# 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:** 4
**Author:** ![kjckjc](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/e36b37/32.png) [@kjckjc](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kjckjc)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/61 "2010-03-17T19:03:07Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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. Sure, because Congress is a model of efficiency, that is why they are going with the two-in-one method. If they sent it back to the Senate with the proposed changes it opens the bill up to debate. And since the bill was written pretty much without input from, well, just about anyone from the other side of the aisle, there probably would certainly be some debate. Question, do you think if Coakley had won instead of Brown and the Senate still had its’ filibuster-proof majority, they would still use the two-in-one option? End-around. 100%. Whether the end-around is good or necessary given the political situation is another debate, but let’s not pretend it is anything but what it is. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 17, 2010, 7:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/62 "2010-03-17T19:17:15Z")
> [@kjckjc](#): > > Sure, because Congress is a model of efficiency, that is why they are going with the two-in-one method. If they sent it back to the Senate with the proposed changes it opens the bill up to debate. And since the bill was written pretty much without input from, well, just about anyone from the other side of the aisle, there probably would certainly be some debate. There’s a bit wrong with your legislative analysis here. Also with your analysis of who had input in the bill (I seem to recall a great deal of Republican input on the Finance committee - and at least one Republican that voted for it on said committee). But in the end it merely confirms what was said up-thread - those that are upset about the process are pretty much entirely a subset of those that are opposed to the bill. > [@](#): > > Question, do you think if Coakley had won instead of Brown and the Senate still had its’ filibuster-proof majority, they would still use the two-in-one option? If Coakley had won then reconciliation wouldn’t be an issue, nor “deem and pass”, because the bill would be subject to a conference comittee report which would be passed by both houses (over a filibuster in the Senate). The key point being that the House Dems would not be in the position of having to pass the Senate bill as-is. So I guess the answer is no, but not for the reasons you seem to think. > [@](#): > > End-around. 100%. Whether the end-around is good or necessary given the political situation is another debate, but let’s not pretend it is anything but what it is. It is an end-around, absolutely. Nobody is really denying that. But what the are ending around is not what you seem to think it is. They want to be able to vote for the final bill, not the intermediate pre-amended bill. There will be an up-or-down vote in both houses on the final package. I don’t see how this is a crisis of democracy. ---
**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, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/63 "2010-03-17T19:21:01Z")
I’m willing to bet that even if Coakley were elected, the same procedure would have been used. What is acceptable to a bare majority of the House is probably only acceptable to a bare majority of the Senate. I do not think it would have been likely that 60 senators would support something that 216 House members would, so reconciliation probably would have been used anyway. ETA: if the bill passes and there are 59 votes for the reconciliation package in the Senate, I concede I will have been proven wrong. But I’m betting there will be fewer than 59 votes for the reconciliation package in the Senate. ---
**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, 8:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/64 "2010-03-17T20:58:34Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > 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: I think I heard the Public Citizen v US District Court for DC decision was that the court had no jurisdiction and, upon reading the decision, it seems that Public Citizen had no standing. You may find Clinton V City of New York interesting: > **[Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)](https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1374.ZS.html)** I wonder if the Supreme Court would be willing to hear a case against using this tactic to pass legislation. The Public Citizen v US District Court for DC seems to deal more with the procedures used to fix a typo in the legislation as opposed to using the deem and pass rule to PASS legislation. ---
**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, 9:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/65 "2010-03-17T21:39:49Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I think I heard the Public Citizen v US District Court for DC decision was that the court had no jurisdiction and, upon reading the decision, it seems that Public Citizen had no standing. > > You may find Clinton V City of New York