[peyton]

> because of the Senate’s arcane rules, they could not establish the same cap for private insurance

It looks like one party tried to get this done in reconciliation. If so, blaming “arcane rules” is slanted and makes me wonder what other information the author is twisting.

[advisedwang]

The reason private insurance was excluded from the bill was because of the "Byrd Rule". The senate parliamentarian gets to rule on and decides it unilaterally. The only reason to do it in reconciliation in the first place is because of the filibuster.

I would say that whole combination is pretty arcane.

[frgtpsswrdlame]

To be clear, the parliamentarian is only an advisory role, they don't get to rule or decide anything, only offer guidance which senators then choose to listen to. But they could ignore it (and have done so in the past) or can fire the parliamentarian and pick a new one which is more likely to advise in the way that they want (and have done so in the past.)

[advisedwang]

It's not the senate generally that is taking the parlimentarian's advice in this case, but the presiding officer, who does get to unilaterally decide (although the have some options).

See 2 USC 641(d) for it being out of order and Senate rule XX for how those are decided (which is surprisingly flexible, as you hit). Or for a more readable source: https://www.cbpp.org/research/federal-budget/introduction-to...

But the fact that we're even discussing this shows that the article is pretty reasonable in calling this arcane.

[HWR_14]

The rules of reconciliation are indeed arcane. There is a Senate Parliamentarian who makes calls on interpretations because the details are so convoluted.

Sure, at a high level it's simple. But so is "crawl the internet, make a database and match keywords from requests to a ranked list of results."

[ceejayoz]

> There is a Senate Parliamentarian who makes calls on interpretations

Sorta. They can be fired at will (https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/politics/2001/05/08/k...) and they're making advisories, which the Senate can just... overrule.

[Kon-Peki]

If the parliamentarian is "overruled" for political reasons, the likely outcome is that the Senate grinds to a halt, not that the majority party gets to pass desired legislation that otherwise wouldn't pass.

The job of the parliamentarian is to interpret the rules and give advice about what is allowed and what is not. Sure, they can be wrong. But if you don't like the rules, change them. Because any self-governing body that isn't following its own rules isn't actually operating. Any legislation the Senate "passes" in violation of its own rules doesn't actually exist. It's an exercise in futility. Both Democrats and Republicans understand this and both parties value an impartial parliamentarian as an asset. It's a job created out of need:

> Charles Watkins had arrived in the Senate in 1904 from Arkansas to work as a stenographer. Blessed with a photographic memory, and a curiosity about Senate procedures, he eventually transferred to the Senate floor as journal clerk. In 1919 he started what became a 45-year search of the Congressional Record, back to the 1880s, for Senate decisions that interpreted the body’s individual standing rules to the legislative needs of the moment.

> In 1923 Watkins replaced the ailing assistant secretary of the Senate as unofficial advisor on floor procedure to the presiding officer. From that time, he became the body’s parliamentarian, in fact if not in title. Finally, in 1935, at a time when an increased volume of New Deal-era legislation expanded opportunities for procedural confusion and mischief, he gained the actual title.

https://www.senate.gov/about/officers-staff/secretary-of-the...

[ceejayoz]

> But if you don't like the rules, change them.

That's what the vote to overrule the parlimentarian essentially does, for that one vote. Both parties have done so for judicial confirmations.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nuclear_option; "a parliamentary procedure that allows the Senate to override a standing rule by a simple majority"

> Any legislation the Senate "passes" in violation of its own rules doesn't actually exist.

A court is not likely to agree with that.

[HWR_14]

Both sides changed the rules concerning judicial appointments. In both cases this was understood to be a change in actual Senate rules, not a one time override. As demonstrated by the fact that there were many appointments under the new rules without additional votes.

[tonetheman]

To be clear about it hnews does not like politics but it was blocked by Republicans.

https://www.axios.com/2022/08/07/insulin-price-cap-reconcili...

There was little reason to block it and it is hard to imagine why they blocked it given how many people it could help. I tried to understand the logic but most everything I read were just out right lies. I have knowledge of this first hand because my wife takes insulin.

[jrussino]

I saw this commend as [dead] and vouched for it, but you should realize that the gripe about "hnews does not like politics" is counter-productive.

I do agree that it's on-topic in this particular thread to have a discussion about the merits of policies like this and that can include highlighting the factions that support or oppose them (and the reasons and/or incentives that might be driving that support/opposition).