The list of amendments to House push for ObamaCare

posted at 10:00 am on March 20, 2010 by Ed Morrissey

It’s long and it’s distinguished.  Via the Boss Emeritus, these are the amendments by which members of both parties hope to spin the trajectory of health-care reform in its showdown weekend in the House.   The House Rules Committee has to vote on each of these before sending the bill for a floor vote, which Nancy Pelosi somehow plans to finish by the end of tomorrow.  The Committee has already begun meeting, and we’ll see how many of these make it into the final version of the reconciliation package.

My favorites?  I like Barton’s requirement that the federal budget deficit be “eliminated” before this bill can take effect.  Do Democrats love health-care reform so much that they’d be willing to cut spending to get it?  Several of them strike the individual mandate, another Barton amendment would strike all new taxes from the bill, and many of the others nibble more at the edges.  The deficit one is definitely my favorite.

How many of these actually get adopted?  I’m guessing … zero.  Feel free to use this as a scorecard if you’re watching or following Rep. Pete Sessions on Twitter.

Summary of Amendments Submitted to the Rules Committee for

H.R. 4872 – Reconciliation Act of 2010

(summaries derived from information provided by sponsors)
Listed in Alphabetical Order
Mar 19, 2010 9:23PM

Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #48 Would remove the provision which provides extra funds to Louisiana’s Medicaid program.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #49 Would remove the provision which provides funds for a medical facility in Connecticut.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #50 Would remove the provision that would allow certain hospitals to benefit from Section 508 if it means higher Medicare payments.
Barton (TX) #53 Would prevent this bill from taking effect until the Office of Management and Budget certifies that the federal budget deficit has been eliminated
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #54 Would remove the provision that provides for increased Medicare payments to hospitals and doctors in frontier states.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #62 Would require that all individuals under Medicaid have to demonstrate their identity and citizenship.
Barton (TX) #68 Would strike all taxes in the bill.
Barton (TX), Johnson, Sam (TX) #70 Would repeal a provision providing Medicare coverage to certain individuals exposed to environmental health hazards.
Barton (TX) #74 Would prevent the bill from taking effect until Medicare and Medicaid are solvent for the next 20 years.
Barton (TX) #76 Would repeal section 6001 of the bill, Limitation on Medicare exception to the prohibition on certain physician referrals for hospitals.
Blackburn (TN) #4 Would require the HHS Secretary to certify that no American will lose access to his or her current health insurance due to the establishment and operation of health plans offered through a state Exchange. This will be an annual certification. Until certification is made, no State is required or penalized for the failure to establish plans in an Exchange.
Blackburn (TN) #5 Would provide that if any provision of this Act or the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (or amendments thereto) imposes an unfunded mandate on the States, such provision or amendment shall be null and void and the States shall not be subject to such provision or amendment.
Blackburn (TN) #7 Would provide that nothing in the Act shall preclude an individual from purchasing or maintaining insurance qualifying for Health Savings Account deposits and nothing shall interfere with their ability to continue to make deposits according to the schedule created in the 2006 HSA legislation.
Blackburn (TN) #8 Would provide that if OMB submits a report saying that the costs of title I of the bill and the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act are 25% or greater than the Federal budget, than the Congress shall consider a joint resolution to repeal such provisions.
Blackburn (TN) #12 Would prohibit exchange plans from being established until the HHS Secretary certifies that the establishment of exchange plans will not cause the cost of the average price of private health insurance premiums to increase.
Blackburn (TN) #13 Would prohibit the Federal government from passing any law that would give it authority to ration health care for the American people.
Broun (GA) #46 Would provide individuals 100% deductibility for all medical expenses; reform EMTALA; provide for cooperative governing of individual health insurance coverage; and provide for Association Health Plans. The amendment is the same as H.R.3889.
Broun (GA) #85 Would require any business that is characterized as a minority owned business or small business concern (as defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632) is exempt from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA) #86 Would exempt any business whose gross revenues per year do not exceed $500,000 from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA) #87 Would exempt any business whose gross revenues have declined from the previous fiscal year from all employer mandates.
Broun (GA) #88 Would allow for 100% deductibility of individual medical expenses.
Brown-Waite (FL) #66 Would repeal the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL) #67 Would repeal the sections of the bill that require the IRS to enforce the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL) #81 Would require that all cuts to the Medicare program in this bill be used to ensure the solvency of the Medicare program and not for any other program.
