Obama Will Now Dither on ObamaCare
Tags: Obamacare.
Click here to get Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority by Matt Margolis and Mark Noonan.
Very strange:
Politico’s Mike Allen and Alexander Trowbridge have some bad news for Democrats, especially in the Senate, where Harry Reid has kept the chamber locked in battle over ObamaCare for weeks in an attempt to hit the finish line by Christmas. Barack Obama plans to put the health-care overhaul on the back burner until after the State of the Union address, pushing any conference between the House and Senate off until February. Instead, Obama plans a “hard pivot” towards jobs and the economy…
Was this a complete surprise to the Senate Democrats? If it was, then Obama just evaporated whatever good will remained for him in the Senate…and the House, for that matter. These people went to the mat for ObamaCare – have risked their re-election efforts and already have the “he voted for The Bad Thing” ads waiting for them at election time – and now Obama is putting it off until February?
I admit to being astounded by this – unless Nancy and Harry told him that they can’t reconcile right now given the fissures in the Democrat party. Or, they have done all their internal polling and realize that ObamaCare is the kiss of death. This is a possibility – but, really, the damage is already done.
This will make for an interesting Christmas.
Thank you for visiting Blogs For Victory. If you enjoy our content, please consider making a donation to help us cover the costs of our servers.Mark Noonan is co-author (with Matt Margolis) of Caucus of Corruption: The Truth About The New Democratic Majority. He also blogs at Nevada News and Views. Follow Mark on Twitter.
23 Responses to “Obama Will Now Dither on ObamaCare”
Caucus of Corruption
Mark
I heard on the radio today that a GOP senator found buried on page 1150 or so a paragraph that stipulated that future legislation could not over ride or change provisions of this H.C. bill.
This is effectively a senate rules change which I believe requires a 65% vote of the entire senate to mandate.
Maybe they got caught with barneys pants around their ankles on this one.
neocon1,
Actually, that part may very well be entirely unconstitutional, as it disallows future generations and their supposedly representative Congresses from enacting the will of the people. So it would require a Constitutional Amendment (or a Supreme Court ruling if you enjoy exploiting the least-balanced check on our government).
an excerpt….
No one is certain of what’s in the bill, but Senator Jim DeMint spotted one shocking revelation regarding the section in the bill describing the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (now called the Independent Payment Advisory Board), which is a panel of bureaucrats charged with cutting health care costs on the backs of patients – also known as rationing.
Apparently Reid and friends have changed the rules of the Senate so that the section of the bill dealing with this board can’t be repealed or amended without a 2/3 supermajority vote. Senator DeMint said:
“This is a rule change. It’s a pretty big deal. We will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law. I’m not even sure that it’s constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. I don’t see why the majority party wouldn’t put this in every bill. If you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates. I mean, we want to bind future congresses. This goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future congresses.”
In other words, Democrats are protecting this rationing “death panel” from future change with a procedural hurdle. You have to ask why they’re so concerned about protecting this particular provision.
This will make for an interesting Christmas.
Ho Ho Ho !
(no- not nancy, harry, hussein)
wellll maybe, could be!
Mark, this is why you always need to go and read the original source. Morrissey misread the Politico article, which actually says that the White House does not expect to receive a final healthcare bill until February. Congress will continue to work on it; indeed, working on it will be what takes up all of its time. As negotiations between the House and the Senate wind down, Obama will begin a new debate, this one on jobs and reducing the deficit. He is likely to push for a substantially more infrastructure-centric approach than the stimulus, and to push for using money that’s already been appropriated rather than spending additional billions.
Neocon1,
What I think the Democrats in Congress are doing, in addition to what Observer20 has already noted, is exempting themselves and their own families from being covered by and participating in the bill, while making it mandatory…mandatory…for every taxpaying citizen to participate. And then use the new law as a reference from which to remove term limits, and rein in a dictatorship.
There’s no question, it’s communism, see. They can’t hide it any longer…and the people must not let it happen.
Hmmmmmm states rights = 0zer0 SHOVE it?
One mans E- mail
“Dear Rep. Berman,
Can you tell me if the State of Texas is making any plans to protect Texas citizens from what I believe to be an unconstitutional bill being rammed through Congress? As elected officials who have sworn to uphold the US Constitution, I believe you need to protect us from basically being placed into a position of servitude to the federal government.
I am referring to the “individual mandate” contained in the bill. Absolutely nothing in our constitution authorizes government to force individual citizens to purchase health insurance or buy a product. To do so is tantamount to asserting OWNERSHIP of the individual. If this is allowed to prevail, then they will be able to compel any behavior they want, all based on the notion that all behaviors affect health and health care costs.
Will they tell us what food we can eat, what beverages we can drink, what hobbies we can engage in?
As you know, our founding documents make it clear that our individual liberty flows from our Creator and natural law, existed before the founding of the country, and was not created by the Constitution, but rather, was codified in it. Individual liberty trumps “social good”.
Thanks so much for any information on Texas’ plans you can give me.”
Answer………………………………………………………………..
