Come for the politics, stay for the snark.

Give the craziest people you know everything they want and hope they don’t ask for more? Great plan.

Dear Washington Post, you are the darkness now.

And now I have baud making fun of me. this day can’t get worse.

If senate republicans had any shame, they’d die of it.

Whatever happens next week, the fight doesn’t end.

Pessimism assures that nothing of any importance will change.

Innocent people do not delay justice.

Accountability, motherfuckers.

Today in our ongoing national embarrassment…

“When somebody takes the time to draw up a playbook, they’re gonna use it.”

No one could have predicted…

There is no compromise when it comes to body autonomy. You either have it or you do not.

You can’t attract Republican voters. You can only out organize them.

Speaking of republicans, is there a way for a political party to declare intellectual bankruptcy?

You cannot love your country only when you win.

Red lights blinking on democracy’s dashboard

“The difference between stupidity and genius is that genius has its limits.”

Russian mouthpiece, go fuck yourself.

… gradually, and then suddenly.

Giving in to doom is how authoritarians win.

Let me eat cake. The rest of you could stand to lose some weight, frankly.

Let me file that under fuck it.

Republicans don’t lie to be believed, they lie to be repeated.

the 10% who apparently lack object permanence

You are here: Home / Anderson On Health Insurance / Bill text

Reader Interactions

83Comments

  2. 2.

    Adam L Silverman

    This doesn’t matter. This legislation doesn’t start in the House, because it is reconciliation it has to start in the Senate. This is not the bill. There is NO BILL until there is a Senate bill!

  3. 3.

    David Anderson

    @Adam L Silverman: Reconciliation can and does start in the HOuse all the time (Repeal and Replace was a House bill with Senate amendments). And given that this is a revenue bill, the Senate bill must be an amendment of a House bill (can be a dummy dead bill that gets re-purposed/re-animated)

  4. 4.

    Adam L Silverman

    @David Anderson: But not this time. All the action on this is in the Senate. Until the Senate Democrats draft a bill there is no bill. This is vaporware from the House.

  5. 5.

    chopper

    @David Anderson:

    right. reconciliation instructions are required in both house and senate versions of the bill, but there’s no requirement at all that it pass the senate first.

  14. 14.

    Ohio Mom

    Oh god. I am trying to step away from this roller coaster. I step away from my phone to putter around the house, sit down to eat something, open up Balloon Juice and I’m back on the roller coaster.

    I’m off to look at decorating sites, wake me up when it’s over.

  16. 16.

    West of the Cascades

    Don’t appropriations bills HAVE to start in the House per the Constitution? I understand Adam’s point that a House bill, alone, doesn’t matter because “all the action is in the Senate” and more specifically in ManchinSinemalandia, but as a formal matter isn’t a House bill the right place to start

    ETA I’m thinking of Article I, Section 7:
    Section 7: Legislative Process
    All Bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills.

  17. 17.

    Kenneth Krasity

    My word search of 218 shows 5 items, none of which have anything to do with finality. What am I missing?

  22. 22.

    James E Powell

    I’m traveling & won’t have time, but can someone go through it and list all the ways that Biden has betrayed us?

    Wait! Never mind. I can just check the Twitter Left.

  24. 24.

    Leto

    Introduction to Budget “Reconciliation” by the Center on Budget and Policy Priorities

    How Does Congress Start the Reconciliation Process?
    To start the reconciliation process, the House and Senate must agree on a budget resolution that includes “reconciliation directives” for specified committees. Under the Congressional Budget Act, the House and Senate are supposed to adopt a budget resolution each year to establish an overall budget plan and set guidelines for action on spending and revenue. The Senate may not filibuster consideration of budget resolutions. Budget resolutions don’t go to the President for signature and don’t become law; reconciliation is a procedure for enacting some legislation envisioned in a budget resolution.

    In developing a budget resolution, Congress must decide whether to include reconciliation directives and, if so, whether to use them to implement all or just some of the proposed changes.

