Al Capone

All righty then. The House of Representatives has passed a health care act that is 2000 pages long, and we all wish to know what happens now.

Please take time to at least check out Ducky's take on this bill. http://tpmcafe.talkingpointsmemo.com/talk/blogs/oldengoldendecoy/2009/11...

Yeah, I already know that all women must mandatorily bear babies now. But I must move on. Women are up in arms and up in legs and for chrissakes this has to be fixed. I watched Kitt Bonds (what the fuck kind of name is kitt bonds anyway, sounds like a porno queen but I am attempting to get more info from LarryH on this issue) on Stewart last night and he thinks that any woman he impregnates should have his baby and all, and I hate those people.

At any rate we have a bill that was passed by the House of Representatives. Now the bill GOES to the Senate. No ifs, and or buts, the damn bill goes to the Senate.

YOU DO NOT NEED 60 VOTES FOR PASSAGE IN THE SENATE. I am sick and tired to hear, every goddamn time that we need 60 votes in the Senate. It pisses me off almost as much as Glenn Beck & Mel Gibson to hear this tripe. 

The Senate of the United States of America MUST CONSIDER THIS BILL. PERIOD.

So, the Senate will and must address this bill.

Now, the Senate has its own rules, separate from the House as to how to address this issue. It will not, because of pride and indigestion not bring a vote to the floor of the Senate to vote up or down on the provisions in the House Bill.

Through several different committees including the so-called Baucus Committee, a bill will be prepared by the Democrats (the repubs just say no to everything except for amendments that include the outlawing of all abortions even if the victim was raped by Kitt Bonds who has not had an erection in at least a decade--thank god almighty for that) and will be somehow introduced to the Floor of the Senate for consideration.

Then the repubs (who are sick fucks who never cared about anything except for their own reelection and finding a way to get nooky in the local bars without getting found out) will attempt to filibuster---they will attempt to play Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. That is they will attempt to stop all consideration of the proposed legislation by talking a lot about nothing which is what they have been doing for a century.

The Democrats control 58 seats in the Senate. A wonderful man by the name of Sanders calls himself a socialist and caucuses with the Dems.

Joe Lieberman has two or three tongues as well as one testicle and a yarmulke and appears weekly on Jon Stewart. He caucuses with  the Dems but spends most of his time performing fellatio upon repub kingpins and insurance traitors.

Now, at least four Dems may not like the legislation that is proposed. But it will only take Joe to enter into an agreement with the true traitors to the U.S. Constitution to stop all consideration of the bill.

But Joe is an egoist as well as an egotist. And he might demur as far as joining with the traitors to stop any consideration of the proposed legislation. I predict that he will lose all committee posts if he does such a heinous thing.

And Olympia Snow (Is that not the coolest name you have ever heard)  or even her Maine Colleague might also demur as far as voting for a filibuster. Olympia Snow is in deep doo doo with the fascist side of her party in Maine. She is losing 60 to 39 according to the polls there in a proposed primary.

At any rate, the Senate WILL NOT UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCES vote on the same bill that was passed by the House.

But if the Senate votes on a health care package and it passes and it does not echo every single provision of the House package, what the hell happens?

Reconciliation is a legislative process of the United States Senate intended to allow a contentious budget bill to be considered without being subject to filibuster. Because reconciliation limits debate and amendment, the process empowers the majority party. Reconciliation also applies in the United States House of Representatives, but since the House regularly passes rules that constrain debate and amendment, the reconciliation process represented less of a change in that body.

A reconciliation instruction (Budget Reconciliation) is a provision in a budget resolution directing one or more committees to submit legislation changing existing law in order to bring spending, revenues, or the debt-limit into conformity with the budget resolution. The instructions specify the committees to which they apply, indicate the appropriate dollar changes to be achieved, and usually provide a deadline by which the legislation is to be reported or submitted.[1]

A reconciliation bill is one containing changes in law recommended pursuant to reconciliation instructions in a budget resolution. If the instructions pertain to only one committee in a chamber, that committee reports the reconciliation bill. If the instructions pertain to more than one committee, the House Budget Committee reports an omnibus reconciliation bill, but it may not make substantive changes in the recommendations of the other committees.[2]

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond ten years after the reconciliation measure.

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, has said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.[3]

Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

Oh and did you know that CSPAN has its own definitional component? 

A CONFERENCE COMMITTEE is a temporary panel of House and Senate negotiators.

A conference committee is created to resolve differences between versions of similar House and Senate bills.

How has this worked in the past?
 

One of the most ambitious environmental restoration efforts ever proposed for the Great Lakes appears imminent following the emergence from a House-Senate conference committee of legislation providing $475 million for a comprehensive Great Lakes restoration and protection initiative.

http://www.cdobs.com/archive/syndicated/great-lakes-restoration-initiative-clears-congressional-conference-committee,88289

 

Oh and take a look at this take.

Here's what is different this time, though: House progressives are showing some muscle, some guts, and some cohesiveness. They have pledged in writing that they will not get rolled this time, and I think that their leadership is whipping and organizing this thing in the right way. I had a progressive friend awhile back ask me, "Has a bill ever gotten better in conference?" And actually, the answer is yes. The 1993 budget bill, the 1994 crime bill, the S-CHIP bill in 1998, and even several of the budget bills in the 1990s after the Republicans took control of Congress all got better in conference in some significant ways. It's up to House progressives to make this a strong bill. This legislation is too important to the White House for this to die, so if they stick together and negotiate well, House progressives can make this happen.

Now don't get me wrong: what happens on the Senate floor is incredibly important. We need to get the best possible bill out of the Senate. But progressives should not panic if the language on the public option, or any other major issue in the bill, is not great. No matter what happens in the Senate the first time around, I am convinced that how good this bill is will ultimately come down to how good the House negotiators are on the bill. Sen. Reid has some tough choices on how to approach the Senate strategy, and Senate progressives and all of the pro-health care reform movement need to work together to get the best possible bill in the Senate floor fight. But don't give up on the conference committee process: this time, the House (and House progressives) will be a player.

• Health Care

Read more at: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/mike-lux/conference-committee-coun_b_313749.html&cp

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1009/27949_Page2.html

 

Okay, now lets say that a new bill comes out of committee and a vote must be taken by the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The House needs 218 votes for passage.

The Senate needs 50 plus the vote of the Vice-President of the United States. to break the tie.

I do not think that the members of the Senate of the United States can filibuster the proposed vote on this reconciled bill on the Senate Floor.

Finally, this penalty thing is getting to me. You cannot be thrown in prison for not having health insurance. But you can be imprisoned for lying on your income tax return. Remember Al Capone.

 

"H.R. 3962 provides that an individual (or a husband and wife in the case of a joint return) who does not, at any time during the taxable year, maintain acceptable health insurance coverage for himself or herself and each of his or her qualifying children is subject to an additional tax." [page 1]

"If the government determines that the taxpayer's unpaid tax liability results from willful behavior, the following penalties could apply…" [page 2]

"Criminal penalties: Prosecution is authorized under the Code for a variety of offenses. Depending on the level of the noncompliance, the following penalties could apply to an individual:

Section 7203 - misdemeanor willful failure to pay is punishable by a fine of up to $25,000 and/or imprisonment of up to one year.

Section 7201 - felony willful evasion is punishable by a fine of up to $250,000 and/or imprisonment of up to five years." [page 3]

 

http://prorev.com/2009/11/morning-line-health-care-could-be.html

I could be wrong. Show me.