara2423]

46. Why don't they have Biden over rule the Parliamentarian and

get this over with?

[WatchWhatISay]

53. Because maybe the Parliamentarian was right?

Don't want there to be anything that the courts could go after it on.