The ping-pong ensues:
When the House or Senate passes a measure, it is sent to the other chamber for further consideration. If the second chamber passes the measure with one or more amendments, it is then sent back to the originating chamber. In modern practice, the second chamber typically substitutes its version of a measure as a single amendment to the measure as passed by the first chamber. The first chamber then may accept the amendment or propose its own further amendment. In this way, the measure may be messaged back and forth between the House and Senate in the hope that both houses will eventually agree to the same version of a measure.Here's what RedState thinks will happen next:
Now this bill goes to the House where the House has the option of passing this bill intact, then sending it to the President. They may choose to pass the bill, then work on a technical corrections bill to take another run at the pubic option, reform the tax provisions and further modify the abortion provisions. More likely, the House takes up the Senate bill and inserts a complete substitute including measures they think can pass the Senate with a 60 vote majority. Remember, unless if they somehow use a Reconciliation strategy, they need 60 votes to pass this measure again in the Senate. Then the Senate can either pass the new bill or continue the Ping Pong process until one chamber can pass the bill intact. Bottom line is that this process will cut out any significant participation by the public, the press and all federally elected Republicans. So much for transparency and broadcasting the negotiations on C-Span.Meanwhile, Nancy Pelosi ducked out of the closed door DemCare meetings long enough to proclaim that there's never been a more open process. No seriously, she did, and she even cited the thousands of angry town halls over the summer as proof of how 'open' the debate has been. Hot Air points out this rather obvious point:
Is it DCCC tool Chris Van Hollen playing revisionist historian by touting the townhalls as proof of how much Democrats love debate even though (a) Obama initially wanted ObamaCare passed in July precisely so that he could short-circuit public outrage before it built momentum and (b) the Dems spent the rest of the summer demonizing the hell out of people who actually showed up to the townhalls? Or is it Pelosi having the gall to dismiss The One’s C-SPAN campaign promise with a blithe, chuckling, “There are a number of things he was for during the campaign!” Don’t blink or you’ll miss it, but it’s there. The Democratic Speaker of the House, laughing out loud — at a press conference — at what a shameless liar Bambi had to be to get elected.And, just in case your memory on his C-SPAN promise is foggy:
Heritage explains that DemCare is not as advertised:
And gosh-darnit, wouldn't you know it? More and more doctors and medical institutions are refusing to accept Medicare because it is a rip-off that hammers the medical provider and shafts the patient...now even the Mayo clinic has dropped it. But yes, by all means, let's go ahead and force Medicare on everyone. Brilliant idea.
Yes, both the House and Senate would provide essentially free health insurance, through the Medicaid program, to many millions of low-income people. But, even so, enrollment in Medicaid is a far cry from getting good care when it’s needed. For starters, about 40 percent of the nation’s physicians don’t see Medicaid patients because the payment rates are too low, which also means certain hospitals have very low rates of Medicaid admissions. The truth is that current Medicaid enrollees already have trouble getting access to high-quality care when they need it because the network of providers willing and able to see them is constrained and over-burdened. The House and Senate bills would add 15 million or more people to this program’s rolls without any guarantee whatsoever that there will be doctors and hospitals that can see them.
Ironically, the very Democrats who most frequently tout “universality” as the goal are also the ones who ensure it will never actually come about by insisting that America’s lower-income families enroll in government-run insurance — with no other options.Beyond the Medicaid expansion, Obamacare is really an obligation, not a right. Every citizen would be required to sign up with a government-approved health-insurance plan or pay a tax penalty for going without coverage.
Meanwhile, despite all of the talk of painlessly slowing the pace of rising costs with more efficient care, the Democrats’ bills would cut costs mainly by imposing arbitrary rate reductions in the Medicare program — pushing it more and more toward the Medicaid model.
Not only is DemCare a pack of destructive lies, but it's unconstitutional:
In a letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV), dated December 30, 2009, the Attorneys General of 13 States have objected to the so-called Nebraska Compromise that reportedly won the crucial support of Senator Ben Nelson (D-NE) for the Senate health care takeover bill. The deal is said to involve an agreement that the Federal Government’s taxpayers will assume indefinitely the full share of the costs that Nebraska will incur as the result of the expansion of Medicaid that is one of the Act’s effects. The result is not only preferential treatment for Nebraska but it also hurts the rest of us because the other States will have to make up the difference.Heritage delves into exactly why DemCare is unconstitutional; if you find yourself needing an explanation, hit the link. The bottom line is that it is inherently un-American for Congress to force all citizens to purchase any good or service, especially when only some citizens will foot the bill for it.
Isn't it amazing how the simplest questions can often illustrate immensely complex issues?
There's my two cents.