Brown-Waite (FL) #82 Would eliminate any cuts to Medicare in the bill.
Burgess (TX) #18 Would make Members of Congress a mandatory covered population under Title XIX of the Social Security Act (Medicaid) without consideration of any other asset or qualification test. Family members of Members of Congress are not impacted and remain eligible for the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FHEBP).
Burgess (TX) #19 Would require that to have a qualified state plan under the Medicaid program states must pay providers at least 75% of the payment rate paid to a provider under the state employees plan or the Federal Employees Health Benefit Plan (FEHBP) most chosen by families. For dental & vision services, in the case where such services are covered under a state employee plan, providers must be paid at 75% of the rate paid under the plan. In the case where supplemental dental and vision services are not offered to a state employee providers must be paid at a rate of 75 % of the rate paid by the supplemental (vision & dental) FEHBP plan most often chosen by families.
Burgess (TX) #20 Would establish a utilization review and appeals process for qualified health plans.
Burgess (TX) #61 Would add a division based on the medical liability reforms adopted in Texas.
Buyer (IN), McKeon (CA) #31 Would protect the integrity and independence of the Department of Defense (DOD) and the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) health care systems and state that the TRICARE program and veterans’ health care programs meet all of the requirements for individual health insurance under the bill.
Cassidy (LA) #91 Would clarify that high-deductible health plans with an HSA meet the definition of adequate coverage. Furthermore, any new standards adopted by the Secretary shall not apply to high-deductible health plans and health savings accounts if such standards would have the effect of disqualifying such plans from meeting the essential benefit package requirements.
Cole (OK) #3 Would require that savings resulting from spending reductions in Medicare will stay in Medicare to pay down long-term unfunded financial obligations.
Dent (PA) #89 Would add a new division titled, ending defensive medicine and encouraging innovation.
Foxx (NC) #6 Would strike the entire Student Aid and Fiscal Responsibility Act (SAFRA) from the Amendment in the Nature of a Substitute to H.R. 4872.
Franks (AZ) #43 Would prohibit cuts to Medicare Advantage plans.
Gingrey (GA) #26 Would require that the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for a methodology that ensures that any savings to the Medicare program resulting from (and amendments to) HR 3962 shall be retained in the Medicare program to make seniors health care more stable and affordable.
Gingrey (GA) #27 Would require the Secretary of Health and Human Services to provide for an opt-out process from the individual mandate for every American citizen.
Gingrey (GA) #28 Would include caps on non-economic damages and other reforms included in the CBO score that showed a $54 billion in savings over a 10 year period. The amendment reflects H.R. 1086, the HEALTH ACT, which seeks to enact medical liability reform in the states.
Gingrey (GA) #29 Would state that nothing in H.R. 4872 shall be construed to allow any Federal employee or political appointee to dictate how a medical provider practices medicine.
Grayson (FL) #2 Would allow any American citizen or permanent resident to buy into Medicare at cost and benefit from Medicare parts A, B, and D. The amendment creates six age brackets (actuarial pools) and requires each pool to be solvent or pay for itself.
Hall, Ralph (TX) #69 Would require a social security number for eligibility for participation in an exchange.
Hall, Ralph (TX) #80 Would require a valid photo ID when applying for Medicaid or SCHIP.
Herger (CA), Boustany (LA), Broun (GA) #45 Would prohibit CMS from making coverage determinations using Comparative Effectiveness Research solely on the basis of cost.
Kagen (WI) #1 Withdrawn Would require any and all individuals and business entities that offer health care products or services for sale to the public must at all times openly disclose all of their prices, including on the Internet.
Lee, Christopher (NY) #11 Would create a 3 year / 5 state medical tribunal pilot program to be administered by the Secretary of HHS.
Lummis (WY), Johnson, Sam (TX) #41 Would allow States to opt out of any provisions of the bill to the extent that they mandate the purchasing of health insurance by residents in such State, mandate the provision of health insurance by employers in such State, or interfere with the ability of patients to privately contract with medical providers and insurers under the laws of such State.
Moore, Gwen (WI) #9 Would change the date when insurers would need to comply with the new Medical Loss Ratio requirements from 2011 to 2014, to conform to when the American Health Benefits Exchanges will be established. Redirects MLR rebates to the Treasury.
Moore, Gwen (WI) #10 Would change the date when insurers would be required to comply with new Medical Loss Ratio (MLR) requirements from the current draft date of 2011 to 2014, synchronizing it with the year when the American Health Benefit Exchanges will be established. Redirects the MLR rebates to the Treasury to be made available for the funding of premium assistance credits.
Paulsen (MN), Gerlach (PA), Lance (NJ), Dent (PA) #30 Would remove the medical innovation tax and replaces it with unobligated stimulus funds.
Paulsen (MN) #42 Would exclude temporary workers from the employer mandate.
