Patterico's Pontifications

3/21/2010

Senate Bill Passed by House

Filed under: Abortion,Health Care — DRJ @ 7:57 pm

[Guest post by DRJ]

The Senate health care bill passed 219-212 in the House. Thirty-four Democrats voted against it.

The Republicans have submitted a Motion to Recommit that addresses the tenuous nature of handling abortion via an Executive Order. It’s not clear what the provisions of the Motion are — whether it addresses abortion alone or other issues — but it appears to be limited to abortion. That could be a problem for the Democrats.

You can watch the Motion to Recommit on CSPAN.

EDIT: The Motion to Recommit failed.

— DRJ

Comments (48)

48 Responses to “Senate Bill Passed by House”

Stupak is speaking now. He says the Motion to Recommit is not about abortion but about denying Americans’ health care. He’s defending the Democrats as the Party that stood up for Americans. He also said Democrats are the ones who have stood up for protecting life, from the unborn to the aged, without bankrupting families.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:02 pm
They’re voting on the Motion to Recommit now. If it does pass, it sends the health care bill back to committee but it’s not expected to pass. If it doesn’t, it shows the Stupak supporters do not support the abortion position they voted for in the earlier House health care bill.

Also, one CSPAN caller who supports the bill was happy because it means he can stay on this parents’ health insurance longer. He said his parents are happy, too.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:09 pm
Well, maybe I’ll have to give pessimism another look. It seems to be so accurate these days.
Andrew (480035) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:14 pm
I laughed. I cried. I hurled.
Alta Bob (e8af2b) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:14 pm
According to what Stupak said at this town hall meeting, conservatives had no reason to expect him to actually vote against the Senate bill. See,
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=URr68joWr1E

As early as last October, Stupak made it clear that if he liked everything else in a healthcare bill except for its provision about abortion, he (Stupak) would still vote in favor of that healthcare bill. Perhaps I missed it, but I have not heard Stupak quibble about anything in or out of the Senate version of the proposed healthcare abomination other than the provision, or lack of one, about abortion financing. So, there is no rational basis for believing that Stupak would do anything that would actually prevent passage of the Senate version once it was clear that, with Scott Brown’s election, there would be the Senate version or no version at all.
Ira (28a423) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:20 pm
And so the Democrats complete their utter destruction of the finances of our nation.
SPQR (26be8b) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:22 pm
It will be interesting to see what the Markets do in the morning, but right now the Hong Kong market is down 2%.
AD - RtR/OS! (4c0b43) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:25 pm
Donate to Stupak’s opponent. Money talks, bullshit walks.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:29 pm
” right now the Hong Kong market is down 2%.”

Clearly a message.
imdw (e870b9) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:29 pm
The following is dedicated to all the liberals throughout America who believe that when it comes to the politics and policymaking surrounding healthcare, nations that follow a uber-socialized approach to medicine are — certainly compared with the mean, greedy, heartless USA — full of butterflies and lollipops, basking in warm, happy sunshine…

http://www.city-journal.org, David Gratzer, 2007:

Another sign of transformation: Canadian doctors, long silent on the health-care system’s problems, are starting to speak up. Last August, they voted Brian Day president of their national association. A former socialist who counts Fidel Castro as a personal acquaintance, Day has nevertheless become perhaps the most vocal critic of Canadian public health care, having opened his own private surgery center as a remedy for long waiting lists and then challenged the government to shut him down.

“This is a country in which dogs can get a hip replacement in under a week,” he fumed to the New York Times, “and in which humans can wait two to three years.”

Mark (411533) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:30 pm
Yes, clearly.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:30 pm
Many bloggers have noted how the British political scene has been dominated by complaints and fights over their national health system every since it came into being. Costs – cuts in care – scandals of terrible treatment – etc. – etc. – etc.

I just pray that OUR national health care system will always, always, always and forever be called “Obamacare,” so that when people curse it for killing their grandmother they will learn to curse the name of the man who caused it, more than anyone else.

I’d argue for Stupac-care, but people are liable to call the government system “stupac” (or something close to that) without any prompting.
Gesundheit (6acc51) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:40 pm
It was kind of interesting to me that so many Democratic members of Congress said that this was in the tradition of Social Security and Medicare. None of them that I heard mentioned Medicare, which of course was designed to provide health care for the poor. Medicaid needed to be fixed, not replaced with universal government-run health care. We can’t afford it, and even if we could the system in this bill is incredibly intrusive, inefficient, and bureaucratic.

The American people get what we deserve, I guess.
Andrew (480035) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:45 pm
#7

Regulations empower the billion dollar dow jones companies because it works against upstarts that would compete with them. And the massive spending makes people buy stocks as a hedge against inflation. The big companies don’t suffer during inflation, it is their rising prices that lets you know that there is inflation.