interesting: > [Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417 (1998)](http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/97-1374.ZS.html) > > I wonder if the Supreme Court would be willing to hear a case against using this tactic to pass legislation. The Public Citizen v US District Court for DC seems to deal more with the procedures used to fix a typo in the legislation as opposed to using the deem and pass rule to PASS legislation. You’ve gone past me to needing a few real lawyers to parse these out for the layperson (IANAL). It does however seem to be constitutional and while those cases may not be exactly on point they are being pointed to as relevant. Here’s a bit more where the guy defends his assertion that this is constitutional (and if you read enough see he thinks it is stupid but constitutional). (Bolding below original) > [@](#): > > Based on a strict reading of the text of the Constitution, I think that it’s probably correct that the House is required to actually vote on the Senate Health Care Reform bill. However, the Presentment Clause does not state the manner in which the vote must be taken by each chamber, and Article I Section 5 says the following: > > ``` > *Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings,* > > ``` > > In United States v. Bellin 144 U.S. 1 (1892), the Supreme Court stated: > > ``` > *The Constitution empowers each house to determine its rules of proceedings. It may not by its rules ignore constitutional restraints or violate fundamental rights, and there should be a reasonable relation between the mode or method of proceeding established by the rule and the result which is sought to be attained. But **within these limitations, all matters of method are open to the determination of the house, and it is no impeachment of the rule to say that some other way would be better, more accurate, or even more just. It is no objection to the validity of a rule that a different one has been prescribed and in force for a length of time. The power to make rules is not one which once exercised is exhausted. It is a continuous power, always subject to be exercised by the house, and, within the limitations suggested, absolute and beyond the challenge of any other body or tribunal.*** > > ``` > > If the House of Representatives passes a Rule stating that the Senate bill is deemed as having been passed by the House, that would seem to fall within the discretion of the House under Article I, Section 5. > > SOURCE: [http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/03/17/further-thoughts-on-the-constitutionality-of-deem-and-pass/](http://belowthebeltway.com/2010/03/17/further-thoughts-on-the-constitutionality-of-deem-and-pass/) ---
**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, 9:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/66 "2010-03-17T21:50:56Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > One really does not have to look far to wonder why the cheap seats don’t get it: Funny, I had MSNBC on much of the day yesterday, and they were saying the same thing over and over. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/67 "2010-03-18T01:12:21Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > You’ve gone past me to needing a few real lawyers to parse these out for the layperson (IANAL). > > It does however seem to be constitutional and while those cases may not be exactly on point they are being pointed to as relevant. > > Here’s a bit more where the guy defends his assertion that this is constitutional (and if you read enough see he thinks it is stupid but constitutional). (Bolding below original) My understanding is that SCOTUS has ruled that it will not interfere with the workings of congress (separation of powers in Field v Clark ) but will intervene if the rules put in place by congress are unconstitutional (Clinton v City of New York). Since this rule would allow the bill to pass without having the house actually vote on the exact language that passed the senate, it appears unconstitutional and may be heard by the court. ---
**Author:** ![yorick73](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/y/b5a626/32.png) [@yorick73](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/yorick73)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 1:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/68 "2010-03-18T01:25:06Z")
Here is a draft of a suit that Landmark Legal plans to file if the Slaughter rule is passed (warning…PDF) [http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Complaint%20(00013086-2).pdf](http://www.landmarklegal.org/uploads/Landmark%20Complaint%20%2800013086-2%29.pdf) Landmark Legal is run by Mark Levin. Yes…the radio host. He is also a constitutional lawyer who served in Justice under Reagan. Here is an interesting section of the suit. I had not considered this: 1. The courts risk much in not acting in this case. For if the Enrolled Bill Rule were to block consideration of this deliberate adoption of a procedure to repeal the Bicameralism Clause, then the House and Senate will be free to adopt any such procedures in the future, assured that they will be immune from judicial review under any and all circumstances. After all, if the