Roe (TN) #44 Would repeal the enactment of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #32 Would express the sense of Congress that any new Social Security payroll tax revenue that results from this legislation could only be used for future Social Security benefit payments.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #33 Would strike the employer health insurance mandate from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #34 Would strike the provisions in section 1405 relating to an excise tax on medical devices from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #35 Would allow all health insurance plans in effect today to be considered acceptable coverage for purposes of the Senate health reform bill’s individual insurance mandate.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #36 Would strike all Medicare cuts from the Senate health reform bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #37 Would require Health Savings Accounts to be considered acceptable coverage under the Senate health reform bill’s individual insurance mandate.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #38 Would strike all provisions related to student lending reforms in the reconciliation bill.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #39 Would require the Secretary of HHS to certify that no seniors would lose access to their current Medicare Advantage plan before any cuts to the MA program could be enacted.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #51 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if in a state where unemployment is over 10%
Rogers, Mike (MI) #64 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if national unemployment is over 10%.
Rogers, Mike (MI) #73 Would require there to be no changes to Medicare Advantage for a given year until the HHS Secretary certifies that no senior will be forced away from or losing their enrollment in the MA plan they were enrolled on as of the day before enactment of the bill.
Roskam (IL) #90 Would strike the current section 1302, essential health benefits requirements, and replace with a new section, medicare waste, fraud, and abuse prevention pilot program.
Scalise (LA) #65 Would strike the individual health care mandate.
Shadegg (AZ), Broun (GA) #83 Adds a section to establish universal access programs to improve high risk pools and reinsurance markets.
Shadegg (AZ), Blackburn (TN), Broun (GA) #84 Would add a section on interstate purchasing of health insurance.
Shimkus (IL) #47 Would provide funds to Medicaid recipients so they can buy into employer-sponsored insurance.
Shimkus (IL) #55 Would require a certification that the bill would lower national health costs.
Shimkus (IL) #58 Would allow states to opt-out of the Medicaid expansion.
Shimkus (IL) #72 Would allow individuals or states to opt out of any fee or tax imposed or increased under the bill.
Stearns (FL) #14 Would require the co-equal heads of the three branches of government – the President, Congress and Supreme Court Justices to be enrolled in the health exchange.
Stearns (FL) #15 Would strike Sections 9009 and 10904, which tax medical devices.
Stearns (FL) #16 Would allow individuals to deduct the cost of medical care and prescription drugs from their income taxes above the line.
Stearns (FL) #17 Would require that any written, visual or audio materials distributed through a covered official, entity or program shall be in English only.
Stearns (FL) #24 Would require any individual who wishes to access to the Health Exchange or Affordability Tax Credits to provide documentation of citizenship or nationality.
Stearns (FL) #25 Would extend the protection of existing coverage in section 1251 Preservation of Right to Maintain Existing Coverage to are enrolled on after the date of enactment.
Stearns (FL) #40 Would strike sections 1102 and 1103, and repeal the provisions related to Medicare Advantage.
Sullivan (OK) #22 Would require the HHS Secretary to conduct a study on new and old programs affected by this legislation to determine if there is any program duplication. Would require the Secretary to write a report on the study within one year of the enactment of this bill. After writing that report, the Secretary would be required to eliminate any duplicative programs within one year.
Sullivan (OK) #23 Would require the HHS Secretary to conduct a study on new and old grant programs affected by this legislation to determine if there is any program duplication. Would require the Secretary to write a report on the study within one year of the enactment of this bill. After writing that report, the Secretary would be required to eliminate any duplicative programs within one year.
Sullivan (OK) #59 Would eliminate duplicative programs at HHS.
Sullivan (OK) #60 Would eliminate duplicative grants at HHS.
Terry (NE) #21 Substitute Would establish the Citizen’s Congressional Health Benefits Program (CCHBP).
Terry (NE) #52 Would strike market basket update reductions.
Terry (NE) #75 Would ensure that additional hospital insurance taxes be deposited into the Federal Hospital Insurance Trust Fund and used only for purpose funding Medicare Part A.
Terry (NE) #79 Would strike Medicare payment cuts to disproportionate share hospitals.
Upton (MI) #77 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if unemployment is over 7%.
Upton (MI) #78 Would prohibit the bill from taking effect until the Medicare Trustees publish projections that show that Medicare is solvent for the next 30 years.
Walden (OR) #63 Would ensure proportional representation of interest of rural areas on IPAB.
Walden (OR) #71 Would ensure that MEDPAC has adequate rural representation.
Whitfield (KY) #56 Would remove the “prompt pay” discount from the Medicare part B reimbursement formula.
Whitfield (KY) #57 Would place a moratorium on the cuts to reimbursement for procedure performed by interventional pain physicians.
Tags: , , , , , , , ,