There won’t be any new health care insurance companies, obviously, but you know the big health insurance companies and pharmaceuticals have already been outed as Democrat donors. There was that fundraiser for Coakley a few months ago that left most people wondering “wtf”. Obama instructed that provider in California to raise their rates a couple of weeks ago because he needed the talking point.

I’d love to see the market crash, but these companies have never been sitting prettier. I remember a thread on Patterico a couple of years ago on the day when Bush opened up drilling in Alaska and the stock market loved it, everything went up except for the big oil stocks that all declined. Like I said, the billion dollar companies love the regulations and hate free enterprise. Big business is in bed with the progressives.
j curtis (5126e4) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:45 pm
I meant to say “them that I heard mentioned Medicaid” instead of “them that I heard mentioned Medicare.”
Andrew (480035) — 3/21/2010 @ 8:57 pm
Just watched the President and Geraldo said it was all good, so I’m all in.

Except, you know, the paying part. That’s hard. Not for me, though, I’ll be dead in a few years.
Ag80 (f67beb) — 3/21/2010 @ 9:03 pm
“Big business is in bed with the progressives.”

j. curtis – You are a moron.
daleyrocks (718861) — 3/21/2010 @ 9:04 pm
this was in the tradition of Social Security and Medicare…

How appropriate, both are melting down after playing politics has stood in the way of finding an honest solution.
MD in Philly (59a3ad) — 3/21/2010 @ 9:22 pm
The only bi-partisanship was the opposition.
Kevin Murphy (3c3db0) — 3/21/2010 @ 9:51 pm
[…] passed, 219-212 in the […]
The Damn thing passed « Chockblock’s blog (66110a) — 3/21/2010 @ 9:52 pm
Just some random musing:

If the supporters do so on the hypothesis that this measure is good for America, then how is that hypothesis falsified? And what is the action if it is falsified?

Put in other words:

What if, in 10 years time, we find that this is far more costly than estimated, that the deficit is increased by a far greater amount than we feared, that health insurance has gotten more expensive, and that health care has gotten worse? Will the supporters admit that they were wrong and that this was a bad idea? And if they do admit that, what will they propose to remedy it? If this amount of government involvement in health care is a bad thing, would even more involvement be better?
Some chump (c2555f) — 3/21/2010 @ 10:03 pm
As usual, it will be the Republicans fault because we weren’t bipartisan enough or we didn’t believe.
DRJ (daa62a) — 3/21/2010 @ 10:16 pm
What if, in 10 years time, we find that this is far more costly than estimated, that the deficit is increased by a far greater amount than we feared, that health insurance has gotten more expensive, and that health care has gotten worse? Will the supporters admit that they were wrong and that this was a bad idea? And if they do admit that, what will they propose to remedy it? If this amount of government involvement in health care is a bad thing, would even more involvement be better?

Comment by Some chump — 3/21/2010 @ 10:03 pm

Of course! If the government can’t make things better, who else could? Those greedy bonus-sucking corporate pigs who ride their private jets to Las Vegas? No way!

And you heard the Dems tonight — this is no different than Social Security and Medicare! And those are working out just great, aren’t they? It’s not like those programs are going to run out of money or something. They’ll just make more greenbacks — problem solved! And they called those programs creeping socialism back in the day, as Pelosi & Co. told us tonight, so that means anything that is called creeping socialism NOW can’t be either!
L.N. Smithee (d33a97) — 3/21/2010 @ 11:38 pm
Of 10 Asia indexes on Quote.com, 7 are down, and the 3 that are up are each up less than 1%.
AD - RtR/OS! (4c0b43) — 3/21/2010 @ 11:51 pm
Here is the result of the Nov09 roll call. Republicans are in italics, Democrats are not. There is no state-by-state breakdown other than to differentiate between like names or similar names.

LAT has the results of the Mar10 roll call. There is an apparent state-by-state breakdown but the actual state names are omitted. I’m gonna try to do something with those lists.
John Hitchcock (a5b373) — 3/22/2010 @ 3:12 am
ObamaCare Roll Call Vote And Call To Action…

I am in the process of building a new page, ObamaCare Roll Call, creating a list of all who voted on ObamaCare, whether they voted Yes (for the abomination) or No (against the abomination). I have already added the extremely incomplete page because it …
Truth Before Dishonor (930208) — 3/22/2010 @ 4:52 am
17

Who are the enemies of the progressives:

Banks: Libs cursed them as they gave them billions of our dollars. The Obama Administration is crawling with these Madoff types.

Big Oil: We found out recently that they have been financing the climate change hoax, paying for the “studies”. Big Oil likes to sit on their fields and keep the price of oil high. They can count on Democrats to help them keep the price of oil high and keep independent smaller companies out of the oil business by not opening up new lands to drill.

