State Representative Mike Thompson wrote a bill exempting Oklahoma from Obama care

[Big Red Ron]

He's also the frontrunner to replace Marry Fallin in the 5th congressional district.

Good on ya Mike!

[Big Red Ron]

If you are a Republican, I urge you to vote for Mike Thomson on July 27th

[XingTheRubicon]

What do you urge democrats to do? ;)

[OUMallen]

I wouldn't vote for him because it's about the stupidest idea ever and he doesn't understand the most basic principle of federal supremacy.

He'll get in there and waste time constantly writing bills that are unconstitutional on their face.

[C&CDean]

I wouldn't vote for him because it's about the stupidest idea ever and he doesn't understand the most basic principle of federal supremacy.

He'll get in there and waste time constantly writing bills that are unconstitutional on their face.

Yeah but you don't tip, so what do you know?

[Scott D]

that right there is a burn. lol

[goingoneight]

What do you urge democrats to do? ;)

The same thing all partisans urge the opposition to do.

"**** off dip ****s"

:D

[olevetonahill]

I wouldn't vote for him because it's about the stupidest idea ever and he doesn't understand the most basic principle of federal supremacy.

He'll get in there and waste time constantly writing bills that are unconstitutional on their face.

Ya say that like its a bad thing :D

[OUMallen]

Yeah but you don't tip, so what do you know?

Apparently you don't read so well, so what do you know?

[olevetonahill]

Apparently you don't read so well, so what do you know?

Says the dude that SIGNED a contract with out readin it Or dint understand :P :P

http://1.bp.blogspot.com/_IA5nokOFh84/SG1-JDedWDI/AAAAAAAABmw/g34U86PwdXw/s400/PotKettle_small.jpg

[NormanPride]

Ya say that like its a bad thing :D

Amen to that. I'd pay these guys 7 figures a month if they'd just not do anything.

[HBick]

as long as he doesn't try to outlaw the lottery because they use children in the commercials like that state senator from Tulsa is proposing.

And to think, someone from Edmond stopped him, trying to follow the politicking of this state will cause your brain to hemorrhage

[sooner59]

as long as he doesn't try to outlaw the lottery because they use children in the commercials like that state senator from Tulsa is proposing.

And to think, someone from Edmond stopped him, trying to follow the politicking of this state will cause your brain to hemorrhage

That state senator is a "ruh-tod". Save the children by cutting their lottery-assisted school funding! LOL

[Ike]

So how would that work then? Would we not have to pay a penalty for violating the individual mandate? If so, I doubt that the IRS would see it his way.

[olevetonahill]

The Lottery is really werkin well fer the skools now aint it ?

[GKeeper316]

If you are a Republican, I urge you to vote for Mike Thomson on July 27th

mike reynolds.

mike thompson is a democrat from california's first district.

there's also a mike thomson who is politician in missouri.

[yermom]

So how would that work then? Would we not have to pay a penalty for violating the individual mandate? If so, I doubt that the IRS would see it his way.

they gonna exempt us from the extra medicare taxes too?

sounds like posturing for votes to me

[Okla-homey]

While he's at it, might he go ahead and introduce legislation outlawing the federal income tax in Oklahoma? Oh, and change the speed limit on I-35 and I-40 to eleventy-billion mph. Plz. thx.

[Big Red Ron]

mike reynolds.

mike thompson is a democrat from california's first district.

there's also a mike thomson who is politician in missouri.
mike reynolds is D BAG

IT IS mIKE tHOMPSON hd 100, CURRENTLY THE FRONTRUNNER TO WIN THE 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN OKLAHOMA.

[Big Red Ron]

While he's at it, might he go ahead and introduce legislation outlawing the federal income tax in Oklahoma? Oh, and change the speed limit on I-35 and I-40 to eleventy-billion mph. Plz. thx.
DUDE, THERE'S A LITTLE THING CALLED THE 10TH AMENDMENT. lOOK IT UP.

[Ike]

So how would that work then? Would we not have to pay a penalty for violating the individual mandate? If so, I doubt that the IRS would see it his way.

Nobody seems to know how to answer this? C'mon, surely somebody knows.

[Crucifax Autumn]

I'll write some bullshat bill that will never do anything too if I can have a cushy job in congress!

