If you hear "they are passing HCR without a vote", the person is mistaken or lying

[CreekDog]

You should take that into account before considering that or anything else they say.

1) It's wrong to say it will be passed without a vote, in fact there will be a vote and in order to pass the Senate Bill with changes, that vote will need to succeed.

2) The purpose, far from being underhanded, is to allow members of the House to vote on the Senate Bill and necessary changes AT THE SAME TIME. It is a way to support the thrust of health care reform and at the same time, take issue with the Nebraska compromise and other problems with the Senate Bill that many House members have.

3) The strategy is not attributable to obfuscation but instead to a broken Senate process that is making the Conference Process impossible to complete. If the Conference Report could sustain a filibuster in the Senate --the House wouldn't need to pass the Senate Bill itself.

But these issues are secondary to my main point. Knowing that someone who says there will not be a vote, when there will be one, should you listen to that person? Are they an expert? No. Are they trying to convince you by deception? Unless they are ignorant, I'd argue "Yes, they are". In either case, should you listen to them, trust them or be influenced by them? No.

[ShortnFiery]

1. We criticized the GOP for doing the same. It's a crappy way to achieve our goals

and will result in the republicans taking over the Congress within 2-4 years.

Really STUPID act in addition to becoming what we most abhor.

[liberalpragmatist]

2. Exactly. It's one vote for the whole package, instead of two.

There is NOTHING bizarre about this - the House has done this numerous times. A number of legal scholars have questioned the tactic, but their discussions often wind up exposing the fact that they don't actually understand what's being done. There's a perception that the House is declaring the Senate bill is already law, and then amending it. That's not what's being done. All that's being done is that the Senate bill is being tied to the reconciliation bill and they're both being voted on together. That's it. They remain separate bills, the president still has to sign two separate bills, and the text of the Senate bill is NOT being changed.

[LiberalFighter]

5. Exactly about the legal scholars. They be legal scholars...

but not necessarily about Congressional legislation.

Another point that should be identified is that the process in Congress didn't have as much publicity and interest as it does now.

And these dumbass newbies that the learning curve is a piece of cake. By newbies I mean every damn jackass and bimbo that is identified as a political reporter such as Chuck Todd.

[Bitwit1234]

3. Well if the republicans did it 36 times under the big pretender to be

president bush why can't we. I think it is time the Democrats put their foot down and started passing bills, nominating personnel and anything they can to get around the republicans. All the time they should MAKE THE DAMN MSM tell the public what's going on. DEMOCRATS HAVE BEEN TOO DAMN NICE. GET DOWN AND DIRTY LIKE THE REPUBLICANS. GET SOMETHING DONE FOR ONCE.

[SemiCharmedQuark]

6. Right. This is the shitty but legal response to the Republican's shitty but legal use of the

filibuster.

[SteveM]

4. Doesn't matter. The GOP has already dominated this side-issue. nt