User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 6:46 pm

They know that the people hate the bill and they no longer have the votes to pass it. The solution: After the nuclear option, we now have the Slaughter Option.

http://gopleader.gov/UploadedFiles/C...oid_Direct_Vote_On_Senate_Bill.pdf

You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:26 pm

Yes, you will all die when more americans can get healthcare.

This is definitely comparable to a nuclear holocaust.

It is absolutely not a massive overreaction by a frustrated opposition and insurance corporations fearing for their future profits.

Yep.   
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:29 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
They know that the people hate the bill and they no longer have the votes to pass it.n,

How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?
Step into my office, baby
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3859
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:47 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?

Good question. I'd love to see the answer to that as I've often wondered the same thing myself.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
It is absolutely not a massive overreaction by a frustrated opposition and insurance corporations fearing for their future profits.

Come now. How could you ever make such a suggestion? We all know that healthcare reform is evil, communist, socialist, and will lead us one step closer to being a carbon copy of the former Soviet Union. I'm already calling everyone I know comrade.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
AirStairs
Posts: 390
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2008 6:47 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:50 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?

Doesn't it make more sense to enact each component separately so that substantive evaluation and debate can take place for each issue rather than this kind of cacophony of debate that never seems to nail down on one single point? And doesn't it make sense to enact measures incrementally so that we can tell what works and what doesn't? If we do it all at once, it will be much more difficult to a) separate what works and what doesn't in the future and b) make adjustments according to those realities. I think more people favor the individual measures because it makes more sense to enact them that way.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:51 pm

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):

This is definitely comparable to a nuclear holocaust.

The holocaust is political. This might help you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/allegory

Quoting mt99 (Reply 2):
How do you explain that while people are against the bill, once its broken up onto its parts, the majority favors these ideas?

Because people are only asked about the good parts. As I've talked about at length here before, I favor many of the things that are in the bill as well. But what I and most other people are not willing to accept is all the bad parts of the bill, such as:

- The huge cost, at a time when our budget is already stretched beyond the breaking point with unfunded liabilities. Even with 10 years of revenue and 6 of spending, it's still upside-down.
- Favorable treatment of politically connected groups
- The lack of regard for Constitutional limitations
- The massive complexity of the bill - too much too fast, when we have no idea how well step 1 will work.
- Lack of initiatives to reduce costs.

Just for starters.

[Edited 2010-03-11 11:54:45]
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3859
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:54 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
The holocaust is political. This might help you.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dicti...egory

We all know what allegory is. I still contend that this does not rise to the level of "holocaust".
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
MadameConcorde
Posts: 9222
Joined: Fri Feb 23, 2007 5:08 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 7:59 pm

How will the House of Reps pass the Health Care bill without voting? Is this legit?
Please explain. I am not familiar enough with how the U.S. system works.
Is this going to be by a Presidential decree?    
There was a better way to fly it was called Concorde
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:33 pm

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
How will the House of Reps pass the Health Care bill without voting? Is this legit?

No, it's not Constitutional. I'd like to see how Speaker Pelosi is going to try and pull this off. I guess she's not comfortable enough to put it to a vote. I wonder why? I thought the American people were behind the Triumvirate on this?

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
Is this going to be by a Presidential decree?

If he tried that, it would effectively end his presidency. I can easily see The Supreme Court stepping in and vacating such an order before the ink is dry.

Quoting OA412 (Reply 6):
We all know what allegory is. I still contend that this does not rise to the level of "holocaust".

Actually, for the Democrats and the Democratic Party, it will certainly be a "holocaust". They will wear their vote around their collective necks like an albatross.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
LTU932
Posts: 13091
Joined: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:34 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:47 pm

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
How will the House of Reps pass the Health Care bill without voting?

Whenever I try to read it, I still don't get how they'll do that.

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):
Is this going to be by a Presidential decree?

This is also what I don't get. Why do certain democracies (e.g. the US, Costa Rica) allow the issuing of presidential decrees (for passing certain regulations that directly affect the public)? That isn't very democratic to me.

Anyway, as far as my impressions on this, if the US was to introduce a system similar to e.g. the one in Germany (where you are required to have public health insurance, but retain the option for taking private healthcare starting with an average monthly salary of 4500 Euros and higher), I guess the outrage would only be on certain formalities within the public (e.g. like the current requirement in Germany to have to pay 10 Euros per quarter as "Praxisgebühr (practice fee)", or the additional fees that other insurers ask for, reduction of payments for certain treatments by the public insurance companies), but not so much on the system itself.

However, the way I gather, the problem is that the Dems are trying to impose a single state run health insurance, where everyone has no choice BUT to join. Sure, it may benefit those who can't afford private health care, but it may not benefit the others. The bill may be unbalanced, and that's what concerns the citizens. What gets me thinking is that this new system could potentially create a bureaucratic monster that will be heavily subject to abuse.

I've seen it with the Costa Rican state run health care system, which they call Social Security (people call it Caja, because its full name is "Caja Costariccense de Seguro Social"). The system of the Caja gets often abused of by illegal aliens, which is something that my former private doctor, who practiced once in a clinic run by the Caja, has mentioned. Let me just put it this way, illegal aliens, who do not pay ANYTHING into the Social Security system (because as illegal aliens, their employers don't pay the usual 9% to the Caja), get treatment at any point in time, while honest tax paying citizens and residents sometimes get screwed by the Caja. Even now there have been reports, where waiting times for appointments with the Caja for a certain speciality can be up to 2 years (!!!), while the state claims it's around 2 months or so, and invests money on a compulsory swine flu vaccination campaign (probably thanks to the lobby of the pharmaceutical companies), an accounting system for staff salaries that after 10 years, has not worked at all, x-ray equipment that has been responsible for certain cases of cancer, etc. And people in the middle class can't afford to go to private hospitals or private doctos; and even if they do and e.g. get a sick note, they still have to go to the Caja to convalidate the sick note (or else, it will count as an unjustified absence by the employer).