[OUMallen]

DUDE, THERE'S A LITTLE THING CALLED THE 10TH AMENDMENT. lOOK IT UP.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause

[Big Red Ron]

Nobody seems to know how to answer this? C'mon, surely somebody knows.
READ THE 10th AMENDMENT AND ILL LOOK UP THE BILL.

[Big Red Ron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
That is something that is debatable. States have legalized marijuana and its against federal laws, Montana has no speeed limit, there are other examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

[Crucifax Autumn]

That is something that is debatable. States have legalized marijuana and its against federal laws, Montana has no speeed limit, there are other examples.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

So far though, the weed laws are still enforced some by the feds, despite state laws. As for Montana, I'd be willing to bet not having a speed limit costs them a buttload of federal highway money.

I personally don't really know how this battle will come out in the end or what will happen though...

[Big Red Ron]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supremacy_Clause
Malen, that link is the Bull**** that will end up breaking our country. Nothing lasts forever folks.

There's a huge portion of America that believes the constitution, as written is a perfect document. We keep electing Obama types and this country will split, it's simply a matter of time.

[Crucifax Autumn]

mike reynolds is D BAG

IT IS mIKE tHOMPSON hd 100, CURRENTLY THE FRONTRUNNER TO WIN THE 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN OKLAHOMA.

Yeah, but they're related! Thye have the same name! DUH!!!!! :P

[Big Red Ron]

A bipartisan coalition of state lawmakers voted overwhelmingly today to allow Oklahoma voters the chance to opt-out of the new federal health care system.

“Given the serious impact the federal plan would have on access to and affordability of health care, it’s only right to give Oklahomans the opportunity to voice their opinion of ObamaCare,” said House Majority Floor Leader Tad Jones, R-Claremore.

Senate Joint Resolution 59, by Senator Dan Newberry (R-Tulsa) and Rep. Mike Thompson (R-Oklahoma City), would allow citizens to vote to amend the Oklahoma Constitution to “preserve the freedom of Oklahomans to provide for their health care.”

[Big Red Ron]

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_Mbo_0Jwg1OY/S6pMucQVDYI/AAAAAAAAKJA/9SpF-UvMBZk/s400/acartoon.bmp

[Crucifax Autumn]

This is gonna be a decade long clusterf*ck no matter what. It's either the worst thing since the plague or the best thing since the printing press and no matter which it is my f&ckin' kids are gonna be watching coverage of this crap long after they move out.

[Big Red Ron]

Essentially, its a bill that gives Oklahomans the right to vote on Obama Care based on the 10th amendment. The results will then be faught in the courts.

[Ike]

Essentially, its a bill that gives Oklahomans the right to vote on Obama Care based on the 10th amendment. The results will then be faught in the courts.


So it's letting us vote (essentially) on federal tax law? Or am I reading that wrong?

[tommieharris91]

Essentially, its a bill that gives Oklahomans the right to vote on Obama Care based on the 10th amendment. The results will then be faught in the courts.

The supremacy, general welfare, and interstate commerce clauses will conflict with anything that comes out of this vote.

[Big Red Ron]

The supremacy, general welfare, and interstate commerce clauses will conflict with anything that comes out of this vote.
Depends on the court and it could easily make it to the Supreme Court, which as you know, tends to lean right. Or in otherwords, Costitutionalists. Either way, this is going to be a dog fight that will last long beyond Obama's one term Presidency.

[tommieharris91]

Depends on the court and it could easily make it to the Supreme Court, which as you know, tends to lean right. Or in otherwords, Costitutionalists. Either way, this is going to be a dog fight that will last long beyond Obama's one term Presidency.

So what you're saying is that the court won't bother with the tons of prior case law or the 3 clauses I cited in my earlier post (which happen to be in Art. VI, and Art I, Sec 8, respectively) and rule that the law is unconstitutional under Amendment X grounds? The court may be all Constitutionalists, but the current SCOTUS do not and have not interpreted the Constitution the same way you have.

I fully expect challenges to the bill to reach the SCOTUS, probably within the year.

[Big Red Ron]

So what you're saying is that the court won't bother with the tons of prior case law or the 3 clauses I cited in my earlier post (which happen to be in Art. VI, and Art I, Sec 8, respectively) and rule that the law is unconstitutional under Amendment X grounds? The court may be all Constitutionalists, but the current SCOTUS do not and have not interpreted the Constitution the same way you have.