“I am so impressed with Rep. Berman. After I sent the email, I picked up the phone and called his local office here, and he answered the phone himself. He said that right now, they are just waiting to see what is going to happen. But, he said that Gov. Perry committed to him that he would file suit in federal court to seek an injunction against an unconstitutional act by the President and the Congress. The second thing is for the Governor to call a special session to allow the legislature to pass a resolution of nullification.
I also pointed out to him that most people are of the opinion that states will not buck the feds on this, due to fear of loss of federal funds. His retort was that Texas was not going to buckle under and that we have a state surplus.”
I just hope conversations like this are happening all over the country.
Man oh Man
when will this stop??
Exclusive: ACORN Qualifies for Funding in Senate Health Care Bill
Senator Roland Burris is claiming credit for a provision in Harry Reid’s “manager’s amendment,” unveiled Saturday morning, that could funnel money to ACORN through the health care bill.
Deleted – troll.
Sergei,
Nonsense – final passage requires only 50 Senators and 218 House members. They could pass whatever they want…unless the House Democratic caucus is coming apart and/or the internal polling shows that passing this thing will cost them their majority.
This isn’t just a thing – this is a new departure.
they will never defeat the american spirit or freedom…nope…just wont happen…
he is just buying time to do the deals so they wont lose it all…its typical…they gotta have more time to blackmail their compatriot libtards that pretend they have morality…besides…its gonna take that long for peoples attention to wander off so they can pull a quick one on a surprise vote when nobody expects it…
you dont think they would…play fair…do ya?
Well, we’re Republicans for a reason, js02.
Listen to us, Congress and Mr. President.
Serg, Earbama wanted a bill to sign by Christmas. He didn’t get it so he’s gonna make excuses, as usual.
I’m surprised he didn’t blame Bush…
The House version passed by a vote of 220-215. This means that if only three more Democrats (or two Democrats and Joseph Cao) decide to vote against the bill this time, it will fail. Both Stupak and a number of progressive representatives have threatened to change their votes. The situation would procedurally be resolved if the conference committee were to just emit a carbon copy of the original House bill, which would probably pass in the Senate, but to do so would be to stab Nelson, Landrieu, and the rest in the back and demonstrate that the leadership had absolutely no intention whatsoever of negotiating in good faith, which would completely break an institution that is already only barely functioning thanks to the Republicans’ shenanigans. It would be nice to return to majority rule except in exceptional circumstances, but it’s just not possible without rewriting the Senate’s rules.
He has listened to you. Remember, because the Democrats are letting Lieberman keep his chairmanship, they have (to put it bluntly) his nuts in a vice. It is only Obama that has kept them from tightening that vice until he does what they want, which I think he would have been willing to do anyway because his opposition was mostly just a lonesome cry for attention. While Obama certainly wasn’t the only factor in the public option’s demise, he was still one of them. The reason that he decided to get rid of it was that although his policy views, as you may have noticed, tend to be rather liberal, his ideology is still radical centrist. His ultimate goal has always been to unite the country, and he made a major policy sacrifice in order to keep you from being driven away.
He wanted a bill to sign by the State of the Union. The Christmas deadline was for the Senate to pass its version.
Some things are obvious enough to go without saying.
SA
Some things are obvious enough to go without saying.
Like the worldliness of a 23 yo?
…which would completely break an institution that is already only barely functioning thanks to the Republicans’ shenanigans. – sergei the borderline communist
Yes, it’s all those scoundrel republicans who are simply trying to slow the process down in an effort to craft a reform bill that is more financially responsible, more free market oriented and more palatable to the American public. Damn them!
This can’t be good. The shenanigans the Democrats are pulling are just so frustrating.
Rep. Louise Slaughter (D-N.Y.), the chairwoman of the House Rules Committee and co-chairwoman of the Congressional Pro-Choice Caucus, said that the Senate’s bill is so flawed that it’s unlikely to be resolved in conference with the bill to have passed the House.
http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefing-room/news/73493-senior-dem-kill-the-healthcare-bill-and-start-over
Unless the House accepts the Senate bill without any changes (which isn’t going to happen), it can still be filibustered when it goes back to the Senate.
kmg,
So I’ve heard but my recollection is that if there is a Conference Committee and it reconciles the two bills in to one item, then it just goes for an up or down vote.
Of course, Nancy and Harry had proven adept and twisting the rules thus far, so we’ll have to see if they even remotely keep this to a regular legislative process.
Sergei,
We’re doubtful there really are any moderate Democrats – or, really, any pro-life Democrats. From what we’ve seen, each Democrat has his price and Harry and Nancy are willing to pay it. If there are genuinely moderate and/or pro-life Democrats in the House, then we’ll shortly see.
The Republicans have taken what was once a rare process used in extreme cases and turned it into the normal state of affairs. Once upon a time, it took 50 votes to pass a bill. Now, the default is 60, and this is true not just of health reform, but of everything. The Republicans have filibustered over 70% of major legislation this year, including, abominably, the defense appropriations bill. What in that bill constituted a great enough emergency to justify the circumventing of normal democratic processes? What in it constituted a threat to our freedom?
As for slowing the process down to improve the bill, don’t be absurd. The Republicans stopped even pretending to do that back in June or July.
No, it can’t. I checked, and while it can be referred back to the Conference Committee, it can’t be filibustered.
What was Lieberman’s price? For that matter, what was Obama’s?