An honest question about the HCR bill, filibusters and reconciliation...

[FormerDittoHead]

One of the big "selling points" of the health insurance reform bill being made is that we can go back and make changes.

The question is, excusing my ignorance, once the bill is passed, will subsequent changes to it avoid the 60 vote filibuster yardstick?

Once a law, would subsequent changes become a simple majority vote at that point?

If future changes do bypass the 60 vote rule, supporters should be talking about THAT, but their lack of stressing that point is what makes me think that's not the case.

Depending upon the answer, this could go a long way to changing some minds...

[MineralMan]

1. Here's the thing:

We have a framework. If everybody does what they should do in 2010, we will have some more decent Democrats in both houses. That is the answer. Are you ready to work for that?

[DJ13]

3. Was there an answer in that?

[silverweb]

8. Exactly!

If we do this right, Orin Hatch's worst nightmare will come true: Progressive Democrats will greatly increase their constituency and pick up more seats in Congress.

Then, We The People, after working to elect these additional Progressive Democrats, will continue to lobby, plead, and harrass all of our elected representatives to push OUR progressive agenda.

Forward! :patriot:

[damntexdem]

10. Only if the rules of the Senate are changed.

Since changes in practices, relying on the old rules, have made the Senate dysfunctional.

[librechik]

2. the theory is that once the bill is law, you can make changes through "reconciliation"

much more easily rather than the 60 vote filibuster rule, or so old-handers say.

If it were me I'd make a budget bill taxing $500,000 plus incomes in order to expand Medicare to age zero. Instant reconciliation, pass tomorrow with 50 votes.

But our chief Jackasses can't get through their skulls that the Elephants will scream and rampage no matter what they do. They can't be placated with a weak bill. It's just what they always do.

[FormerDittoHead]

5. That's a game changer (or is that "framework"? - see above)

Seriously. If we can just change some of the loopholes, etc without having to get Lieberman on board, that's big.

I don't disagree with anything in your msg, but the people saying that the bill can be changed should point this out more (if true)...

[librechik]

7. what, and reveal our secret strategy?

the other side is already pounding us with the "slippery slope to single payer" hammer. We seem to prefer to whisper about our victories, unlike the other side. Or else we are just lame and have no media strategy. I pick 2!

[Unvanguard]

4. No. But the political pressures that would be brought to bear might make a difference.

The mandate, for instance, effectively forces Congress to ensure that those required to buy health insurance can actually get it affordably--otherwise it's a political disaster for them. In the status quo, on the other hand, they can just do nothing as more and more people are forced out of the system.

[napi21]

6. It depends on what those changes are. If, for instance, they

wanated to expand Medicare, that could be done through reconciliation and require only 51 votes. If it would change regulations on ins. co's or establish a public option, then it would be subject to the fillabuster. To use econciliation, it has to be something that involves money.

[FormerDittoHead]

9. Wasn't expanding Medicare via reconcilation Dean's suggestion?

I'm wondering if I'm the only one who thinks it strange that when it's about money, it requires a lower threshold.

That aside, if the bill establishes some kind of federal (as opposed to state) regulatory agency (like the FCC) then each and every rule wouldn't need a supermajority, etc. (of course, it would then become subject to political pressure)

(or do I have that wrong?)

But considering that money is the REAL issue(s) here, then it would seem to be very favorable toward passing the bill and fixing it...

[napi21]

11. Yes you have it right. The reason for money being a lower

threshold is because reconciliation was first established to hndle budget concerns. I don't know for sure, but apparently there were times when the opposing Party would fillabuster the annual budget and shut down the gov't.