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Trackbacks/Pings

Trackback URL

Comments

Grayson (FL) #2 Would allow any American citizen or permanent resident to buy into Medicare at cost and benefit from Medicare parts A, B, and D. The amendment creates six age brackets (actuarial pools) and requires each pool to be solvent or pay for itself.

Puke

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:07 AM

Zero was gonna’ be MY guess!

Democrats don’t need no stinkin’ amendments!

GoldenEagle4444 on March 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM

90 amendments? They’ll probably be discussed individually to comply with the rules and then voted on en bloc. Shouldn’t take too long if they’re giving short shrift to the actual amendments, which I think they will. Anything not proposed by the committee will be summarily disposed of.

Tennman on March 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

This is a better picture Ed forthis column

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:10 AM

So that’s what the secret communist handshake looks like.

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

#89 Would add a new division titled, ending defensive medicine and encouraging innovation.

?

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM

So that’s what the secret communist handshake looks like.

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

beats the “terrorist fist bump” i guess ;)

blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM

Sounds like they want to get rid of preventive Medicine and force everyone to go to the doctors all the time.

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:16 AM

72 hours is an eternity in internet space.

percysunshine on March 20, 2010 at 10:16 AM

Pelosi’s is using reconciliation as ‘cover’. Alls she has to do is get enough votes to pass the Senate bill as it is…Once that is done..it will go to Obama for a signature. There will be no amendments.

Rndguy on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM

beats the “terrorist fist bump” i guess ;)

blatantblue on March 20, 2010 at 10:15 AM

Well I was being nice didnt want to go with this photo

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM

I like # 18 (Congress has to go on the plan but their family members are exempt (Tee hee)
#11: 6 state pilot program (doesn’t specify which states…who wants to be first in line?)
and #77: prohibits the employer mandate if unemployment is over 7% (Coffee all over computer screen on that one!)

