Credit where its due. Good for Chuck Todd and Matthews.

"The other talking points don't much matter when the premise of the Republican argument is proven to be inexorably flawed." Sadly, that has been true of most things Republican for decades, but look where that has got us.

Let's also put the "17%" away. 17% includes all health care costs. Medicare is minimally affected as is employer-provided health care coverage. The bill affects closer to 2% of our economy.

Yesterday, I heard another whopper on Wisconsin Public Radio where a guest claimed that he would end up paying $8,000 in new taxes because he has decent medical coverage. He was lying.

Democrats need to speak up against the lies that the GOP has been spreading to keep reform from starting.

Yes, good pickup by Ron Byers - Others, yesterday, concentrated on the quote by Todd that he thought the Rs came better prepared. But, Todd did hammer this home to Chris.

However, cue Grassley in five, four... to claim reconcilliation is Unconstitutional as he did with individual mandates, which for a couple of years were not Unconstitutional to Grassley. Rachael Maddow did a great take on Grassley's Flip-Flops on mandates.

Since when does anything the repugs do (and for that matter the Dems also at times) make sense. I mean look at all the progress we have made toward that change that Obama promised. The repugs have not changed and the Dems well they are as weak as they have ever been caving time and time to the repugs on just about everything. The Dems simply don't have the intestinal fortitude needed to govern this country.

If Grassley thinks that reconciliation is unconstitutional, will he volunteer to tell the rich in America who received "unconstitutional" tax cuts from Bush that they owe a couple of trillion in back taxes and interest?

Of course, one way to short circuit the talking points would be for the House to just pass the Senate bill and have the president sign it. Then the Senate could go back and do the reconciliation fixes and the discussion wouldn't be about the health bill. I realize this is complicated by the numbers, but it would certainly change the conversation. Too bad there is so little trust between the commons and lords.

Either reporters are incompetent, lazy layabouts, or they are Being Told What to Write.

One wonders which. . .

The Republicans asked that the current health care bill be pulled off the table (yeah right). But what if the Democrats agreed in return for a promise by the GOP not to filibuster heath care reforms. Assuming you could trust the Republicans, would that be a good deal? I think so.

Exchange of Amendments between the Houses

Differences between versions of most noncontroversial bills and some major bills that must be passed quickly are reconciled through the exchange of amendments between the houses. The two chambers may send measures back and forth, amending each other’s amendments until they agree to identical language on all provisions of the legislation. Generally, the provisions of an amendment between the houses are the subject of informal negotiations, so extended exchanges of amendments are rare. But there is also a parliamentary limit on the number of times a measure may shuttle between the chambers. In general, each chamber has only two opportunities to amend the amendments of the other body because both chambers prohibit third-degree amendments. In rare instances, however, the two chambers waive or disregard the parliamentary limit and exchange amendments more than twice. The current record is nine exchanges.

At any stage of this process a chamber may accept the position of the other body, insist on its most recent position, request a conference to resolve the remaining differences, or refuse to take further action and allow the measure to die.

The Senate normally takes action on an amendment of the House only when there is an expectation that the amendment may be disposed of readily, typically by unanimous consent. In the absence of such an expectation, the Senate will generally proceed to conference in order to negotiate a resolution to any serious disagreements within the Senate or with the House rather than attempt to resolve them on the floor.

http://www.senate.gov/legislative/common/briefing/Senate_legislative_process.htm#3

I pray for the day that the Roberts-Alito-Scalia-Thomas-Kennedy Supreme Court declare the mandates unconstitutional. On that day, Medicare-For-All will be the only way possible to achieve universal health care, cost control, and deficit reduction.

We should remind the GOP that we have other tools in the tool box, but we know what the job that needs to be done is.

The House needs to pass the Senate bill. It might have to do this for reasons of parliamentary procedure, but more importantly, because if they pass the bill on their own, then health care passes without reconciliation. This will dominate the news cycle for a few days, after which they can both pass it through reconciliation, forcing all reporters covering it to explain or at least recognize that what is going through reconciliation is not the bill, but a few small amendments

I saw an awful interview by Campbell Brown where Daavid Axelrod tried to make this clarification, and she just kept right on going with her false premise, repeating, "But for such a HUGE issue, shouldn't it be passed with 60 votes?" even after Axelrod had pointed out that healthcare had already been passed with 60 votes. I don't know if Brown is biased or not, but she doesn't seem very bright sometimes.

The "Todd Clarification" only matters to those who are interested in facts and accuracy. Since most media figures and Republicans don't give a damn about such things, so what? They will continue to deal in lies and propaganda, and willfully ignore pesky details like this one.

Devil's Advocate post:

I hate to say this, but it's exalting form over substance to say that passing certain amendments by reconciliation is not passing health care reform because most of reform has passed both houses.

It's pretty obvious that reform will not become law without the reconciliation fixes, so the idea that health care has "already passed" by 60 votes seems like a bit of a red herring.

(BTW I desperately hope that HCR passes, and I think that any argument should be used against the liars in the GOP. I just don't think this one works that well.)

Upper West: I understand your point, but the truth remains. An overwhelming portion of the bill received 60 votes. Completing the task only requires 51 and there is absolutely nothing inappropriate in utilizing this process.

The repubs can suck on it.

One more add: The GOP had their chance to pitch their amendments to the bill and participate in the reconciliation process. They refused. But to imply that they've had no opportunities to be part of the process when in fact they are responsible for all the shitty parts in the bill is just complete and utter horseshit.

The Donkeys were so focused on merit they were ambushed by premise? Seriously? That's the excuse this time? As if I needed another example, the Donkeys are the dumbest tacticians on the whole fucking planet. Looks like our election choices are between between proto-fascists and dumber-than-dirt retards. Better candidates PLEASE!!!

It does not take complex analysis to figure this out. I would eexpect all the lawyers and former judges in congress to be able to point such an obvious fallacy. Maybe there's something in the water in DC that makes you stupid.

Indy_Linda: check out to whom Campbell Browns is married.

The press is biased -- biased toward fluffernutter "journalism" that rates heat above light.

Why has no major media reporter asked a Republican, on camera, why if they so care about the health care issue the repubs didn't pass it when they ran things?