    What Procedural Advantages Does Reconciliation Have in the Senate?
    The Senate can consider and pass reconciliation bills relatively quickly and with only a simple majority, rather than the three-fifths majority often needed for controversial legislation.[5] That’s because reconciliation legislation isn’t subject to filibuster. Under general Senate rules, legislation can be stalled by virtually unlimited debate and the offering of numerous amendments, with a three-fifths majority vote required to invoke “cloture,” thereby limiting debate and blocking non-germane amendments. For a reconciliation bill, however, the Congressional Budget Act limits Senate debate on the bill to 20 hours and limits debate on the subsequent compromise between the two houses to ten hours.

    While the special procedures limit the time for debate, they do not limit the number of amendments that can be offered during the Senate’s initial consideration of the bill. As a result, once the 20-hour limit has expired, remaining amendments are considered with little or no debate — a process known as a “vote-a-rama.”

    In the Senate, any amendments offered to a reconciliation bill must be germane to the bill — which is not usually a requirement for amendments in the Senate.[6] This prevents the process from getting bogged down by disputes over tangentially related or unrelated amendments, as often happens to other legislation under regular Senate procedures.

    What Procedural Advantages Does Reconciliation Have in the House?
    Discussion of reconciliation’s procedural advantages tends to focus on the Senate because the House has mechanisms for limiting debate and amendments available for any legislation. For major bills, including reconciliation, the usual mechanism is a special “rule” for floor consideration — a resolution reported by the Rules Committee and adopted by the House by majority vote — that specifies both the maximum time for debate and what amendments will be allowed.

    As always, a lot more information at the link.

  26. 26.

    germy

    I would like a large pizza with mushrooms. I voted for a party that, I thought, would give me a large pizza with mushrooms. Instead, they are giving me a medium cheese pizza. That's disappointing.

    Meanwhile, the other party wants to feed me arsenic and nails.

    — Ian Millhiser (@imillhiser) October 28, 2021

  29. 29.

    Baud

    @germy:

     I voted for a party

    That’s one of the things we get wrong about the U.S. system.  We don’t vote for parties. That’s how they do it in parliamentary systems. We vote for individuals who are most often, but not always, associated with a party (sometimes strongly, sometimes weakly).  And in this Congress, 98% of the people associated with the Democratic that voters voted into office have been solid.  And 98% of the candidates in 2022–none of whom will be Manchin and Sinema–will be the same.

  30. 30.

    chopper

    @West of the Cascades:

    appropriations don’t, but if it raises revenue then yes it does. again, there’s no requirement that a reconciliation bill originate in or pass the senate first, only that it contain the proper reconciliation instructions and, as with all bills, the same bill pass both houses.

  31. 31.

    Kay

    Amy Walter
    @amyewalter
    ·1h
    Yep. Bigger problem for Dems going into ‘22 isn’t a “dems in disarray” framing. It’s the economy.
    Quote Tweet

    Truly incredible work they do. It’s not even passed yet and they have idenitified the “bigger problem”.

    You thought it was Dems in Disarray because we said that for the last 3 months? Wrong! It’s a DIFFERENT problem we’ll now hammer for the next 3.

  32. 32.

    Old School

    @Kenneth Krasity:

    My word search of 218 shows 5 items, none of which have anything to do with finality. What am I missing?

    That’s how many votes are needed to pass the House.

    (51 for the Senate, 1 for the President.)

  33. 33.

    Baud

    @Kay: Haha.  On MJ this morning, they were already shifting to  all of Biden’s foreign policy woes (the French sub!)

  35. 35.

    hueyplong

    @Kay: Perhaps Adam could tell Amy that it’s not quite time to pivot away from “Dems in Disarray.”  Give it at day, Amy.

  36. 36.