Chewy the Lab on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM

Tennman on March 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

They can’t vote on them “en bloc” since many of them contradict each other. They’ll have to each be voted on separately, after a period (however limited) for presentation and discussion, by the Rules Committee.

notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM

#102 Would name Speaker the queen mother and name senate Majority Leader the court jester

?

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM

#89 Would add a new division titled, ending defensive medicine and encouraging innovation.

?

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:13 AM

I hope not in that order.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:22 AM

I like # 18 (Congress has to go on the plan but their family members are exempt (Tee hee)

He11 no, put their families on it too. Might encourage backlash closer to home.

Jeff2161 on March 20, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Are all those GOP?

BallisticBob on March 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM

and #77: prohibits the employer mandate if unemployment is over 7% (Coffee all over computer screen on that one!)

Chewy the Lab on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM

this is why these people have no freaking clue on running a company.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:26 AM

Are all those GOP?

BallisticBob on March 20, 2010 at 10:25 AM

Only the good ones

JusDreamin on March 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

#157 exempt any registered republicans who re-register as demorats.

wow

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:27 AM

Zero was gonna’ be MY guess!

Democrats don’t need no stinkin’ amendments!

GoldenEagle4444 on March 20, 2010 at 10:08 AM

Pretty sure that’s exactly what they’re getting. Once they deem the Senate bill passed, the other bill and its amendments becomes irrelevant. But this charade will take time.

forest on March 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM

Note to House GOP:

Please add an amendment stripping out the TEN BILLION to union retiree health plans. The funds will pay for CADILLAC health plans for union retirees between 55 yrs old and 65 (when they’ll get Medicare).

I’m 60 years old. Have my own business. Income about $40k. I’ve provided my own health insurance for over a decade. (Yes, there are MANY other things I could have done with the $$$, but I didn’t).

NOW, I’m being told I don’t qualify for the funding and have to pay for some auto worker who no longer works, has a better health plan than I do, draws a tidy pension, and retired when he was in his early 50′s.

I wasn’t there when his union negotiated those benefits. Why should I pay for them???!!!! It’s not my obligation.

And to top it all off, I don’t have any more money! Neither does the government.

jeanneb on March 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM

#85 Would require any business that is characterized as a minority owned business or small business concern (as defined by section 3 of the Small Business Act, 15 U.S.C. 632) is exempt from all employer mandates.

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM

BTW, the provision I referred to is the “Reinsurance” language on page 49 of the Senate bill.

jeanneb on March 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM

#123 the bill will only be ready for signature until after the president king ate his waffles.

huh?

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:29 AM

Scientists Intensify Search for Life on Mars “Because Someone Else Is Going to Have to Bail Out the U.S. After Budget-Busting ObamaCare Passes” http://optoons.blogspot.com/2010/03/scientists-intensify-search-for-life-on.html

Mervis Winter on March 20, 2010 at 10:31 AM

#147 require all doctors to give free candy after each visit.

This one is known as the halloween amendment.

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:33 AM

Note to House GOP:

Please add an amendment stripping out the TEN BILLION to union retiree health plans. The funds will pay for CADILLAC health plans for union retirees between 55 yrs old and 65 (when they’ll get Medicare).

I’m 60 years old. Have my own business. Income about $40k. I’ve provided my own health insurance for over a decade. (Yes, there are MANY other things I could have done with the $$$, but I didn’t).

NOW, I’m being told I don’t qualify for the funding and have to pay for some auto worker who no longer works, has a better health plan than I do, draws a tidy pension, and retired when he was in his early 50’s.

I wasn’t there when his union negotiated those benefits. Why should I pay for them???!!!! It’s not my obligation.

