Senate will have to return health bill to House

reply to post by WhatTheory

The first bill Obama has already signed and is already law. It did not have to go back to the Senate because the House passed it 'as-is'.

This second bill is the 'fix' bill which I believe this article is referring to. Regardless of what happens with this second 'fix' bill, the first one will remain law.

The first bill was passed contingent on the second bill. If the second bill does not pass the Senate, then the first bill is null and void.

That is what all the uproar was about concerning the rule that 'deemed' passage... in order to get enough Democrats to go along with this obviously un-Constitutional process, a restriction was placed into the rule that passage was dependent on the passage of the amendment bill. Now that it is not going to pass, the first bill is worthless, because according to the rule it never passed the House.

Thus my statement about how useless Obama's signature is.

TheRedneck

reply to post by WhatTheory


Thats how I understand it. The "fix-it bill" is the bill that adds some amendments to it. They could not add these admendments to the orginal bill, because that would have forced the senate to vote on the orginal bill again, which could have been fillibustered by the republicans. They were afraid it would be defeated, so they chose to pass the orginal senate bill as is, get it signed by Barry, which would make it the law of the land. In exchange for doing that, the senate dems agreed to pass the fix it bill, which would just change some things the house dems wanted. These changes were what ultimately was used to "convince" some house dems to vote for the bill.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The first bill was passed contingent on the second bill. If the second bill does not pass the Senate, then the first bill is null and void.

That is not correct. Nowhere does it say that the second bill must be passed in order to go forward with the first one. The first bill has already been signed and is the current law of the land unfortunately.

It does not matter what happens to the second bill. If the second bill dies, the first bill will still remain law.

Originally posted by boondock-saint
It is a political stunt by the WH

Ummmmm. I think you got your parties mixed up.

This "stunt" as you call it is a result of usual Republican partisanship.

We are all supposed to "Deny Ignorance" remember? Not perpetuate it.

Well it just passed the senate again...

56-43...

Back to the house now for final vote.

reply to post by WhatTheory

You would be correct if there had not been a contingency specified in the rule. The 'deem and pass' rule is thus:

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in [section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”

Source: www.rules.house.gov...

All this means is that the second bill, the changes to the first bill, was voted on, and if it passed, it was 'deemed' that the Senate healthcare bill, the first bill, passed as well. The first bill, then 'deemed' to have passed the House and Senate, went to Obama to be signed into law.

That contingency on the second bill passing is what everyone is unsure about. True, it did pass the House, but it is not going to pass the Senate. therefore, did it 'pass' or not? What I understand is that if the Senate does not pass the second bill, it retroactively negates the first. After all, that is what a 'contingency' does. If you buy a house, a typical technique is sign the purchase agreement contingent on approval of a mortgage. At that point,m you have agreed to purchase the house and are liable to the present owners for the purchase price. But, should the contingency fail, i.e. you fail to get the mortgage, the purchase agreement becomes null and void.

Healthcare reform passed and was signed into law, contingent on a second bill's passage. It has failed to pass. The contingency would then make the first bill null and void.

Of course, that may be a moot subject...

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, said Thursday she expects the Congress will approve a proposed package of changes to the new health care law by the end of the day -- thereby wrapping up its work on President Obama's top domestic priority.

Pelosi dismissed the significance of Senate Republicans' success in forcing the proposed "fixes" bill back to the House of Representatives, which previously passed the measure Sunday night along with the Democrats' underlying reform plan.

GOP leaders succeeded in sending the fixes bill back to the House by finding two provisions related to higher education funding in the measure that violate Senate procedure.

The finding has no impact on the broader health care plan, which Obama signed into law Tuesday.

Source: www.cnn.com...

I just saw on CNN Live that the Senate has approved the second bill with minor changes and is sending it back to the House. Pelosi is crowing that it will pass easily.

Time for me to shut up on this again... blood pressure is rising...