I fully expect challenges to the bill to reach the SCOTUS, probably within the year.It'll be longer than a year and thats the effin point son. This thing was passed on dubious rules that allowed for a straight party lines.

[tommieharris91]

It'll be longer than a year and thats the effin point son. This thing was passed on dubious rules that allowed for a straight party lines.

That was never your point to begin with. Your point was that the bill is unconstitutional on Amendment X grounds. My point is that such a bill can be passed on the grounds of 3 different parts of the Constitution.

Also, what "dubious rules" was it passed on?

[Big Red Ron]

That was never your point to begin with. Your point was that the bill is unconstitutional on Amendment X grounds. My point is that such a bill can be passed on the grounds of 3 different parts of the Constitution.

Also, what "dubious rules" was it passed on?A procedural rule that eliminated the 60% normally needed to pass such a socialistic bill. You seem like an educated person, so you know what I'm talking about.

I'm just glad there are people with the balls to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.

[OUMallen]

Malen, that link is the Bull**** that will end up breaking our country. Nothing lasts forever folks.

There's a huge portion of America that believes the constitution, as written is a perfect document. We keep electing Obama types and this country will split, it's simply a matter of time.

You're changing the point.

The initial point: someone is trying to write a law that will magically exempt Oklahoma from federal legislation that is intended to preempt state law. That will never work, it's a fool's errand, and a waste of taxpayer money. This is basic.

Your new point: The entire thing is unconstitutional. Sure, it might be, but on what basis? 1800? 1900? 2010? Probably won't be found unconstitutional given the current state of Commerce Clause jurisprudence. You might be right...but remember it's simply your opinion- that it SHOULD be unconstitutional on the basis of an 18th century understanding of the Constitution (which I tend to agree with you). Although I'll say the Constitution cannot be a "perfect" document given the innumerable changes in society since it was adopted.

[tommieharris91]

A procedural rule that eliminated the 60% normally needed to pass such a socialistic bill. You seem like an educated person, so you know what I'm talking about.


Cite it, please.


I'm just glad there are people with the balls to stand up to the tyranny of the majority.

Our House of Representatives just did.

[Big Red Ron]

Cite it, please.

Look it up yourself. I'm done with remedial legislative process research.

Our House of Representatives just did.
No chit!

[OUMallen]

Cite it, please.



He's right. They used a budget reconciliation to approve it, which only requires a simple majority. Budget reconciliation was INTENDED to be used to bring bills into accordance with the budget appropriation/plan for that law.

It was not intended to be used to pass major policy.

However, recently, both W. and Obama have used it to pass substantive bills with a simple majority. It's done when you can't get the 60% approval needed to avoid a filibuster. Anti-Obamacare people are angry they used it because:
1. It's almost a sneaky trick
2. It's not meant for that.
3. Obama himself is quoted as saying it shouldn't be used to pass policy, so he has decried its use in tihs manner before, but is using it now because it is politically expedient.

[Ike]

Changing tack yet again: Apparently the federal bill contains in it it's own opt-out provision.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/03/24/wyden-health-care-lawsuit_n_511748.html



...
It's called the "Empowering States to be Innovative" amendment. And it would, quite literally, give states the right to set up their own health care system -- with or without an individual mandate or, for that matter, with or without a public option -- provided that, as Wyden puts it, "they can meet the coverage requirements of the bill.
...
"The individual mandate has always been one of the most contentious aspects of health reform. I think every United States Senator believes that citizens should show some personal responsibility. That's something that is widely accepted. Unfortunately, an individual mandate can mean something different, and that's why the issue has been so contentious," Wyden said. "But counsel has now indicated -- and it was in line with what I thought we had drafted -- if you can meet the requirements of the waiver in the mark, you can do it without an individual mandate."
"


Not sure what the requirements that are in the bill to opt out are, but, there you go.

I would harbor a guess though that this does not apply to the proposed ammendment to the State Constitution.

[Big Red Ron]

The Senate used the manuver to prevent a fillabuster, which is often used to protect the temporary minority from the tyranny of the majority.

[lefty]

The senate passed the health care bill 60-39 on Christmas Eve. They did not use reconciliation. The bill (H.R. 3590) that just passed the House, was that senate bill. The reconciliation process that is currently happening in the Senate is to "fix" certain provisions in the original Senate bill (e.g. the Cornhusker Kickback, the Louisiana Purchase, et. al.).