And to top it all off, I don’t have any more money! Neither does the government.

jeanneb on March 20, 2010 at 10:28 AM

I feel your pain Jean. Really makes the blood boil eh?

JusDreamin on March 20, 2010 at 10:34 AM

Cavuto says that Stupak is canceling his 11 am press conference “for the time being.”

BuckeyeSam on March 20, 2010 at 10:35 AM

#14 Would require the co-equal heads of the three branches of government – the President, Congress and Supreme Court Justices to be enrolled in the health exchange.

Yeah.

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:36 AM

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:20 AM

You’re on a roll William… LOL

Keemo on March 20, 2010 at 10:36 AM

#147 require all doctors to give free candy after each visit.
This one is known as the halloween amendment.

The dentist lobby is a strong lobby.

percysunshine on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

#77 Would prohibit the employer mandate from going into effect if unemployment is over 7%.

I have a mental picture of a clueless person trying to turn off their hallway light by running back and forth flipping the 3-way light switches.

We need a color coded threat level system for our Government.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

#198 Make mandatory the 2 million copies of the 3000 page bill to be distributed amongst the citizenry to be used as a replacement for bathroom tissue.

This is known as the sheeter amendment.

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

I had to share this story with everyone – A friend of mine got a phone call from AFSCME yesterday. It was an automated message and said something to the effect that since he’s a fellow union member would he like to be patched through directly to his congressman to urge him to vote yes on the healthcare bill. If so, press 1. So, my friend presses 1. It asks him to state his name and enter his phone number. He did. And, it patches him directly through to Dennis Kucinich’s DC office and a staffer immediately picks up the phone. (My friend had been trying to call the DC office all day and it had been busy). The staffer says: “Would you like to register your support of the bill as a union member?” My friend said, “No, I’d like to register my opposition to the bill as an ex-union member.” And, the staffer hung up on him.

So, how is this for rigging the phones! Everyday individuals can’t get through, but the unions have a direct line through!! Disgusting.

oneconcernedcitizen on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

90 amendments? They’ll probably be discussed individually to comply with the rules and then voted on en bloc. Shouldn’t take too long if they’re giving short shrift to the actual amendments, which I think they will. Anything not proposed by the committee will be summarily disposed of.

Tennman on March 20, 2010 at 10:11 AM

IIRC, under the rules of reconciliation, each amendment must be debated and voted individually; there is also limit on the number of amendments that can be offered.

Ergo, we will see the perpetual amendment process. With over 3000 pages of bill to amend, it’s quite possible ObamaCare doesn’t take effect until after the next ice age.

BobMbx on March 20, 2010 at 10:38 AM

I hope this bogs the Dems down.

BottomLine5 on March 20, 2010 at 10:39 AM

Wow, that’s a long a$$ed list.

My favorites? I like Barton’s requirement that the federal budget deficit be “eliminated” before this bill can take effect. Do Democrats love health-care reform so much that they’d be willing to cut spending to get it? Several of them strike the individual mandate, another Barton amendment would strike all new taxes from the bill, and many of the others nibble more at the edges. The deficit one is definitely my favorite.

Mine too, but I am still reading.

conservnut on March 20, 2010 at 10:40 AM

We need a color coded threat level system for our Government.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

When Democrats are in power, we’re always on red alert.

WesternActor on March 20, 2010 at 10:40 AM

This is known as the sheeter amendment.

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

its endorsed by sheryl crow.

jbh45 on March 20, 2010 at 10:41 AM

notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:21 AM

If they were following Roberts Rules, that would make sense. But if they consider them as all denied, they can vote on them en bloc. Nothing makes sense with this Congress.

You may be right, though. They may just do a reading of the amendment and then call for a voice vote and assume all votes will be in favor of the Dem majority.