TheRedneck

(Edit to fix formatting issue)

[edit on 3/25/2010 by TheRedneck]

reply to post by TheRedneck

You would have a point if they had used the "deem & pass" rule, but they did not. They did an actual vote on the original Senate bill. They did however use "reconciliation" which is different from "deem & pass". Look, I am no Congress rule guru but I am pretty sure I have this correct.

reply to post by WhatTheory

I don't claim to be a Congressional guru either, but I was watching the voting as it happened on CNN. There were two votes: one on the rule, and one on the amendment bill (the second bill that just passed the Senate). There was never a vote on the first bill, only on the rule. That is the 'deem and pass', otherwise known as the Slaughter Rule.

The bill Obama signed was never actually voted on by the House.

TheRedneck

reply to post by thisguyrighthere


What was sign on Monday was the Health Care Reform "reconciliation" bill.

This means to give authority to congress to change the way health care is in the US.

What they have been doing for the last three days is playing around with a bill that is two bills in one, the house and the senate bill.

And to give a chance to private insurance lawyers to come out with the final product.

After all the first bill the Baucus bill was written by private insurance lawyers.

Imposing fines and killing the public option.

Wow...seriously people...this is why I find it hilarious that all of you are so outraged that the helath care form bill passed and that you are SO against it. Some of you have NO IDEA (and a mod at that) what is going on.

The bill Obama signed was the bill the Senate passed in Dec. 2009. The House passed this bill on Sunday...with a straight vote...NOT using "deem and pass"...not using "reconciliation".

This bill they are talking about is the "fix bill" that will ammend some things in the original Senate bill. Which to my understanding is a reconciliation bill.


HCR is still law...it is not null and void...Obama didn't sign a "reconciliation" bill...he signed the bill the Senate passed. They used no reconciliation (except to get these fixes in) and they did not use "deem and pass".


This is why I don't take the majority of the "I hate this bill" crowd...in general they are very mis-informed.

reply to post by OutKast Searcher


What can I say this what congress org send to me, with the "Reconcilliation act" was passed, I see the mistake, both bills were passed one after another

Democratic lawmakers passed the health care overhaul Sunday night, creating the most sweeping changes to the nation's health care system in four decades.

The Senate version of the health care bill (HR 3590 ) passed the other chamber 219-212 late Sunday night and will be sent to President Obama to sign.

Representatives also passed a second reconciliation measure (HR 4872 ) 220-211 that would amend the Senate bill and put the overhaul package in its final form. The second bill moves to the Senate this week, where Republicans could delay its passage.

No Republicans voted for either measure. Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) said on CBS's Sunday morning talk show that his party has a series of amendments they plan to introduce to the reconciliation bill, possibly dragging the debate into the Congressional spring break that begins Friday.

Reconciliation Act of 2010 - Vote Passed (220-211)

The House also passed this bill that would make changes to the health care overhaul measure they just passed and revise student loan procedures. The bill now goes to the Senate .

On Passage
03/21/2010
House Roll Call No. 167
111th Congress, 2nd Session

Passed: 220-211 (see complete tally)

The House passed H.R. 4872, to provide for reconciliation pursuant to section 202 of the concurrent resolution on the budget for fiscal year 2010, by a recorded vote of 220 ayes to 211 noes, Roll No. 167.

www.congress.org...

Was passed

Again the

Reconciliation Act of 2010 - H.R.4872

Later in the week, the Senate is likely to begin work on this bill to make changes to the health care overhaul legislation Congress just passed and to revise student loan procedures.

I believe is what is been in the works for the last 3 days.


[edit on 25-3-2010 by marg6043]

reply to post by OutKast Searcher

Please educate yourself:

By a vote of 222 to 203, House Democrats voted today to uphold the usage of the “self-executing rule,” also known as the Slaughter Solution.

Source: www.healthreformscam.com...

Slaughter’s solution to the procedural hurdle facing House Democrats with respect to the Senate bill and the requisite package of fixes is a rule under which the House would, contingent on the passage of the fix bill, “deem” the original bill to have been passed. This is an elegant solution that avoids the need for a vote on the unpopular Senate bill while still approving the legislation as a whole.

Source: www.benjaminbdaniels.com...

From the United States House of Representatives itself:

H R 3590 RECORDED VOTE 21-Mar-2010 10:49 PM
QUESTION: On Motion to Concur in Senate Amendments
BILL TITLE: Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act

(Emphasis mine)

Source: clerk.house.gov...

