http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2009/11/21/politics/politicalhotsheet/entry5729131.shtml
They pulled it off, with the last 2 votes being uncertain in the final vote. This vote was to further continue with the bill.
And they bought off Mary Landrieu with 100 million for Louisiana through semantic trickery.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And they bought off Mary Landrieu with 100 million for Louisiana through semantic trickery.[/quote]
When in doubt, bribe your way to victory.
Without getting all political, anyone care to explain what the Health Care bill is about and what it means for the average american?
to be honest, I’ve tuned it out (I don’t get into politics much). No matter what you see on the news it’s going to be presented in a way that isn’t that accurate.
just looking for an unbiased explanation here
This was just to bring the bill to debate. Even if it gets past debate they then have to merge the two bills into one and vote on it again.
If there is no public option the house wont pass it. If there is a public option the senate wont pass it.
The House already HAS passed its bill.
The normal procedure is for conference resolution to occur between the bills, which is via committee. The House members won’t collectively get to vote on it again, I don’t think.
EDIT: I am wrong above. While it has seemed to me that once a conference agreement is reached that bills succeed, as a general rule anyway, the House does get to vote on the combined bill.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
Tiribulus wrote:
And they bought off Mary Landrieu with 100 million for Louisiana through semantic trickery.
When in doubt, bribe your way to victory. [/quote]
Its the American way.
[quote]John S. wrote:
This was just to bring the bill to debate. Even if it gets past debate they then have to merge the two bills into one and vote on it again.
If there is no public option the house wont pass it. If there is a public option the senate wont pass it.[/quote]
There will be a national health care bill passed in the US, if you doubt that you just don’t understand how things get done in Washington and who is currently holding the strings of power. On a brighter note, there will be a gigantic backlash and the House and possibly the Senate will go to the republicans in the 2010 mid-term elections. But, there will be national health care you can take that to the bank (preferably a bank which is solvent).
“Landrieu said on the Senate floor that â??doing nothing is not an option.â??”
Why the fuck not? I like when my Federal government sits back and does nothing that means I do not pay taxes.
I bet she likes it in the ass too.
i don’t know if this has been brought up. but “if” this bill passes, wouldn’t it open up a whole new level of laws. example-- we’re paying for your health care, so no more rock,mountain climbing too dangerous and cost the government money.
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/lieberman-digs-public-option/
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: “I’m going to be stubborn on this.”
Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a “public option,” or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Lieberman says he won’t vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.
Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.
So any version of a public option will compel Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? “Correct,” he says.
This is, of course, more than just one senator objecting to one part of health legislation. This is the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, now an independent, Joe Lieberman, still counted on to be the 60th vote Democrats will need to force a final vote on health legislation. In opposing a public option, he is opposing the element some Democratic liberals have come to consider the cornerstone of a health-care bill.
Maybe the Lieberman stance is posturing, or a maneuver to force a watering down of the public option into something he and like-minded Democratic conservatives can swallow. In any case, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to solve the Rubik’s Cube that is health legislation, Lieberman just might represent the hardest piece to flip into place.
[quote]John S. wrote:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/11/24/lieberman-digs-public-option/
Sen. Joseph Lieberman, speaking in that trademark sonorous baritone, utters a simple statement that translates into real trouble for Democratic leaders: “I’m going to be stubborn on this.”
Stubborn, he means, in opposing any health-care overhaul that includes a “public option,” or government-run health-insurance plan, as the current bill does. His opposition is strong enough that Lieberman says he won’t vote to let a bill come to a final vote if a public option is included.
Probe for a catch or caveat in that opposition, and none is visible. Can he support a public option if states could opt out of the plan, as the current bill provides? “The answer is no,” he says in an interview from his Senate office. “I feel very strongly about this.” How about a trigger, a mechanism for including a public option along with a provision saying it won’t be used unless private insurance plans aren’t spreading coverage far and fast enough? No again.
So any version of a public option will compel Lieberman to vote against bringing a bill to a final vote? “Correct,” he says.
This is, of course, more than just one senator objecting to one part of health legislation. This is the former Democratic vice presidential nominee, now an independent, Joe Lieberman, still counted on to be the 60th vote Democrats will need to force a final vote on health legislation. In opposing a public option, he is opposing the element some Democratic liberals have come to consider the cornerstone of a health-care bill.
Maybe the Lieberman stance is posturing, or a maneuver to force a watering down of the public option into something he and like-minded Democratic conservatives can swallow. In any case, as Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid tries to solve the Rubik’s Cube that is health legislation, Lieberman just might represent the hardest piece to flip into place.[/quote]
Yep, he has always been a common sense guy.
Wow another quick late sat night vote to slip things through.
They needed 60 votes to break the philibuster. They have passed that hurdle. Now all they need is 50 votes to pass the bill. I say 50 because Joe Biden has a vote being VP and over the senate. This bill is going to change and include the public option.
My question is will they have to go through this process of breaking the philibuster once the two bills are combined? If so then it might not pass, but if they don’t the House bill will be our bill. It will take till Obama is out of office to repeal this bill. I dont think the Republicans will be able to get a 2/3 majority to over turn a veto.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
And they bought off Mary Landrieu with 100 million for Louisiana through semantic trickery.[/quote]
I heard it was $300 million. I might be wrong.
I also heard that the Obama administration was going to hire lobbyists to go to capital hill to get this bill completed. Who pays for these lobbyist? Oh yeah it is us the taxpayers. Even though it is almost 60% opposed to this bill.
It was in fact $300 million in Medicaid for Louisiana, I checked the statistic.
I am fearful that Lieberman will be bribed as well. People talk alot of shit, but when you wave that much money in your face, it becomes difficult to turn down.
Is this true that the final vote will require 50 votes to pass?
Yes, if it’s not filibustered (or rather, if there is no threat of filibuster backed up by 41 Senators), then it takes 50 votes to pass, with Biden serving as the tie-breaker.
I believe it is incorrect to say that it cannot still be filibustered if there are 41 Senators that want to.