Tennman on March 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM

Tennman on March 20, 2010 at 10:44 AM

I see your point; it might be possible to word a resolution as “resolved: that all amendments are rejected,” and if this vote fails, (which it wouldn’t), then they’d have to back up and look at each individually.

notropis on March 20, 2010 at 10:49 AM

Brown-Waite (FL) #66 Would repeal the individual mandate.
Brown-Waite (FL) #67 Would repeal the sections of the bill that require the IRS to enforce the individual mandate.

I know I not a slimeball politician but is #67 really necessary if #66 is invoked?

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM

He11 no, put their families on it too. Might encourage backlash closer to home.

Jeff2161 on March 20, 2010 at 10:23 AM

Ah, but Grasshopper: the amendment to put Congress members on it but exempt their families is actually brilliant in two respects: It says, “Put up or shut up,” at the same time acknowledging that it is so scary you wouldn’t want even your enemys’ kids on it.
Kind of reminds me of the reverse of the (few) adult male passengers on the Titanic trying to sneak onto the lifeboats ahead of the women and children.

Chewy the Lab on March 20, 2010 at 10:52 AM

I know I not a slimeball politician but is #67 really necessary if #66 is invoked?

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:51 AM

I’m guessing #67 is there as a second choice if #66 isn’t invoked. But I’m not a slimeball politician either, so it’s just a guess.

Disturb the Universe on March 20, 2010 at 10:55 AM

I’m lost. What are they amending?

The Senate Bill is up or down (or DEMONPASS), but it can’t be amended… unless it is sent back to the Senate. Will they do that? Wow. This is insanity!

So if they go through all of these amendments and attach, say five of them, then pass it, this HAS to go back to the Senate, right? I mean at that point (with amendments attached), it can’t go straight to iObama’s desk.

Right?

UnderstandingisPower on March 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM

All the amendments will be deemed to have been rejected without discussion. Any additional amendments by the minority on this or other bills between now and the end of the legislative session will be pre-deemed out of order.

Annar on March 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

We need a color coded threat level system for our Government.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Here ya go

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

I should ass that is Obama’s DHS ratings

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:59 AM

Watch and listen now on cspan2.
http://www.c-span.org/Watch/C-SPAN2.aspx

Jeff2161 on March 20, 2010 at 11:02 AM

These folks on the Hill really have a lot of time on their hands. Maybe they need fewer aides and should have to do something useful themselves?

jeanie on March 20, 2010 at 11:05 AM

I’m lost. What are they amending?

UnderstandingisPower on March 20, 2010 at 10:56 AM

They’re amending the “fix” bill, which by all logic and precedent (and probably law), should actually itself be amendments to the Senate bill, but can’t be (as you say), without sending the whole thing back to the Senate for a filibusterable vote). Again, the “deem” in “deem and pass” does not happen, unless the “fix” bill passes, so these are amendments to the “fix” bill that they’re supposedly voting on tomorrow.

notropis on March 20, 2010 at 11:25 AM

We need a color coded threat level system for our Government.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

Here ya go

William Amos on March 20, 2010 at 10:57 AM

Yep. That looks good.

Electrongod on March 20, 2010 at 11:52 AM

oneconcernedcitizen on March 20, 2010 at 10:37 AM

afscme has a lot of this fraudulent crap going on, much that *cannot* be edited, and if they’re doing it, I’m sure there are plenty of other socialists offering the same. It enables the libtards to offer support for this special trainwreck of theirs at about 1/10th the effort we’re having to spend. I just hope it’s a huge crowd in DC today, that can’t be faked.

sloopy on March 20, 2010 at 11:54 AM

I like this one:

#74 Would prevent the bill from taking effect until Medicare and Medicaid are solvent for the next 20 years.

Because the bill would never take effect!

NoLeftTurn on March 20, 2010 at 12:51 PM

I like Barton’s requirement that the federal budget deficit be “eliminated” before this bill can take effect.

I had to read that twice. The first time I could have sworn that it said the Federal govt would have to be eliminated before this bill could take affect.

MarkTheGreat on March 20, 2010 at 1:35 PM