Health Insurance: Democrats have now mandated that we buy insurance from the companies they have been demonizing. They will hire thousands of IRS agents to enforce the mandate on behalf of the evil health insurance providers. No new companies can start up, though. We saw these pharmaceutical and HMO spending millions on Coakley’s campaign against Brown. Why would they do that?

The demonization of these companies by the Democrats is a charade to make you not see the obvious fact that they are their best friends.
j curtis (5126e4) — 3/22/2010 @ 5:16 am
“We saw these pharmaceutical and HMO spending millions on Coakley’s campaign against Brown. Why would they do that?”

Pharma, the AMA, catholic hospitals, they are all in favor of this reform. It seems like the party of no is smaller and smaller each day.
imdw (22078e) — 3/22/2010 @ 5:28 am
The AMA was held hostage by the doc-fix bill being extended month by month. They are a bunch of rent seekers and time servers anyway. They are losing members as fast as AARP.
Mike K (2cf494) — 3/22/2010 @ 5:49 am
Let’s not forget that a Catholic hospital or two (I know where capitalization belongs, unlike imadimwit) has(have) recently been declared non-Catholic due to their anti-Catholic positions and actions on certain matters.
John Hitchcock (a5b373) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:09 am
” It seems like the party of no is smaller and smaller each day.”

This troll isn’t even creative. Um, trolly? Have you actually been looking at, well, polls? You carried on yesterday about Gallup showing a bump for POTUS. But you were strangely silent about the party affiliation polls over the past few months

Go look them up.

Me, I think you are scared. You recognize how anti-democratic this entire process has been, how profoundly unethical and dishonest, and how it will cost the Democrats dearly during the next election cycle. So you have to act all intellectually tough, when anyone who has read your utterly robotic talking points knows that you don’t have a single idea in your head that isn’t reflexively partisan.

“Party of No”? Not very clever, and—shocka—not original.

Here is one that does apply to the DNC, and to you: “Party of So.” That’s because every time your hypocrisy is demonstrated, you shrug your shoulders and say “So?”

You have no core beliefs or ethos other than Defending the D.

“Smaller and smaller each day?” We’ll see, troll.
Eric Blair (21af67) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:11 am
And much of Big Business has been in the back pocket of Big Government and vice versa for a very long time. How else does one get carve-outs from Big Government legislation? It’s all Big Power, the little people be condemned.
John Hitchcock (a5b373) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:14 am
On the subject of hypocrisy:

http://hotair.com/archives/2010/03/22/video-flashback-to-obamas-view-on-rule-through-executive-declaration/

But wait, Obamabots will cry. “Executive Orders” are different from “Signing Statements.”

Except when they aren’t.

This is a great example of how ethically bankrupt the Democrats have become: it’s bad when Republicans do it…but “that’s different” when Democrats do it.
Eric Blair (21af67) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:27 am
“Let’s not forget that a Catholic hospital or two (I know where capitalization belongs, unlike imadimwit) has(have) recently been declared non-Catholic due to their anti-Catholic positions and actions on certain matters.”

I was talking about the catholic hospital association. But who gets to make that declaration? The Pope?
imdw (1af0fd) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:35 am
And we were talking about your base partisanship, dishonesty, and trolldom.
Eric Blair (21af67) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:40 am
Comment by imdw — 3/22/2010 @ 6:35 am

brand new day, same tired old bullsh1t. FOAD.
redc1c4 (fb8750) — 3/22/2010 @ 6:41 am
When the GOP boots out the Democrats in the fall elections, let’s demand internet trolls be barred from all health care.
PCD (1d8b6d) — 3/22/2010 @ 7:03 am
I’d be satisfied with a banning of imadouchebag immediately. His time is most definitiely up. Go play in Kosland, cupcake.
Dmac (ca1d8c) — 3/22/2010 @ 7:15 am
I have a difficult time feeling very down about this. Mostly because I have no faith in democrats. So it’s hard for them to dissappoint me.

30 something dems voted against the bill? Only because Pelosi let them. Ultimately, they’re all communist party animals. As Stupak demonstrated, for the purpose of fooling the electorate and getting into office in the first place they may have to posture as less liberal than the average democrat. In some cases as pro-life, in other cases as fiscal conservatives. But at the end of the day they are willing foot soldiers for the party.

The events of the past few days are in many ways a welcome moment of clarity. The democratic parliament of whores put on a big show of pretend difficulty finding a way around their caucus’ supposed objections. They concocted “deem and pass” as the work around. Once it became clear to them that “deem and pass” might put the resultant legislation in a risky position in the courts, they dropped it at the last minute.