[Ike]

The Senate used the manuver to prevent a fillabuster, which is often used to protect the temporary minority from the tyranny of the majority.

Actually, that only applies to the "fix it" bill that is now going back to the house.

The base bill that was already signed DID pass the senate with 60 votes, and then DID pass the house with a majority.

[Big Red Ron]

Actually, that only applies to the "fix it" bill that is now going back to the house.

The base bill that was already signed DID pass the senate with 60 votes, and then DID pass the house with a majority.
By using budget reconcilliation to approve part of it, it did prevent it. The other part got 60.

I'm just saying, this thing is a pig in a poke and hasn't been presented in a straight forward fashion.

Hell, most people don't realize the tax implications on the middle class. I dare say most Americans have no idea what this thing really is.

[Ike]

By using budget reconcilliation to approve part of it, it did prevent it. The other part got 60.

I'm just saying, this thing is a pig in a poke and hasn't been presented in a straight forward fashion.

Hell, most people don't realize the tax implications on the middle class. I dare say most Americans have no idea what this thing really is.

OK, fine. But so far, there is nothing that has been signed into law that didn't get 60 in the senate.

But really when it comes down to whether or not it's constitutional or not, that doesn't matter. Senate rules are not written in the constitution. Which means if the parlimentarian says that the rules were followed, and the bill passes accordingly, then the bill is passed.

Further, all of this has absolutley nothing to do with whether Oklahoma can really opt out of a federal tax law (without meeting whatever requirements are defined by the opt-out provision in the HCR bill), which is basically what we would have to do to opt-out of HCR.

In other words, it looks very much to me like this current opt-out bill is little more than a symbolic gesture. Sounds nice, does nothing.

[OUMallen]

By using budget reconcilliation to approve part of it, it did prevent it. The other part got 60.

I'm just saying, this thing is a pig in a poke and hasn't been presented in a straight forward fashion.

Hell, most people don't realize the tax implications on the middle class. I dare say most Americans have no idea what this thing really is.

And what do YOU think are the tax implications on the middle class, since you're raising such an alarm?

[OklahomaTuba]

I hope it does something, in order to save our jobs & economy...


Caterpillar Inc. said Wednesday it will take a $100 million charge to earnings this quarter to reflect additional taxes stemming from newly enacted U.S. health-care legislation.http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703312504575142313494421460.html?m od=rss_Politics_And_Policy

[OklahomaTuba]

And what do YOU think are the tax implications on the middle class, since you're raising such an alarm?

Forget the tax implication of the middle class, what about the job implications of the middle class??? This is a Job Killer.


Farm equipment maker Deere expects after-tax expenses to rise by $150 million this year as a result of the health care reform law President Barack Obama signed this week.http://www.cnbc.com/id/36032946/

But that's ok, with free healthcare, who needs manufacturing and jobs, right???

[OUMallen]

Wait wait wait, the Caterpillar one. Their subsidies are being taxed? Their HANDOUT, from the GOVERNMENT, from OUR TAXES. That they were previously getting TAX-FREE. Will now be taxed?

I don't have a problem with this.

[Harry Beanbag]

And what do YOU think are the tax implications on the middle class, since you're raising such an alarm?

These are all taxes that will be passed on to Joe Public:



Section 1002 of the Amendment – Individual responsibility: Starting in 2014 everyone will be required to maintain health insurance. If you go without insurance, you will be subject to a tax of $695 per year.
Section 1003 of the Amendment – Emploer responsibility: Large companies will be required to provide health insurance as a benefit to its employees. Companies that do not provide this benefit will be imposed a tax of $2,000 a year per employee.
Section 1401 of the Amendment – High cost plan excise tax: Starting in 2018, high cost health insurance plans will be subject to a tax. Plans for single persons that cost in excess of $10,200 and family plans that cost in excess of $27,500 are in this sections crosshairs. The excise tax rate on incremental costs will be 40 percent. In an attempt to appease union dissent, this tax will not be assessed on the individual but will be assessed on the insurance company providing the plan. Ultimately, the costs will still be burdened by the purchaser.
Section 1402 of the Amendment – Medicare tax: Medicare tax will now be assessed on investment income for families making in excess of $250,000 and for singles making over $200,000. Investment income includes interest, dividends, capital gains, rental income and royalties. In the past, Medicare taxes had been assessed on wages only. Earn one dollar of investment income while you are over the threshold limits and you will incur this tax. This tax will commence January 1, 2013.
Section 9015 of the Original Bill – Medicare tax: In addition to the expansion of Medicare tax on investment income as noted in Section 1402 above, the Medicare tax rate has also increased. This tax increases by a third, from 2.9 percent to 3.8 percent.
Section 1404 of the Amendment – Brand name pharmaceuticals: Starting in 2011, the pharmaceutical industry will be subject to a $2.5 billion annual excise tax. The annual excise tax increases in subsequent years, rising to $4.2 billion in 2018. The tax is assessed based on a companies market share and is non-deductible for federal tax purposes.
Section 1405 of the Amendment – Excise tax on medical device manufacturers: Sales of medical devices will be subject to a 2.9 percent national sales tax. This will apply to sales occurring after December 31, 2012.
Section 1406 of the Amendment – Health insurance providers: Starting in 2014, the health insurance industry will be subject to an $8.0 billion annual excise tax. The excise tax increases to $11.3 billion annually for 2015, 2016, and 2017. The excise tax increases to $14.3 billion in 2018 and rises by inflation thereafter. The tax is assessed based on a companies market share and is non-deductible for federal tax purposes. Does anyone think this will create inflation in the health insurance premiums?
Section 9013 of the Original Bill - Modification of itemized deduction for medical expenses: For those incurring significant medical costs, your ability to deduct these expenses will be decreased. This legislation increases the adjusted gross income threshold for claiming an itemized deduction from 7.5 percent to 10 percent.


http://www.boston.com/business/personalfinance/managingyourmoney/archives/2010/03/tax_implication.html


Not to mention that Bush's tax cuts will be expiring next year.

[OUMallen]

You know what my personal implication is? None, actually. Now, there will be tons of tenuous results that impact me in some manner. But my personal taxes will change none. Same for most of us.

[Ike]

Singling just one of these out:



Section 1401 of the Amendment – High cost plan excise tax: Starting in 2018, high cost health insurance plans will be subject to a tax. Plans for single persons that cost in excess of $10,200 and family plans that cost in excess of $27,500 are in this sections crosshairs. The excise tax rate on incremental costs will be 40 percent. In an attempt to appease union dissent, this tax will not be assessed on the individual but will be assessed on the insurance company providing the plan. Ultimately, the costs will still be burdened by the purchaser.

Thats a pretty high threshold. For all intents and purposes, any right minded individual would have called the plan I had at my previous job a "cadillac" plan. Actually, I would have called it a "porsche" plan. Covered everything with but a 20 dollar co-pay. No deductible. No co-insurance. Might have had a yearly and/or lifetime maximum though, but we never sniffed it.

It cost way less than that.


My current plan costs more than my previous plan, and includes a deductible and co-insurance. :mad:

[Harry Beanbag]

Singling just one of these out:



Thats a pretty high threshold. For all intents and purposes, any right minded individual would have called the plan I had at my previous job a "cadillac" plan. Actually, I would have called it a "porsche" plan. Covered everything with but a 20 dollar co-pay. No deductible. No co-insurance. Might have had a yearly and/or lifetime maximum though, but we never sniffed it.

It cost way less than that.


My current plan costs more than my previous plan, and includes a deductible and co-insurance. :mad:


It does seem high, but I would say that the vast majority of people who have insurance through work have no idea how much their plans actually cost. I certainly don't. I know what portion I pay, but I have no idea how much the company pays for it.

I also don't understand how the government can punish you for having good health insurance. Seems very unAmerican to me.

[yermom]

i'm not sure i follow that one either, really

[Harry Beanbag]

You know what my personal implication is? None, actually. Now, there will be tons of tenuous results that impact me in some manner. But my personal taxes will change none. Same for most of us.


You actually believe that?

[Harry Beanbag]

i'm not sure i follow that one either, really


I could explain it to you, but I'd just be called a far right, neocon, bible thumping, racist, extremist, etc., etc., etc.. :)

[OUMallen]

It does seem high, but I would say that the vast majority of people who have insurance through work have no idea how much their plans actually cost. I certainly don't. I know what portion I pay, but I have no idea how much the company pays for it.

