Do you think the health care bill will pass?

[Mizzougrad96]

Right now it's close and seems like it could go either way. Do you think it will pass or not?

 

[Ace]

If they tinker with the abortion language, it's an easy pass.

 

[nmmetsfan]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

 

[Boom_70]

If they tinker with the abortion language, it's an easy pass.

From everything I've read I don't think they can tinker with Senate abortion language unless it goes back to Senate vote-- which they don't want to do.

 

[Ace]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

It's only shady if it's the other side. Hell, a filibuster is shady. That's why they have to do a runaround in the first place.

 

[Boom_70]

I think they should do whatever it takes to pass it but it will be gutless if they don't require individual vote.

 

[nmmetsfan]

It's all shady. I just hope my state's reps have the balls to hold out for our own special piece of the pie. It's the American way.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

It's only shady if it's the other side. Hell, a filibuster is shady. That's why they have to do a runaround in the first place.

If they can pass it legitimately, so be it... But if Pelosi pulls that deal where they can pass it without voting then I think things could get ugly.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

I'm at the point now where I just want this bull**** over so they can focus on something that everybody acknowledges that we need, like creating more jobs, and I'm talking about something much more substantial than the job bill they just passed through.

I can't believe how much time spent on this crap. Pass it or don't and move on.

 

[Captain_Kirk]

Yes it will pass, if for no other reason than Obama has invested all his political capital on this initiative. The reputation of his administration, at least to date, rides on passing this.

ANd yes, hopefully they move on to focusing on jobs, since they are going to need to with the amount of jobs that get cut by companies trying to pay for the health care bill.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Yes it will pass, if for no other reason than Obama has invested all his political capital on this initiative. The reputation of his administration, at least to date, rides on passing this.

See: Clinton, William Jefferson

 

[Armchair_QB]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

It's only shady if it's the other side. Hell, a filibuster is shady. That's why they have to do a runaround in the first place.

Curious to know what exactly is shady about a filibuster.

And if Pelosi get this thru without a vote she needs to go to prison for the rest of her life.

 

[Ace]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

It's only shady if it's the other side. Hell, a filibuster is shady. That's why they have to do a runaround in the first place.

Curious to know what exactly is shady about a filibuster.

And if Pelosi get this thru without a vote she needs to go to prison for the rest of her life.

A filibuster is a procedure to keep a vote from taking place. What Pelosi is proposing is to keep a vote from taking place. What's the diff?

But the only way they can do it is because the senate already passed a version.

I just don't see how one way around the rules is so much more unpalatable than another. If the senate wouldn't filibuster, I'm sure they'd be happy to let them pass a different version 58-42.

 

[Boom_70]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

It's only shady if it's the other side. Hell, a filibuster is shady. That's why they have to do a runaround in the first place.

Curious to know what exactly is shady about a filibuster.

And if Pelosi get this thru without a vote she needs to go to prison for the rest of her life.

A filibuster is a procedure to keep a vote from taking place. What Pelosi is proposing is to keep a vote from taking place. What's the diff?

But the only way they can do it is because the senate already passed a version.

I just don't see how one way around the rules is so much more unpalatable than another. If the senate wouldn't filibuster, I'm sure they'd be happy to let them pass a different version 58-42.

But purpose is to provide cover for Reps to be able to say that they did not vote for Senate health care bill.

 

[Mizzougrad96]

It sounds like Pelosi is pushing it through without a vote.

I know this has been done before, but I doubt on something this big.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

Man, politicians spend a lot of time fussing over **** no voter cares about or ever will. A public opinion on poll asking people about the "Senate" versus "House" health care bill would probably draw an 87 percent finding of "Whaaa?"

 

[Michael_ Gee]

PS: Mizzou, what are you talking about? If Pelosi could send legislation to Obama's desk without a vote, she'd have done it already.

 

[spup1122]

It sounds like Pelosi is pushing it through without a vote.

I know this has been done before, but I doubt on something this big.

False.

From TPM:

"Before the bamboozlement gets too far, let's be clear about what the House is considering doing. There are two bills. The senate's original bill and the changes to that bill the House has now negotiated with the Senate. Normally, this is all hashed out in a conference committee. And it's all voted on in a single vote. In this case, that's not possible because of the continuing Republican filibuster in the Senate. So the House is considering taking both bills, consolidating them into a single vote, up or down. The old fashioned way. This isn't 'not having a vote'. And this has been done repeatedly before. Anybody who thinks these two bills shouldn't be passed simultaneously or thinks one or the other shouldn't pass has a simple solution. Vote no. Simple.

This isn't complicated. It's consolidating two votes into one."

http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com/archives/2010/03/lets_be_clear.php?ref=fpblg

 

[Armchair_QB]

Not with a vote. I do think they will use some shady parliamentary procedure to get it through

It's only shady if it's the other side. Hell, a filibuster is shady. That's why they have to do a runaround in the first place.

Curious to know what exactly is shady about a filibuster.

And if Pelosi get this thru without a vote she needs to go to prison for the rest of her life.

A filibuster is a procedure to keep a vote from taking place. What Pelosi is proposing is to keep a vote from taking place. What's the diff?

But the only way they can do it is because the senate already passed a version.

I just don't see how one way around the rules is so much more unpalatable than another. If the senate wouldn't filibuster, I'm sure they'd be happy to let them pass a different version 58-42.

A filibuster is a tool used to kill an unpopular bill.

Pelosi is attempting to sneak thru a bill without a vote. A bill that even the majority of her house colleagues on the Dem side don't like and could very well destroy 1/5 of the economy.

Anyone who honestly believes this is the correct and just way to resolve this is a ****ing fool.

And Mizzou, to answer your question it's NEVER been done before on something this big. Pelosi needs to go to prison if this happens.

 

[Michael_ Gee]

AQB, a filibuster is a tool to let a minority defeat a bill. Popularity has nothing to do with it. Destroy one-fifth of the economy? You gotta stop listening to talk radio. Really, once more I repeat. If Pelosi can pass the bill without a vote, why are they having a vote, and why does this thread even exist?
To answer the actual question, I believe the bill will fail. The Democratic party's identity crisis is too severe to allow it to govern. Many of its Reps would be more comfortable as Republicans, but Bush damaged the brand, so they're Democrats. If the Republicans take the House, as I expect, I also expect about 15 party-switchers the day after.