You will notice that it does not say "On motion to approve" or "On motion to pass", but rather "On motion to concur". This was a vote that was on concurrence with the rule, known as the Slaughter Rule, or 'deem and pass', that accompanied the bill, not on the bill.a

(Incidentally, that page shows a nice little list of who voted for what... if anyone is interested. They are all up for re-election in November.)

TheRedneck

reply to post by TheRedneck


I see where I got confuse with the two bills that were passed on Sunday, but the bill you posted that is a different story.

Still I agree with you.

Now for the poster before you, I stand for what I say, the health care bill has been worked on for the last 3 days after it was signed.

reply to post by TheRedneck


www.cbsnews.com...


www.foxbusiness.com... ote-senate-health-care-bill/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+foxbusiness%2Flatest+%28Text+-+Latest+News%29&utm_content=Yaho o+Search+Results



THEY DID NOT USE THE SELF-EXECUTING RULE


Are you serious...or just trolling?

Your link is from MARCH 18th....they didn't vote until MARCH 22nd. Your own link says "IF" they use the self-executing rule. Go find me a source that says they in fact USED THE SELF-EXECUTING RULE. Because it would of been all over the news...but you won't find one...BECAUSE THEY DID NOT USE A SELF-EXECUTING RULE. It was a straight vote on the Senate bill.

Argggg


Come on....someone back me up on this one.

Deny Ignorance...remember???

reply to post by TheRedneck

What this means is that the bill which Obama signed, which is not law until the Senate passes it as well, without amendment, is in violation of the Senate rules! Therefore it cannot be passed as is and Obama's signature, seeing as how he signed a bill that was not and cannot be passed by the Senate, is about as worthless as Obama himself is.

Incorrect.

The bill that Obama signed is the original Senate bill, unchanged. It is the law until it is changed.

This issue is over the followup amendments designed to 'reconcile' the changes the House wanted to put in place. This reconciliation can be only about budget items (as I understand it), so some requested changes may be ruled out of order. So 'reconciliation' is an iterative process:

1. The Senate passed the bill in the first place.
   
2. The House decided the Senate bill was pretty good, but they wanted a few changes
   
3. The House passed the original Senate bill.
   
4. The House passed a new bill amending the original bill and showed it to the Senate.
   
5. The Senate disqualifies some items from the House bill and passes what is left. (They are NOT voting on the original bill again, only the new bill containing amendments).
   
6. The Senate shows its amended amendment bill to the House.
   
7. The House reviews the Senate bill, accepts it and passes it. (They are NOT voting on the original bill again, only the Senate modified bill containing amendments).
   
8. Obama signs the amendments bill
   

Bills could go back and forth several times until both sides are satisfied. In this case, the process has already completed.

reply to post by rnaa


OMG, so this means that the Baucus bill was the one that was passed but how about the merge of the Baucus (senate) and (house) bills?

YOu know what this means right? it means that is prove that Obama sold us out to private interest after all.

The Baucus bill (senate bill) was written by

This bill does not limit insurance company rate hikes. Private insurers continue to be exempt from anti-trust laws, and are free to raise rates without fear of competition in many areas of the country

States are the ones that have to open their doors to cross state competition.

The original Senate Finance Committee bill was authored by a former Wellpoint VP. Since Congress released the first of its health care bills on October 30, 2009, health care stocks have risen 28.35%.

What a joke, wait when the reality and the crap of what we got hit the fan.

We just got mandate, penalties and fines because private insurance pimps sleep with Washington whores.

Originally posted by TheRedneck
The bill Obama signed was never actually voted on by the House.

Yes it was.
The house voted on it Sunday and of course if passed. The 'deem & pass' rule was never used since they had an actual vote on the original Senate passed bill.

Obama Hails Vote on Health Care as Answering ‘the Call of History’

Pelosi herself said they decided NOT to use "deem & pass". She decided against it I suspect because she knew they had the votes, otherwise, I'm sure she would have tried it.

Pelosi Passes on Deem and Pass

[edit on 3/26/2010 by WhatTheory]