    James E Powell

    @Kay:

    They never want to touch that story that best explains why everything is fucked up and bullshit: REPUBLICANS ARE ASSHOLES WHO ONLY CARE ABOUT RICH PEOPLE!

    But in this Ohio diner, the bigots are totally okay with that.

  39. 39.

    Leto

    @Baud: something I didn’t know until Maddow pointed it out last night, but as Biden heads into the G20 summit meeting, he has exactly 4 ambassadors to those countries. 2 hold overs from Trumpov, and 2 former Senators (including Jeff Fucking Flake) that they voted on out of former collegial respect. Even though we have a majority in the Senate, Republicans are still able to kill everything. (Maddow’s point was Republicans are still fucking everything up. Blame placed squarely where it should. Don’t know what morning BJ yaks about.)

  42. 42.

    cain

    @Kropacetic: my boss and others in the boston metro area lost power, he’s nothing but an aimless wanderer, looking for wifi so he can find out what’s going on at work :D

  49. 49.

    Kropacetic

    @cain: Everyone in my neck of the woods is using their cars as phone chargers. I get home 2 am last night and a huge chunk of my neighborhood still had cars on outside.

  51. 51.

    markregan

    Has anyone besides Tim Jost noticed that the legislation has two almost-but-not-quite-identical Medicaid sections, presumably because the committees of origin (House Energy and Commerce and House Ways and Means) were both marking the Medicaid proposals up?

  53. 53.

    guachi

    @Adam L Silverman: This doesn’t matter. This legislation doesn’t start in the House, because it is reconciliation it has to start in the Senate. This is not the bill. There is NO BILL until there is a Senate bill!

    What piffle.

    Take a step back and when you have value to add to this website then come back and post.

  58. 58.

    Just Chuck

    @West of the Cascades:

    Don’t appropriations bills HAVE to start in the House per the Constitution?

    Yes, but it’s a meaningless fig leaf.  There’s always several “placeholder” bills from each house that are “amended” by the other when needed by way of completely rewriting them into something different.

  59. 59.

    randy khan

    The reality is that reconciliation bills generally don’t have actual texts until minutes before the vote.  Heck, a lot of budget bills don’t have texts until minutes before the vote.

    It’s not ideal, but it is how things work.

  63. 63.

    Enhanced Voting Techniques

    I am sorry, can some please update me on what fantasy I am naively believing in? I really want to know what dreams of mine are being crushed.  Also, side question, is there any for me to change my posts retroactively to make sure I was always wrong on my expectations and deserve a “told you so”?

  64. 64.

    Ken

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques:  is there any for me to change my posts retroactively to make sure I was always wrong on my expectations and deserve a “told you so”?

    That would be courteous, but isn’t necessary.  We’re all human, so have no problem at all finding some nit-picking point on which to say “I told you so”.

  65. 65.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Kenneth Krasity: Whoa, dumb me, LOL. I though it was a section of or reference in the bill. Thanks!

    I think this notation started back in the teens when people were bitching about how this or that should have been part of the ACA.

    Basically, if something desirable wasn’t in the bill  (the argument went) it was because it couldn’t get 218 votes in the House and 60 votes in the Senate and Obama’s signature and would have passed SCOTUS muster.  And 218-60-1-5 became the shorthand for that.

    With reconciliation, the 60 becomes 51, and there probably won’t be any SCOTUS involvement, so the 5 goes away.

  66. 66.

    Geminid

    @Enhanced Voting Techniques: I see a lot of commenters* framing matters in a way so that they can later say, “See, I told you so!” Of course, if things don’t turn out the way they framed them they’re never gonna say “I told you so, but I was wrong.”

    * Not commenters here, just ones in that crazy world beyond Balloon Juice. It’s a jungle out there!

  69. 69.

    David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch

    All this arguing is a downer.   That’s why I stick to uplifting sites like Pornhub.

  71. 71.