House can pass a rule that “deems approved” one measure on adoption of a separate measure and keep that maneuver from judicial scrutiny, then it, and its companion Chamber the Senate, can do anything. There can be no doubt that the day after a ruling in this case that no judicial review is permitted, the House and Senate would be free to adopt as procedures a lineitem veto through use of multiple enrollments of unitary appropriations bills, deeming every item in the bill as a separate bill. See, e.g., Gressman, Observation: Is the Item Veto Constitutional?, 64 N. Car. L. Rev. 819 (1986). Everything about the House’s action invites chaos: economic, political, and constitutional. Under the specific facts presented here, the Congress has forfeited any claim to judicial deference. ---
**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 18, 2010, 2:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/69 "2010-03-18T02:43:40Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Funny, I had MSNBC on much of the day yesterday, and they were saying the same thing over and over. As was CNN, but it’s much more fun blaming FOX. ---
**Author:** ![Piker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/ba9def/32.png) [@Piker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Piker)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 3:07am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/70 "2010-03-18T03:07:40Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > I think I heard the Public Citizen v US District Court for DC decision was that the court had no jurisdiction and, upon reading the decision, it seems that Public Citizen had no standing. You heard wrong; the D.C. Circuit affirmed on the basis of the Marshall Field rule, not on the standing of the plaintiffs. ---
**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 18, 2010, 4:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/71 "2010-03-18T04:12:50Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > As was CNN, but it’s much more fun blaming FOX. So we have you and **John Mace** claiming CNN and MSNBC are also misrepresenting what Deem & Pass is. Yet we have no quotes from either of you but rather one line assertions they did so. Please cite their misrepresentations. If indeed they all did the same thing as FOX News then we can discuss in another thread the failure of mass media. As I noted above “deem & pass” has occurred near 90 times in four years in this decade alone with plenty from both parties. Can anyone here cite where, in those ~90 times, anyone got in a fuss about it akin to today? ---
**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 18, 2010, 4:26am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/72 "2010-03-18T04:26:33Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So we have you and **John Mace** claiming CNN and MSNBC are also misrepresenting what Deem & Pass is. > > Yet we have no quotes from either of you but rather one line assertions they did so. Please cite their misrepresentations. > > If indeed they all did the same thing as FOX News then we can discuss in another thread the failure of mass media. As I noted above “deem & pass” has occurred near 90 times in four years in this decade alone with plenty from both parties. Can anyone here cite where, in those ~90 times, anyone got in a fuss about it akin to today? I saw it on TV. That limits the ability to cite it. If it means that much to you, just forget that I said it. I’m not going to look for transcripts or anything. Regarding the fuss, if you were not a supporter of UHC, you’d make a fuss too. In those other 90 times, what was passed that changed the size and scope if the .gov like UHC will? In my opinion, any perceptions of a shifty move or underhandedness should be eliminated as it only give the naysayers yet another item to bitch and moan about it. YMMV and it certainly does in this case. Just drop the BS about the Congress suddenly wanting to become more efficient with their time. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 4:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/73 "2010-03-18T04:36:13Z")
> [@yorick73](#): > > Landmark Legal is run by Mark Levin. Yes…the radio host. He is also a constitutional lawyer who served in Justice under Reagan. Here is an interesting section of the suit. I had not considered this: > > [snip] > > There can be no doubt that the day after a ruling in this case that no > judicial review is permitted, I have plenty of doubt about this assertion. How does it follow that if Congress can pass a law by conditioning it on a future bill from the Senate that all judicial review of Congress ceases to exist? You can say that the bill will pass without the House voting on it all you want, but that doesn’t change the fact that the House will vote for it, only in advance of the senate bill being presented. ---