As it turns out, no one in the democratic caucus really had any objections to the bill. Not the Stupak bloc, not the members of the La Raza bloc; no one.

It was all a big show. They didn’t have any convictions of their own. If the party needed their votes, they’d give them up. The only thing they were negotiating was who was most vulnerable. Those were the democrats who wanted to be allowed to pretend they weren’t for the bill.

Thankfully, after this public display of deceit, it just no longer matters if a democrat voted no on this bill. We can say with certainty that the democrat would have voted yes, had it been necessary. Because the ones making the loudest noises about having a crisis of conscience, had, as it turned out, none.

Now, no one who isn’t entirely on board with the party platform has any cover voting for one of these people. Because that’s what you’re going to get. If anyone is convinced that their rep is somehow different, has a mind of his own, then that is simply proof positive that (A) the voter is mentally incompetent and (B) the rep knows what he has to lie about to get elected.

It doesn’t mean the rep is a very good liar; after all, the rep only needs to lie well enough to persuade incompetents.

If anyone wants to think that there is no difference between the parties, that republicans are just as bad when it comes to ignoring their constituents to perform the party’s bidding, let me remind you. If that was true, we’d have had amnesty for illegal aliens during the Bush administration.
Steve (02dc98) — 3/22/2010 @ 7:57 am
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications: Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Quin Hillyer, American Spectator: Stupak’s Betrayal Merits Fierce Revenge LifeNews: Pro-Life […]
Dems Ignore American Majority: ObamaCare Rammed Through in the House, 219-212… No Republicans Voted for Socialized Medicine « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/22/2010 @ 8:29 am
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications: Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Gateway Pundit: Useful Idiot Geraldo Rivera Is Giddy After Dems Vote to Nationalize Health Care […]
The Brave Democrats Who Stood Up to “The Chicago Way” and Voted “No” on ObamaCare « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/22/2010 @ 8:35 am
[…] Patterico’s Pontifications: Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Legal Insurrection: Pep Talk HillBuzz: Your mission is to drive every Leftist from power, to defund […]
Highlights of Health Care Debacle Debate: Brilliant Oratory from Paul Ryan & John Boehner (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/22/2010 @ 9:32 am
[…] Be Fined If When They Don’t? and Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Legal Insurrection: Pep Talk HillBuzz: Your mission is to drive every Leftist from power, to defund […]
Gallows Humor, The “Funny” Side of ObamaCare… Conservatives: Gotta Laugh & Not Despair, Tomorrow We Fight Again « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/22/2010 @ 12:21 pm
[…] Be Fined If When They Don’t? and Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Legal Insurrection: Pep Talk Gateway Pundit: Useful Idiot Geraldo Rivera Is Giddy After Dems Vote […]
Pro-Life Judas: Bart Stupak’s Betrayal for a Few Pieces of Silver to Vote “Yes” on Abortion and ObamaCare… What Price Trust & Honor, Bart? (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/22/2010 @ 3:01 pm
The US House of Representatives voted on ObamaCare in November 2009 and March 2010. I manually compiled both votes on my site. As such, I may have made an error or two. But by my count, 5 Democrats and 1 Republican voted “yes” the first time and “no” the second time, while 8 Democrats voted “no” the first time and “yes” the second time. Since 34 Democrats voted “no” the second time, that means (by my count) that only 29 Democrats voted “no” both times. And that leaves fewer than the 34 “protected” by their recent vote.

You can find my Roll Call compilation and my call to action (and request for information) over on my site.
John Hitchcock (a5b373) — 3/22/2010 @ 4:03 pm
[…] Be Fined If When They Don’t? and Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Legal Insurrection: Pep Talk Gateway Pundit: Planned Parenthood Praises House Vote on Obamacare […]
Pro-Life Judas: Bart Stupak’s Betrayal for a Few Pieces of Silver to Vote “Yes” on Abortion and ObamaCare… What Price Trust & Honor, Bart? (video) « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/22/2010 @ 5:28 pm
Finally bipartisan agreement on something…Oh wait! nevermind….
Patrick (52c36e) — 3/22/2010 @ 9:19 pm
[…] Be Fined If When They Don’t? and Stupak’s Opponent Now Numbering Over 10,000 on Facebook and Senate Bill Passed by House Legal Insurrection: Pep Talk Gateway Pundit: Planned Parenthood Praises House Vote on Obamacare […]
Ben Stein’s Take on ObamaCare, Democrats, & US Constitution: “Corned Beef Hash of Vague Promises” « Frugal Café Blog Zone (a66042) — 3/23/2010 @ 8:21 am

3/21/2010

Senate Bill Passed by House

48 Responses to “Senate Bill Passed by House”

Favorite Sites

Links

Patterico Sells Out