Widgetized Section

Go to Admin » Appearance » Widgets » and move Gabfire Widget: Social into that MastheadOverlay zone

Passing health care without a vote?

By Doug Thompson
March 16, 2010

(AFP)

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi admitted Monday she is considering some political slight-of-hand to push the controversial and flawed health care bill through the House without a vote.

Instead of holding a vote on the full bill, Pelosi could hold a vote on a package of “fixes” that have support and them impose a little -known “self-executing rule” to “deem and pass” the full bill without a vote by members of the House.

The “deem and pass” rule is normally used as a procedural move to approve routine legislation but not for big budget controversial bills.

“It’s more process-oriented than most people want to know but I like it,” Pelosi told a roundtable of political bloggers Monday.

Pelosi admitted she is considering the option as a way to provide political cover for Democrats who are fearful that voting for the bill will cost them at the polls in the November elections but political insiders say the use of a political stunt to approve such a controversial bill without a vote could cause even more problems for Obama and party leaders.

Reblog this post [with Zemanta]

7 Responses to Passing health care without a vote?

  1. Carl Nemo

    March 16, 2010 at 12:06 pm

    “The “deem and pass” rule is normally used as a procedural move to approve routine legislation but not for big budget controversial bills.” …extract from article

    Just the fact that Pelosi is scheming along such lines is a “red flag” alert concerning this POS legislation they’ve wrought.

    We’ve got a President that seems to be a chronic “liar in chief” and House Speaker Pelosi his “button girl” to push through this uber expensive corporate friendly, socialist crap.

    Folks, we’re flat, dead broke as a nation. Every day our government must “borrow” to survive another day and we have these madmen and women still pushing full steam ahead as if there’s no limit to how much can be borrowed, then frittered away due to inefficiency, corruption and outright theft of government resources.

    The inmates have taken over this now “asylum”, once known as the United States of America.

    In the months and years ahead, Americans will realize this bill too was nothing but a boondoggle to enrich medical corporations, “Big Pharma” and to create an even larger blood-sucking government agency to administer this pseudo-socialist nightmare. It it were pure socialism that would benefit citizens, then it might be good, but this is an example of corporate socialism to ensure their bottomline is plumped via statute. : |

    Carl Nemo **==

  2. Issodhos

    March 16, 2010 at 9:35 pm

    So much for the constant prattle we suffer about democracy from the usual lying suspects — useful when it does not hinder. The word “democracy” as used by many of its proponents in America is fundamentally leftist code for socialism. Funny stuff.:-)
    Yours,
    Issodhos

  3. woody188

    March 17, 2010 at 10:06 am

    I double dog dare you to pass this legislation in this manner Nancy. Double Dog Dare.

  4. Mightymo

    March 17, 2010 at 10:39 am

    Although I am still a strong supporter of Healthcare Reform philosophically, I am no longer a supporter of what is being sold to the American people.

    The original intent has been destroyed by lobbyists and business determined to keep the status quo, and by Republicans who are determined not to help the American people at the expense of loosing a political battle.

    What now is being sold to us is so watered down and ineffective that it is nothing more than a goal to be achieved. I still somewhat believe that it could lead to something better with time, but time is not on our side.

    I strongly believe that with the failure of this to be implemented that the government should remove itself from any and all financial burdens associated with providing healthcare to the American people except for current and retired Federal employees who deserve and/or pay for it.

    Financially it’s not practical to continue to support it, and if the government pulls itself from healthcare completely maybe the next time the issue comes up the American people will be more motivated to do the right thing.

  5. dtotire

    March 18, 2010 at 8:19 am

    The bill is flawed, but it does have some provisions that will benefit many. It can be improved upon later. One provision is that 85% of their premiums must be used for health care, and subscribers would get a refund if the insurers collect more. This could be increased at a later date, and eventually we could have a system something like Switzerland and Austria, with heavily regulated insurers providing most health care. However, the most cost-effective system is a single-payer, and this would benefit doctors.

    • sherry

      March 18, 2010 at 9:26 am

      That is what they said about the Medicare Drug bill. Obama was going to fix it. He didn’t. Now he wants to fix healthcare. O my goodness!

  6. Bogofree

    March 18, 2010 at 8:32 am

    I’ll really place a whole bunch of faith in improving this later. Trust in Congress? ROTFLMFAO! Kill it! Work on it! Get a strong public approval!