4 ms·

The normal process is different bills pass different houses, then they go into a conference committee that produces a negotiated third version which then goes b

by gozur88 10y ago

The normal process is different bills pass different houses, then they go into a conference committee that produces a negotiated third version which then goes back to be voted on in each chamber. What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. I'm a bit fuzzy on the details, TBH, but that's the essence.

DrScump 10y ago
Exactly. Plus, it violated Article 1 Section 7, which requires that revenue bills originate in the House. Then, the Democrat leadership argued that it wasn't actually a tax, so Clause 1 didn't apply. Then, in the infamous Supreme Court case, they argued that it was a tax and therefore couldn't be challenged before collections actually begin due to the Pre-emption clause. The process of taking a bill in progress and completely rewriting it (while retaining "credit" for those procedural steps the original bill completed) is commonly known as "gut-and-amend".
Dylan16807 10y ago
>What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. That's not what the text around your quote says. In fact reading it in full context implies that nobody got tricked. First the senate broke the filibuster and passed the act. Then the house, realizing that breaking another filibuster was unlikely, decided to pass a version that was compatible with the senate version and only needed budget reconciliation. Then it passed without the ability to filibuster and became a law. I don't see where a bill addressing something different comes into the picture. I don't see any deception. Am I missing something?
- gozur88 10y ago
  Read the whole wiki page. The part about the existing bill was further up. And I used the word "trick", not deception. I'm not aware of any deception, just the abuse of a process.
  - Dylan16807 10y ago
    Oh, I see. They replaced one bill with another long before they broke the filibuster. That replacement was to get around the "this bill must originate in the House" requirement. Getting past the filibuster was done completely legitimately. They shouldn't have done that, ideally, but the rule of which house a bill starts in is pretty unimportant. I don't see how reconciliation could be used to help repeal the act, because the reconciliation was not key to getting it passed, and neither was the trickery used to say the bill 'started' in the House.
    - jljljl 10y ago
      You don't have to repeal anything. You use the budget process to cancel all individual and employee mandate penalties, eliminate the relevant taxes and subsidies, and roll back funding for the Medicaid expansion. Then you just sit back and let it collapse on itself.
    - deleted 10y ago
      [deleted]

by gozur88 10y ago

DrScump 10y ago

Exactly. Plus, it violated Article 1 Section 7, which requires that revenue bills originate in the House. Then, the Democrat leadership argued that it wasn't actually a tax, so Clause 1 didn't apply. Then, in the infamous Supreme Court case, they argued that it was a tax and therefore couldn't be challenged before collections actually begin due to the Pre-emption clause. The process of taking a bill in progress and completely rewriting it (while retaining "credit" for those procedural steps the original bill completed) is commonly known as "gut-and-amend".

Dylan16807 10y ago

>What happened in this case, as I understand it, was the Democrats in the Senate took a bill that had already passed, a bill addressing some other matter entirely, and rewrote it completely while maintaining it was the "negotiated third version" above, i.e. it was a reconciliation of the bill that had been discarded. That's not what the text around your quote says. In fact reading it in full context implies that nobody got tricked. First the senate broke the filibuster and passed the act. Then the house, realizing that breaking another filibuster was unlikely, decided to pass a version that was compatible with the senate version and only needed budget reconciliation. Then it passed without the ability to filibuster and became a law. I don't see where a bill addressing something different comes into the picture. I don't see any deception. Am I missing something?

gozur88 10y ago
Read the whole wiki page. The part about the existing bill was further up. And I used the word "trick", not deception. I'm not aware of any deception, just the abuse of a process.
- Dylan16807 10y ago
  Oh, I see. They replaced one bill with another long before they broke the filibuster. That replacement was to get around the "this bill must originate in the House" requirement. Getting past the filibuster was done completely legitimately. They shouldn't have done that, ideally, but the rule of which house a bill starts in is pretty unimportant. I don't see how reconciliation could be used to help repeal the act, because the reconciliation was not key to getting it passed, and neither was the trickery used to say the bill 'started' in the House.
  - jljljl 10y ago
    You don't have to repeal anything. You use the budget process to cancel all individual and employee mandate penalties, eliminate the relevant taxes and subsidies, and roll back funding for the Medicaid expansion. Then you just sit back and let it collapse on itself.
  - deleted 10y ago
    [deleted]