# Explain to me what I'm missing re: health care reconciliation **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [March 11, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053 "2010-03-11T01:15:28Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 3
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 12:38am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/41 "2010-03-17T00:38:49Z")
Even the Washington Post thinks it’s a bad idea: > **[Health-reform vote deserves a reasonable process](https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503156.html)** > > WE UNDERSTAND the administration's sense of urgency on health-care reform . But what is intended as a final sprint threatens to turn into something unseemly and, more important, contrary to Democrats' promises of transparency and time for... ---
**Author:** ![Sam\_Stone](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/ecccb3/32.png) [@Sam\_Stone](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Sam_Stone)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 12:49am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/42 "2010-03-17T00:49:01Z")
There are other problems with reconciliation. For one thing, reconciliation is only supposed to be used for budgetary matters, and only to cut the deficit. I think the Dems have to show an additional one billion dollars in cost savings within three years over the current bill in order to pass changes under reconciliation. This does not look likely, because many of the changes actually increase the cost of the bill (i.e. removing the tax on ‘gold-plated’ health plans). Also, there is some question as to whether or not changes in the abortion language can be done in reconciliation. The Senate Parliamentarian will rule on this, and if he rules against reconciliation, the Dems either have to back down, or they have to fire the parliamentarian and put a new one into office who will do what they say - which will only make this look even more illegitimate. Another problem - my understanding of reconciliation is that it has some real limits - one is that the bill expires in 10 years and has to come up for a vote again. I believe that’s why Bush’s tax cuts expire - they were passed through reconciliation (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). Also, I believe you can only use reconciliation once in a year, which means if the Dems use it now, the Republicans could have them over a barrel on the next big spending bill where reconciliation would actually be the proper mechanism for moving legislation. Finally, if the Democrats pass this using various mechanisms that are not rock-solid in terms of their constitutionality, you can expect that this bill will be tied up by endless lawsuits until the Supreme Court rules on its legality. And I wouldn’t count on winning that battle if I were a Democrat. ---
**Author:** ![John\_Mace](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/john_mace/32/185_2.png) [@John\_Mace](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/John_Mace)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 1:15am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/43 "2010-03-17T01:15:13Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > There are other problems with reconciliation. For one thing, reconciliation is only supposed to be used for budgetary matters, and only to cut the deficit. I think the Dems have to show an additional one billion dollars in cost savings within three years over the current bill in order to pass changes under reconciliation. This does not look likely, because many of the changes actually increase the cost of the bill (i.e. removing the tax on ‘gold-plated’ health plans). Also, there is some question as to whether or not changes in the abortion language can be done in reconciliation. The Senate Parliamentarian will rule on this, and if he rules against reconciliation, the Dems either have to back down, or they have to fire the parliamentarian and put a new one into office who will do what they say - which will only make this look even more illegitimate. > > Another problem - my understanding of reconciliation is that it has some real limits - one is that the bill expires in 10 years and has to come up for a vote again. I believe that’s why Bush’s tax cuts expire - they were passed through reconciliation (someone can correct me if I’m wrong). Also, I believe you can only use reconciliation once in a year, which means if the Dems use it now, the Republicans could have them over a barrel on the next big spending bill where reconciliation would actually be the proper mechanism for moving legislation. Not quite right. From wikipedia: > [@](#): > > During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to substantially increase federal deficits.[5] These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. The Byrd rule: > [@](#): > > 1. if it does not produce a change in outlays or revenues; > 2. if it produces an outlay increase or revenue decrease when the instructed committee is not in compliance with its instructions; > 3. if it is outside the jurisdiction of the committee that submitted the title or provision for inclusion in the reconciliation measure; > 4. if it produces a change in outlays or revenues which is merely incidental to the non-budgetary components of the provision; > 5. if it would increase the deficit for a fiscal year beyond those covered by the reconciliation measure, though the provisions in question may receive an exception if they in total in a Title of the measure net to a reduction in the deficit; and > 6. if it recommends changes in Social Security. Which I don’t fully understand… > [@ST](#): > > Finally, if the Democrats pass this using various mechanisms that are not rock-solid in terms of their constitutionality, you can expect that this bill will be tied up by endless lawsuits until the Supreme Court rules on its legality. And I wouldn’t count on winning that battle if I were a Democrat. I doubt there will be a constitutional challenge to the process. But there are still procedural tricks the Republicans can pull to delay (and possibly derail this). As they say: Fasten your seat belts, it’s going to be a bumpy ride. ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 2:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/44 "2010-03-17T02:30:32Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Even the Washington Post thinks it’s a bad idea: > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503156.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503156.html) “Even the Washington Post” is the new “Even the New Republic.” ---
**Author:** ![RTFirefly](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/c77e96/32.png) [@RTFirefly](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/RTFirefly)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 2:45am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/45 "2010-03-17T02:45:51Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Even the Washington Post thinks it’s a bad idea: > > [http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503156.html](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503156.html) From the WaPo: > [@](#): > > These changes – the so-called reconciliation bill – are not all minor “fixes”; some could have far-reaching consequences. Such changes deserve to be fully understood and debated before they are voted on. I can’t help but notice that they don’t \*name \*any of these changes with the possible far-reaching consequences. I think they’re blowing smoke. They can’t oppose HCR on principle, because that would destroy what (precious) little remains of their liberal cred, but they certainly dig up every last nitpicky reason under the sun to oppose the bill or to advocate slowing down its progress. But for all practical purposes, they’re against it. As Dylan might say, “Why don’t you just come out once and scream it?” ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 1:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/46 "2010-03-17T13:36:30Z")
> [@Sam\_Stone](#): > > Finally, if the Democrats pass this using various mechanisms that are not rock-solid in terms of their constitutionality, you can expect that this bill will be tied up by endless lawsuits until the Supreme Court rules on its legality. And I wouldn’t count on winning that battle if I were a Democrat. Really? Because "deem and pass has been used before, and Republicans didn’t seem to have a problem with it when they were in charge. In 2003, the Republican House passed H.J. Res 51, an increase to the debt limit, by deeming it passed. In 1999, the Republican Senate passed H.R. 1905, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, by deeming it passed. In 1997, the Republican Senate passed HR 1469, a supplemental appropriations bill; HR 2272, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill; and HJ Res 106, a continuing resolution appropriations bill; each of them by deeming them passed. It seems the “deem-and-pass” maneuver is pretty well established in congressional history. ---
**Author:** ![jayjay](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jayjay/32/6765_2.png) [@jayjay](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/jayjay)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 1:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/47 "2010-03-17T13:51:16Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > It seems the “deem-and-pass” maneuver is pretty well established in congressional history. As is reconciliation, the other “liberal” boogeyman to the Republicans at this point. Most of W. Bush’s tax cuts were passed by reconciliation, as were numerous other Republican-majority bills. It’s funny how both of these are acceptable parliamentary procedure when the Republicans are in the majority but horrible, nasty, unconstitutional dirty tricks when Democrats are. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/48 "2010-03-17T15:50:22Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > Really? Because "deem and pass has been used before, and Republicans didn’t seem to have a problem with it when they were in charge. > > In 2003, the Republican House passed H.J. Res 51, an increase to the debt limit, by deeming it passed. > > In 1999, the Republican Senate passed H.R. 1905, the Legislative Branch Appropriations bill, by deeming it passed. > > In 1997, the Republican Senate passed HR 1469, a supplemental appropriations bill; HR 2272, the Commerce-Justice-State appropriations bill; and HJ Res 106, a continuing resolution appropriations bill; each of them by deeming them passed. > > It seems the “deem-and-pass” maneuver is pretty well established in congressional history. This is a political argument, not a constitutional argument. IF it is unconstitutional AND the Republicans did it does not make it correct and will not be a very effective argument in court. ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 3:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/49 "2010-03-17T15:55:23Z")
The point is, that a substantial number of laws have been passed by the deeming process. I’ll be happy to go back and find even more examples. While past practice is no guarantee of constitutionality, the implication that Democrats are somehow breaking new ground with an extraordinary parliamentary trick is false. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/50 "2010-03-17T16:17:50Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The point is, that a substantial number of laws have been passed by the deeming process. I’ll be happy to go back and find even more examples. While past practice is no guarantee of constitutionality, the implication that Democrats are somehow breaking new ground with an extraordinary parliamentary trick is false. While not specific examples here are some numbers on it: > [@](#): > > More recently, Grim notes that deeming resolutions were used by Republicans “36 times in 2005 and 2006,” and by Democrats “49 times in 2007 and 2008.” > > SOURCE: [Health Care Opponents Demonize 'Deem And Pass' As The Media Gets It Wrong [UPDATE] | HuffPost Latest News](http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/16/health-care-opponents-dem_n_501353.html) So, hardly uncommon. I’m curious then if the Reps manage to get “deem and pass” declared unconstitutional does that mean that those 85 bills passed (and presumably many more) instantly get tossed off the books since they were all passed via unconstitutional means? Also this is an example of you hate it when the other side uses it but love it when your side does it. If Reps take it away then they take it away for themselves as well. Something they need to consider since clearly they employ this tactic plenty of times. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/51 "2010-03-17T16:18:36Z")
