Aca wasnt a v**e it was reconciliation,,, without a v**e,, not a single republican v**e on it.... all dems,,, through trickery/c***ting...
From Forbes,, lest you "conveniently" forget as liars, uh er, progressie liberals are so wont to do....
"We have encountered many physicians and friends who dont recall or recognize just how many interesting coincidences had to fall into place for the Affordable Care Act (ACA) to pass both houses of Congress and gain President Obamas signature (March 23, 2010). This post serves as an informational overview a reminder as to how it all happened and is not meant in any way to be a judgment on the process however convoluted or on the final product...
Now the Democrats had a safe majority in the House and a filibuster-proof supermajority of 60 in the Senate. That scenario lasted only four months before fate intervened. Sen. Ted Kennedy of Massachusetts died on August 25, 2009, leaving the Democrats, once again, with 59 seats (counting the two Independents). Exactly one month later, on September 25, Democrat Paul Kirk was appointed interim senator from Massachusetts to serve until the special e******n set for January 19, 2010 once again giving the Democrats that 60th v**e. But the intrigue was just beginning....
The House had previously passed a similar, although not identical bill on November 7, 2009, on a 220 215 v**e. One Republican v**ed aye, on that bill,,, and 39 Democrats were against.
There didnt seem to be an urgent need for Democrats to reconcile both bills immediately, because the Massachusetts special e******n (scheduled for January 19, 2010) was almost certain to fall to the Democrat, Attorney General Martha Coakley. After all, no Republican had been elected to the U.S. Senate from the Bay State since Edward Brooke in 1972 38 years before! But in yet another twist of fate, Republican Scott Brown ran his campaign as the 41st senator against ObamaCare and shocked nearly everyone by winning the special e******n by 110,000 v**es.
That left House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and President Obama in a dilemma. Everyone assumed that the Christmas Eve 2009 Senate bill would be tweaked considerably to conform more with the House bill passed two months previously. But now that strategy wouldnt work, because the Democrats no longer had the 60th v**e in the Senate to end debate. What to do? They decided to have the House take up the identical bill that the Senate passed on Christmas Eve. It passed on March 21, 2010, by a 219 212 v**e. This time, no Republicans came on board, and 34 Democrats v**ed against. President Obama signed the ACA legislation two days later on March 23."
In a process called reconcilliation,,, the rules were changed so the senate could "c***t" the system and limit debate on budgetary impacting bills.... thereby torpedoing the Houses rights and mission of monitoring the finanes and budgets of bills....
"Policy-wise, the reconciliation process is simply not intended for comprehensive pieces of legislation like health care reform.
The Senate rules allow reconciliation bills to pass with a simple majority and limited debate on matters that pertain to the budget something the Senate saw as too important to be weighed down by partisanship. Since reconciliation bills must pertain to the budget, the Senate is not allowed to use them for matters that would set policy. For this reason, some lawmakers have warned that a reconciliation health bill would have to leave out important provisions (such as consumer protections), resulting in a Swiss cheese bill."
Similar,, not identical,,, and the Senate changed it,without sending it back to the house, like they are supposed to.
Laws originate in the house,,, regardless of what you dems want to lie about,, not the senate
Rules for geting a bill signed into law are:
Senate Floor Action:
The Bill, that came from the house, through comittee, is debated, and amendments may be added. If a majority v**es in favor of the bill, it is and must be returned to the house for debate,, this wasnt done..
Conference Committee: no house conference committee happened
If the House rejects any of the changes, the bill goes to a conference committee of members from both houses. It works out a compromise.
V**e on Compromise: didnt happen
Both houses must approve changes made by the conference committee. If approved, the bill goes to the president.
Sorry to have to introduce you to the actual procedures, but it appears necessary, lest you continue to lie, until your skewed version of what happened is actually believed by people like you,,, and even dumber,,, you know the rank and file democrats that Gruber mocked..
you and the dems lied and c***ted through a tyranical majority,, get ready for it to come back at you.
jelun wrote:
What in God's name are you talking about?
No v**e on ACA? or immigration reform?
ACA was v**ed into being and signed off by the president.
Immigration reform was v**ed on by the US Senate.
The House of Representatives then sat on it like the snivelling little rats that they are.
It was much more important to v**e on repeals than to act as representatives of ALL the people who reside in the US.
I am not sure you know what you talking about with "we reciprocate what you have done". WTH does that mean?
What in God's name are you talking about? br No v*... (
show quote)