    David ? ☘The Establishment☘? Koch

    @Kay:   but, but…   critical race theory!

    but, but…. mandates!

    but, but…  recall!

    but, but…..   afghanistan!

    but, but…. Thems in Disway!

    but, but…. tea economy!

     

    This is like when Obama was president and every two weeks The Village desperately tried to frame someting-someting into his Katrina.   By the end it was so ridiculous they tried to frame his tan suit as Katrina.

  77. 77.

    Another Scott

    @David Anderson: I think this is the closest to what’s going on.  But in general this time everything is going to happen nearly at once.  They’ve spent weeks negotiating on what’s going to be in it with the Senate, now the House is going to write a bill that can pass the Senate and have enough Democrats on board.

    The actual Constitutional mechanics (revenue bills start in the House, yada yada) will be handled as always (even if ala the PPACA they just keep the title and bill number and strip out the rest).

    Things are moving very quickly now, actual legislation to fit the framework is underway, but it still might extend into November (so they’d have to pass another extension to the Highway authorizations), but I don’t really expect that.

    We’ll see!

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  80. 80.

    Another Scott

    More…

    No text yet, but sounding like one of the long-overdue SSI reforms under serious consideration in the Build Back Better bill is keeping Biden’s promise to extend SSI to Puerto Rico & other territories—which would be HUGE!!!!!!!!!! #DemolishDisabledPoverty https://t.co/dFj5VxqijI

    — Rebecca Vallas (@rebeccavallas) October 28, 2021

    The final bill is going to do an amazing amount of good. Long overdue good.

    (via LOLGOP)

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  81. 81.

    Another Scott

    @Another Scott:

    TheHill:

    The House on Thursday passed yet another short-term extension of highway and transit construction programs that are set to expire on Sunday in order to avert thousands of worker furloughs and halted projects.

    Lawmakers similarly passed a short-term patch a month ago when House Democrats were unable to clear the Senate-passed bipartisan infrastructure bill that would renew the highway programs for five years.

    With House Democrats still split over strategy to pass both the bipartisan infrastructure bill and a social spending package, lawmakers punted on the larger infrastructure bill and instead passed the latest extension through Dec. 3 on a bipartisan basis in a 358-59 vote.

    Before adjourning Thursday, the Senate agreed that a highway funding extension would be deemed passed by unanimous consent.

    […]

    Good, so the BIF and the BBB/Reconciliation Bill are still going to be acted on as a coupled unit.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

  82. 82.

    lowtechcyclist

    @Geminid: ​
     

    I see a lot of commenters* framing matters in a way so that they can later say, “See, I told you so!”

    I know you were talking about people elsewhere, but I gotta say that ever since 2016, I’ve not even tried to predict anything. This timeline is just too weird.

    The one prediction I did make, really not thinking it even amounted to that, was on the morning of January 6th. My wife was worried about the Trumpist protesters, and I told her not to worry, there’d be a couple thousand law enforcement officers waiting for them at the Capitol, and that would be the end of it. I figured it was just plain obvious that they’d be out in sufficient strength to discourage the protesters from trying anything.

    Of course, they weren’t, and we all know how that turned out. So I’m not making any predictions about the bill, or about next week’s election in your fair Commonwealth, or much of anything. I just don’t have a clue.

  83. 83.

    Another Scott

    Things are continuing to move rapidly. TheHill:

    Democratic lawmakers are discussing a possible compromise on lowering prescription drug prices that could revive the issue after it was left out of President Biden’s social spending framework, sources say.

    Rep. Scott Peters (D-Calif.), who had raised objections to previous versions of the drug pricing measure, and House Energy and Commerce Committee Chairman Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) have made progress towards an agreement on a compromise drug pricing measure, according to Democratic aides and lobbyists.

    Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) is helping build support for the potential compromise, which was first reported by Stat.

    This is a good sign. People know that a big important bill is going to pass soon, and they want to be part of it. S&M are still an issue, of course, but there are ways to work with them.

    Cheers,
    Scott.

Comments are closed.