> [@Ravenman](#): > > The point is, that a substantial number of laws have been passed by the deeming process. I’ll be happy to go back and find even more examples. While past practice is no guarantee of constitutionality, the implication that Democrats are somehow breaking new ground with an extraordinary parliamentary trick is false. Not trying to be too snarky, but were any of those bills passed by deeming on the same scale in either dollars ($875b) or impact and change of the American society and the role of the US Government? In other words, this is a big deal. Is this really the _best_ way to get it through? ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:29pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/52 "2010-03-17T16:29:14Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Not trying to be too snarky, but were any of those bills passed by deeming on the same scale in either dollars ($875b) or impact and change of the American society and the role of the US Government? > > In other words, this is a big deal. Is this really the _best_ way to get it through? Why does that matter? The whole “deem & pass” thing is a political maneuver. The Senate bill includes things like the “Cornhusker Kickback” that are unpalatable. The House could pass the bill the Senate sent them and then fix such things after the fact. That is entirely doable. What the Dems fear (and clearly justifiably so) is that Reps will hang the unpalatable stuff around Dems necks and say, “See! They voted for the Cornhusler Kickback!” This despite the Dems getting rid of it days later anyway. So, what the Dems are doing amounts to: > [@](#): > > In other words, a “yes” vote in the House will say, “I approve the Senate bill only on the condition that it not include X Y and Z and does include A, B and C.” > > SOURCE: [http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news\_columnists\_ezorn/2010/03/who-put-the-demon-into-deem-and-pass.html](http://blogs.chicagotribune.com/news_columnists_ezorn/2010/03/who-put-the-demon-into-deem-and-pass.html) Why is that awful (not the Bill itself but rather this method of passing it)? They are just voting for the bill as they would like it at the end without making it a two-step process to semi (becuase they will doubtlessly try anyway) defang scurrilous Rep rants in the future. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/53 "2010-03-17T16:35:10Z")
I’m not getting emotional about it and I don’t feel like arguing either. I asked a simple question and I am looking for a factual answer. Thanks for playing ---
**Author:** ![Ravenman](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/ravenman/32/2929_2.png) [@Ravenman](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Ravenman)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:41pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/54 "2010-03-17T16:41:57Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Not trying to be too snarky, but were any of those bills passed by deeming on the same scale in either dollars ($875b) or impact and change of the American society and the role of the US Government? > > In other words, this is a big deal. Is this really the _best_ way to get it through? The first example I mentioned, HJ Res 51, raised the statutory debt ceiling from $6,400,000,000,000 to $7,384,000,000,000, or just shy of $1 trillion dollars. I would say that it is VERY significant and controversial. Furthermore, there were 44 votes in the Senate against passing the bill. (As I said before, there was no vote in the House, because it was deemed as passed.) ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/55 "2010-03-17T16:42:34Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I’m not getting emotional about it and I don’t feel like arguing either. I asked a simple question and I am looking for a factual answer. Thanks for playing Factual answer to, “Is this really the best way to get it through?” Ok…here it is: Yes. ---
**Author:** ![JXJohns](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/jxjohns/32/469_2.png) [@JXJohns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/JXJohns)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 4:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/56 "2010-03-17T16:52:27Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > Factual answer to, “Is this really the best way to get it through?” > > Ok…here it is. > > Yes. Fair enough. Was the Civil Rights act of 1964 or the implementation of Social Security Act of 1935, two similarly significant bills passed in this matter? If not, why not? UHC is a big deal. Is getting something passed through means that could later be challenged regarding constitutionality a good idea? Or is this simply a matter of “there aren’t enough votes to make it stick, so we (Democrats) will do whatever we can to get it through.” That is the perception out here in the cheap seats. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 5:40pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/57 "2010-03-17T17:40:31Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > I’m curious then if the Reps manage to get “deem and pass” declared unconstitutional does that mean that those 85 bills passed (and presumably many more) instantly get tossed off the books since they were all passed via unconstitutional means? > > Also this is an example of you hate it when the other side uses it but love it when your side does it. If Reps take it away then they take it away for themselves as well. Something they need to consider since clearly they employ this tactic plenty of times. I’m wondering the same thing myself. Of course, I don’t know how you invalidate some old debt limit increase. I’m really shocked that this tactic hasn’t received more press in the past. It seems to me that it is a clear violation of article 1 section 7 of the constitution. I am no lawyer and certainly no constitutional scholar so hopefully one will be along to explain this better. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 5:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/58 "2010-03-17T17:58:35Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Fair enough. Was the Civil Rights act of 1964 or the implementation of Social Security Act of 1935, two similarly significant bills passed in this matter? If not, why not? UHC is a big deal. Is getting something passed through means that could later be challenged regarding constitutionality a good idea? > > Or is this simply a matter of “there aren’t enough votes to make it stick, so we (Democrats) will do whatever we can to get it through.” That is the perception out here in the cheap seats. It seems from this that you think this is some underhanded maneuver. They could pass the Senate bill then go back and add their fixes. Or they can skip the extra step and just say, “We are passing the bill from the Senate with these changes” and do it in one go. I could maybe see an issue here if the changes were major but they aren’t and do stuff like get rid of the Cornhusker Kickback (which is unpopular with everyone pretty much). The bulk of the bill from the Senate remains intact. The House still needs to pass it and (if passed) it goes to the Senate which then votes on it and then (if passed by the Senate) to the President’s desk. I do not know why (I presume) deem & pass was not used on the Civil Rights Act. I can only presume they didn’t because there was nothing especially poisonous in the bill that congresscritters did not want their name on. The only reason Reps are crying foul is they want Dems to have to pass the Senate bill as is so they can say, later, that Congresscritter-X voted for the Cornhusker Kickback (nevermind that Congresscritter-X voted it out a few days later and only voted Yes on the Senate bill with the understanding they would remove these noxious components before sending it to the Senate). The cheap seats may see this as an unconstitutional endrun but then not sure what you can do about them. These are the people who believe in death panels and want government to keep its hands off their Medicare. There is no talking to people who are willfully ignorant and wear it like a badge of honor. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 6:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/59 "2010-03-17T18:04:42Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I’m really shocked that this tactic hasn’t received more press in the past. It seems to me that it is a clear violation of article 1 section 7 of the constitution. I am no lawyer and certainly no constitutional scholar so hopefully one will be along to explain this better. Apparently the courts have looked at it and it is legal. [Public Citizen v US District Court for DC](http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia) (2005 Circuit Court case) [FIELD et al. v. CLARK, Collector](http://openjurist.org/143/us/649) (1892 US Supreme Court case) Summary can be found at the link below: > [@](#): > > So, once Nancy Pelosi and either Vice President Biden, as President of the Senate, or Senator Byrd, as President pro tempore attest that the bill has passed their respective houses, that is the end of the matter unless the Supreme Court ends up over-ruling a 118 year old precedent and creating a Constitutional crisis. > > I wouldn’t count on that happening. > > SOURCE: [http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/03/16/why-the-slaughter-solution-will-probably-be-allowed-to-stand/](http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/03/16/why-the-slaughter-solution-will-probably-be-allowed-to-stand/) > > From Comments Section at this link: > > Doug Mataconis Says: > > Nick, > > I understand your attempt to distinguish Marshall Field from this situation, it’s a good argument. > > My point is that the last time this deeming rule was challenged in Court, two Federal Court’s applied the Marshall Field precedent to state that they had no power to look beyond the attestation of the presiding officers of the House and Senate. > > Are there five votes on the Supreme Court to overrule M-F ? I’m not sure, heck I’m not even sure you’d get a Justice like Scalia on your side in a case like this. ---
**Author:** ![Whack-a-Mole](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/whack-a-mole/32/141_2.png) [@Whack-a-Mole](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Whack-a-Mole)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 6:27pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/60 "2010-03-17T18:27:43Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > Or is this simply a matter of “there aren’t enough votes to make it stick, so we (Democrats) will do whatever we can to get it through.” That is the perception out here in the cheap seats. One really does not have to look far to wonder why the cheap seats don’t get it: > [@](#): > > **Fox News anchors can’t grasp “pretty simple” legislative procedure** > > On March 16, Fox News anchors during their self-described daytime “news hours” repeatedly forwarded the false suggestion that, by using a legislative procedure known as the “self-executing rule” to finalize health care reform in the House, Democrats would be passing health care reform “without actually voting for it.” In fact, implementing the proposed procedure requires a majority vote. > > SOURCE: [http://mediamatters.org/research/201003170045](http://mediamatters.org/research/201003170045) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053.md?page=2) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053.md?page=4)