Most people here are pretty politically aware and have good knowledge of what is going on, however

[Toots]

I see constant confusion in these posts of even what House is doing what. If a group like DU doesn't understand what is happening imagine how the ordinary America understands it..Almost every post on the Health Care Reform bill has people saying the exact opposite things..I never really realized just how complicated this whole mess was until I read posts from people that supposedly are paying attention..The word Reconciliation is confusing because it has two meanings, and people don't seem to understand that. There is reconciliation of House and Senate Bills into one Bill and then there is Budget reconciliation which is a process in the Senate ONLY where Budget issues might be passed with a simple majority. The Senate Health Care Bill has already been passed with a super majority.. It does not have to be voted on again.. The House can simply send that Bill to the Presidents desk for signing..It is a done deal..Nothing is being rammed down anyone's throat. However there are things in that Bill that House members do ot like. The normal procedure would be to reconcile the House Bill which already passed with the Senate Bill which already passed and then present the new Bill back to both Houses for another vote. Doing that though would allow Republicans to filibuster it and kill it dead. The only way now to prevent Republicans from killing the Health care Bill is to allow the Senate Bill to go to the President's desk for signing and then make the adjustments the House thinks would make the Bill better through the Budget Reconciliation process which can not be filibustered. Again I repeat, the House does not need to vote on the Senate Bill. It can go to the President's desk just as it is, and I am fairly certain it will.

[WCGreen]

1. I had a great social studies teacher in High School who explained

the whole mess to us.

He started off with the ABC rock cartoon. You know, I'm just a bill....

He then explained in detail what went into crafting and passing and getting legislation signed.

A great foundation for me.

on edit.

That's where I learned, for instance, that all tax bills had to originate in the House. The people are taxed so the people's house should be the starting place for revenue bills...

[Captain Hilts]

2. Another reason it should have been handled as separate pieces, rather than a whole bill. nt

[malaise]

3. So is Lawrence O'Donnell

totally confused on the subject?

[zipplewrath]

4. I thnk you have a typo

The House MUST pass the senate bill "as is" for it to go to the presidents desk. However, if they do that, it will go to the presidents desk, it does not need to go back to the senate. The House can "pass" the bill without a roll call vote however (well, on the specific bill per se. There will be a vote on the procedure and I imagine the GOP will ensure it is a roll call vote).

[quinnox]

5. Its arcane process

I agree its hard to figure this stuff out for even politically savvy and informed people, let alone the common person on the street.

Good morning

[shockra]

Geeeez.... Yes, it's all too complicated.

However, I read a blog post this morning that helped clear some things up for me.

"Here’s the deal, if you don’t have insurance, you’ll be able to get the insurance you have to buy on the relative cheap on alternate Tuesdays in odd months that don’t have an “R” in them if you’re left handed and have less than two piercings and three tattoos. If you’re right-handed, you have to wait until the third blue moon in years that end in double digits after you fill out phone book sized applications in triplicate longhand on an IBM Selectric, but, that’s only if you haven’t worked or collected unemployment in a Midwestern state in your maiden name. If both parents had insurance, and died without a major covered illness, you’ll be able to purchase a base-level policy from a state run exchange if you’re under 6 feet, weigh less than 200 pounds, don’t yet qualify for Medicare, and can whistle “Yankee Doodle” through a straw on a kazoo. If you’re over 35 and still have your wisdom teeth, you can get the same coverage Congress gets if you get elected to office in an opposition district, or suck off a candidate for higher office in a public restroom, or down elevator.

Everybody else would be required to jump down, spin around, pick a bale of cotton swabs while singing the “Banana Boat Song“ as they smack a Hokey-Pokeying midget with a farm-raised sustainable fish, but, only if they promise their first-born to a underbridge dwelling troll married to a leprechaun still in possession of his pot o’ gold at midnight if their sun sign occurs during Daylight Saving Time in the Year of the Ox. Otherwise, only traditionally married non-military childless vegan atheist couples who pledge at least seven years of indentured servitude to an unindicted Wall Street non-TARP or stimulus recipient Bankster whose annual bonus is less than 200% of the total recovered bailout payback profit realized by the government in an election year would qualify.

From what I’ve read, there are other perks, requirements and benefits relative to the health care bill(s?) but, since I don’t have a PhD in Ancient Asian Advanced Algebra/Trig and its Implications, Nuances and Influences on Modern Judeo-Christian Philosophy, I’m having a hard time breaking it down into ABC English. However, when I hold the bill up to a steamy mirror page-by-page in candlelight backwards, I think it says we’re screwed."

http://cinie.wordpress.com/2010/03/16/health-care-whats-the-freakin-bottom-line/

[Skinner]

6. A few things.

I appreciate your point. But I think there are a few things that are not clear.