**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 18, 2010, 5:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/74 "2010-03-18T05:05:46Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > I saw it on TV. That limits the ability to cite it. If it means that much to you, just forget that I said it. I’m not going to look for transcripts or anything. > > Regarding the fuss, if you were not a supporter of UHC, you’d make a fuss too. In those other 90 times, what was passed that changed the size and scope if the .gov like UHC will? In my opinion, any perceptions of a shifty move or underhandedness should be eliminated as it only give the naysayers yet another item to bitch and moan about it. YMMV and it certainly does in this case. Just drop the BS about the Congress suddenly wanting to become more efficient with their time. So…no cite. I cited it my case. And **Ravenman** cited a deem & pass that was a big deal in post #54: _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._ Your move. ---
**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 18, 2010, 5:16am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/75 "2010-03-18T05:16:48Z")
> [@Whack-a-Mole](#): > > So…no cite. > > I cited it my case. > > And **Ravenman** cited a deem & pass that was a big deal in post #54: > > _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._ > > Your move. > **[Latest Videos | CNN](https://www.cnn.com/videos?%2Fvideo%2Fpolitics%2F2010%2F03%2F16%2Fkeilar.health.care.101.cnn)** “There is so much in the senate bill that we don’t like we would really like to not vote on it if we could…” “…Political cover to its members” Cute Brianna with her stapler kept it just as shady sounding as the morons on Fox. ---
**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 18, 2010, 3:24pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/76 "2010-03-18T15:24:22Z")
> [@JXJohns](#): > > [http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/03/16/keilar.health.care.101.cnn](http://cnn.com/video/?/video/politics/2010/03/16/keilar.health.care.101.cnn) > > “There is so much in the senate bill that we don’t like we would really like to not vote on it if we could…” > > “…Political cover to its members” > > Cute Brianna with her stapler kept it just as shady sounding as the morons on Fox. Watched it and it does not seem particularly bad to me and mostly accurate. Of course it is for political cover. No one is denying it and is why the Reps have used this tactic as well literally dozens of times in the past. That all you got? [Compared to Fox](http://mediamatters.org/research/201003170045)? _On Fox News’ America’s Newsroom, co-host Bill Hemmer stated: “We start this morning with what could be the latest tactic to pass health care. Democrats considering pushing it through the House without actually voting on it. Now, how’s that work? It’s called the self-executing rule that does not require a single vote, and lawmakers on the Hill are apparently ready to use it – but how and when?”_ That is an outright falsehood. They in fact need a majority vote to pass the bill. ---
**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 18, 2010, 3:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/77 "2010-03-18T15:31:06Z")
The Washington Post: [House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html) ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 3:39pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/78 "2010-03-18T15:39:51Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > The Washington Post: > > [House may try to pass Senate health-care bill without voting on it](http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/15/AR2010031503742.html) Yes, and that is correct. The Fox News one is not. The key difference is the phrase “Senate health-care bill”. The House, if they use the self-executing rule, will indeed be passing the Senate bill without voting on it directly. They **will not** be passing _Health Care Reform_ without voting on it (like Fox News claimed). Also, the phrase “wouldn’t require a single vote” is particularly inaccurate (as they would realize if they spent half a second to wonder why their reporting of Kucinich’s switch meant a damn thing if there wasn’t even going to be a vote…) ---
**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 18, 2010, 3:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/79 "2010-03-18T15:42:45Z")
Oh, please. So they didn’t use the exact same words. If that gets your panties all ruffled, then I guess that’s just you. Fact is, they aren’t voting on the bill. They’re voting on amendments to the bill. If the WaPo is correct, so is Fox. ---
**Author:** ![Jas09](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/d07c76/32.png) [@Jas09](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jas09)\ **Post date:** [March 18, 2010, 4:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053/80 "2010-03-18T16:10:07Z")
> [@John\_Mace](#): > > Oh, please. So they didn’t use the exact same words. If that gets your panties all ruffled, then I guess that’s just you. > > Fact is, they aren’t voting on the bill. They’re voting on amendments to the bill. If the WaPo is correct, so is Fox. You really believe this statement from Fox News is correct: _“It’s called the self-executing rule that does not require a single vote”_? Because it is pretty obviously false. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053.md?page=3) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/explain-to-me-what-im-missing-re-health-care-reconciliation/532053.md?page=5)