I also don't understand how the government can punish you for having good health insurance. Seems very unAmerican to me.

I agree a zillion percent.

So someone wants to pay MORE money into the system on a predictable basis for something someone typically doesn't use that often (generally), and they want to do it on behalf of their employee....

and you penalize them?

I think it's an attempt to keep costs down. But if that's the case, tax the insurance companies on the profit. Don't penalize the employer (and thus discourage that behavior) by taxing him for trying to give extra for employees. Or institute a false price ceiling. Or SOMETHING.

[Ike]

It does seem high, but I would say that the vast majority of people who have insurance through work have no idea how much their plans actually cost. I certainly don't. I know what portion I pay, but I have no idea how much the company pays for it.

I also don't understand how the government can punish you for having good health insurance. Seems very unAmerican to me.

I know exactly how much my company pays for my insurance.

I started checking those numbers once obama got elected figuring that it might happen that the employer tax break on insurance might go away (which is not necessarily a bad thing in principle. Really, I'd rather companies be in the business of doing whatever they are doing...not also managing their employees health insurance), and if it did, and the company cancelled insurance, I would demand a raise at least equal to the amount they spent on my insurance.

[Chuck Bao]

That’s good advice for all of us: I mean the part about checking to see how much each of our companies currently pay for employee insurance. I would be curious to see how far it ranges, if anyone wants to volunteer ballpark numbers.

Given the passage of this bill and future tax implications, it is not an unreasonable request to find out this information from your companies or federal/state/municipal authorities.

I’m just not sure it would be a good idea for a lot of us to demand compensation for the lost insurance coverage at this time. But, I am glad that you would, Ike. You have brains and balls.

[GKeeper316]

mike reynolds is D BAG

IT IS mIKE tHOMPSON hd 100, CURRENTLY THE FRONTRUNNER TO WIN THE 5TH CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT IN OKLAHOMA.

yup. you're right.

odd that this guy is a state lawmaker and ive never heard of him...

mike reynolds has a bill drafted as well tho, so it'll be fun to watch how this all plays out.

[Ike]

I’m just not sure it would be a good idea for a lot of us to demand compensation for the lost insurance coverage at this time. But, I am glad that you would, Ike. You have brains and balls.

I just look at it this way. Even with the tax break, insurance is still costly to companies. If they cancel the coverage, whether or not the tax break goes away, thats a big savings for them, and lost compensation for me. I would want that compensation made up.


On a slightly related note, I'd really prefer that there be less employer sponsored coverages around rather than more. Employer sponsored coverage really ties people to their job in ways that I think is detrimental to the overall economy. It places a damper on the free movement of labor, and discourages people from quitting their job and creating their own businesses. Having more people in the individual insurance market would also bring down the prices of individual insurance policies, as the risk pool would grow and become much more randomized.

[yermom]

i'd like to see more of those high deductible/health savings plan deals

[Crucifax Autumn]

Just for the sake of history:


Congress has used the procedure to enact omnibus budget bills, first in 1981. Since 1980, 17 of 23 reconciliation bills have been signed into law by Republican presidents (a Republican has been president for 20 of the last 29 years). Since 1980, reconciliation has been used nine times when Republicans controlled both the House and the Senate, six times when Democrats controlled both the House and the Senate, one time when the Democrats controlled the Senate and the Republicans the House, and seven times when the Republicans controlled the Senate and the Democrats controlled the House. Reconciliation has been used at least once nominally for a non-budgetary purpose (for example, see the College Cost Reduction and Access Act of 2007, when a Republican was president and the Democrats controlled Congress). The 1986 Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985 (COBRA) contained some health care provisions.The Byrd Rule (as described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect has been to prohibit the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

In 1999, the Senate for the first time used reconciliation to pass legislation that would increase deficits: the Taxpayer Refund and Relief Act 1999. This act was passed when the Government was expected to run large surpluses: it was subsequently vetoed by President Clinton. A similar situation happened in 2000, when the Senate again used reconciliation to pass the Marriage Tax Relief Reconciliation Act 2000, which was also vetoed by Clinton. At the time the use of the reconciliation procedure to pass such bills was controversial.[4]

During the administration of President George W. Bush, Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts, each of which was predicted by the Congressional Budget Office to substantially increase federal deficits.[5] These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rul