Reconciliation refers to the budget process. The process by which House and Senate bills are brought together is called Conference Committee (the resulting bill is called a Joint Resolution, which is sent back to each house for a final up-or-down vote).

Because the Democrats lost their 60-vote supermajority, the Democrats want to bypass the Conference Committee process (so they don't have to send a Joint Resolution back to the Senate for 60 votes). In order to do this, the House needs to pass the EXACT BILL that the Senate already passed. So the house DOES need to vote on the Senate Bill. They have not done so yet.

The purpose of Budget Reconciliation in this context is to serve as a sort-of quasi-Conference Committee. The difference between what the House wants and what the Senate wants need to be resolved somehow. The resolution of those differences would then be passed separately, as part of Budget Reconciliation, which only requires 51 votes.

The big sticking point here is that the House does not want to get screwed over by the Senate. If the House passes the Senate bill, it becomes law with the President's signature. If the Senate subsequently fails to pass the package of changes through their Budget Reconciliation process, the House gets screwed.

[Jennicut]

9. Which is why House members want Pelosi to use the "deem and pass" rule.

I think it will all work but it is complicated and gives me a headache. Also, Rethugs used rules like deem and pass during W.'s era. So they have no leg up in this at all.

[kentuck]

7. So, if either the House or Senate makes changes....?

then the other has to agree to the changes? Or they can pass the bill without changes and it would go to the President for his signature? It always has to come back to the House for final approval.

However, the Senate made changes to the original House bill. The House is the law-making branch. The Senate can recommend changes, but in the end, it is the House that decides what is a bill and what is not. They have the final say on the bill. Something is not right that the Senate is writing this bill, not the House. It doesn't cut Constitutional mustard, in my opinion.

However, if the House agrees to the Senate changes, then it goes to the President for his signature. The House cannot make changes and not have it go to the Senate for approval or amendments. It must be signed as is or it must go back to the Senate. Once the Senate agrees with the House or makes further amendments, then it comes back to the House for final approval. Then it passes as a bill. Then it goes to the President who signs it into law.

Isn't this what the Constitution says?

(edited for clarification I hope?)

[Jennicut]

8. I believe the House wants to pass the Senate bill and the reconciliation changes simultaneously.

Pelosi will use the rule "deem and pass" of the Senate bill if the vote on the reconciliation bill passes. There will be no voting on the Senate pill, it will deem to pass if reconciliation does. This has to be approved of the Senate Parliamentarian I believe. There has been no official word from the Parliamentarian Alan Frumin on this (unlike what Rethugs have said in the media). If Frumin says it is okay, the Rethugs will have no case against it.
I think the main reasons for the House Dems doing this is they hate the Senate bill without changes and want to say they did not vote for it. They also want ensure that the Senate will actually pass the reconciliation changes.

[Romulox]

10. The misdirection isn't the voters' faults. Our President has brazenly LIED about this issue

("I never campaigned on the public option" e.g.)

You can't blame the public for being confused when politicians are fearlessly lying to the camera...

[ProSense]

12. Not only does this not have anything to do with the OP, the President

did not lie. He campaigned on delivering health care reform, encompassing several measures including a public option.

He did not campaign on scrapping health care reform if it didn't include a public option.

[Romulox]

14. You're at your strongest when you're delivering facts with no further characterization...

Once it gets time to spin, your frames are weak, however.

[Echo In Light]

13. +1

[izzybeans]

11. Much of our discussions are driven by media rather than legislation.

Rarely do you see threads linking to bills where the posters have read the text of those bills, with the possible exception of the OP and a small handful of people in the thread.

I'd like to see more of that and less he said, she said Chris Mathews-like electioneering commentary. I asked once for a forum specifically designed for this, and was directed to the Congress forum, which is rarely used.

Perhaps we need a parliamentarian of our own to post an explanation of the process (Skinner did a fine job above) being used and promote the use of legislation as a springboard into discussion. You know rather than the, "well Olberman really pawned that guy!" or the ubiquitous "The sky is falling" every time it rains and thus must be the final deathblow of all things good.

Maybe discussions would be more rational. A big maybe. But at least the brigade of keyboard warriors we have around here could simmer down and make a point for a change. you know instead of alienating would-be allies in their cause.