The system is collapsed, it needs reform, especially if the monopoly isn't dropped, but nothing has been done, and it's a pity because Costa Rica was one of the first countries in Latin America to introduce such a comprehensive healthcare system. That being said, the system in Germany, with public health insurance companies (who only charge a certain percentage from the salary, which is right now 14.9%, but you can still choose the public insurer of your chose, as some don't require certain extra fees or offer better coverage) and private health insurance companies (starting at a salary 4500 Euros a month or more, and who charge based on health risks such as age, current health, gender, job, etc.) would be a better alternative than the introduction of a completely state run and controlled system, which appears to be what Obama wants to have. Healthcare for all can't come at any costs.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 8:50 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional. I'd like to see how Speaker Pelosi is going to try and pull this off. I guess she's not comfortable enough to put it to a vote. I wonder why? I thought the American people were behind the Triumvirate on this?
Quoting Dreadnought (Thread starter):
They know that the people hate the bill and they no longer have the votes to pass it. The solution: After the nuclear option, we now have the Slaughter Option.

Maybe it would help if you actually read what the plan is, rather than relying on the Fox News version. First of all, the House already voted on and passed the health care bill, back in November as a matter of fact. Second, the proposed rule change (which, by the way, would have to be approved by a vote of the House) would not mean that the House would not vote on the Senate bill. It would merely mean that, rather than taking one vote on the Senate bill as it currently stands and a separate vote on the corrections bill, the House would take one vote on the corrected version of the bill.

http://mediamatters.org/research/201003110037
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:02 pm

Quoting OA412 (Reply 3):
Come now. How could you ever make such a suggestion? We all know that healthcare reform is evil, communist, socialist, and will lead us one step closer to being a carbon copy of the former Soviet Union. I'm already calling everyone I know comrade.

That's the spirit!   

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):
The holocaust is political.

Not in 100% of the cases getting your way is called being the opposition, an unloved but arch-democratic role. Simply learn to deal with it and stop acting like a sore loser.
 
comorin
Posts: 3860
Joined: Sun May 29, 2005 5:52 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:04 pm

The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate. It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

A majority of Americans like the Bill but are afraid of the cost (deficit) impact. Also a lot of money has been spent on misinformation by interest groups. Whether the Bill will actually save money or cause a deficit is anybody's guess, as we are not equipped by nature to look ten years into the future, much less ten days.

Health Care is not going to be an albatross, the only thing that matters to Americans now is Jobs. If the economy picks up, it'll be a moot point.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10910
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:34 pm

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional. I'd like to see how Speaker Pelosi is going to try and pull this off. I guess she's not comfortable enough to put it to a vote. I wonder why? I thought the American people were behind the Triumvirate on this?

She is truly the most evil person I have ever seen. Keep it up Nancy. Your just digging a deeper hole.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate. It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

Which then it has to go to a vote again. Which she doesn't have the votes.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:49 pm

Quoting NIKV69 (Reply 13):
Which then it has to go to a vote again. Which she doesn't have the votes.

And if that's the case, the vote will fail, whether it's separated into two votes (one on the original bill, and a separate vote on the corrections bill) or combined into one vote on the corrected version of the bill. This just isn't a story, sorry.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 9:54 pm

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate.

That's not correct - the same bill has not passed both the House and the Senate. Let's at least be honest in our debate about facts.

The versions are COMPLETELY different. The House passed HR 3962 (Affordable Health Care for America Act). The Senate passed a version of HR 3590 (and amended it in its entirety. Note that HR 3590 was introduced and passed in the House as the "Service Members Home Ownership Tax Act of 2009". Because the Constitution also requires that revenue bills start in the House, the Senate took a prior House bill HR 3590 and amended it giving it the name - the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act). HR3590 as passed in the House has no semblance to what was passed in the Senate.

The US Constitution is quite clear in the Presentment Clause (Article I, Section 7, Clauses 2 and 3) about how bills have to pass. By both houses and then to the President. The Supreme Court has interpreted this to mean that the identical bill must be passed.

There is no ability for the Congress, the President or both acting together to modify the Presentment Clause. Justice Stevens in his decision in Clinton v. NY (striking down the line-item veto act) said:

Quote:
If there is to be a new procedure in which the President (as authorized by Congress in the line-item veto act) will play a different role in determining the final text of what may become a law, such change must come not by legislation but through the amendment procedures set forth in Article V of the Constitution.
Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

Since two different versions of a bill have passed the House and Senate meet in conference to work out the text of single piece of legislation. Each body then has to approve that exact language and once that is done, it is sent to the President for approval or veto.

For all the lefties who ranted about the extraconstitutional actions of the Bush Administration (though few if any federal courts have ever agreed with you) where are you now when the Democratic Congress seeks to simply ignore our Constitution and railroad through legislation in a manner that is completely unconstitutional?
 
EA772LR
Posts: 1285
Joined: Wed Mar 07, 2007 2:18 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:10 pm

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
. Whether the Bill will actually save money or cause a deficit is anybody's guess, as we are not equipped by nature to look ten years into the future, much less ten days.

Oh that makes a lot of sense...  Sounds an awful lot like Nancy Pelosi's bull$hit statement that "we should pass health care so the people can know what's in the bill after the fact...through the 'fog'.." What a arrogant, ignorant statement. I expect nothing less from a woman who's not much more intelligent than my parents' pet fish. In fact, their fish makes more sense than the shit flying out of her and Reid's mouths.
We often judge others by their actions, but ourselves by our intentions.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:10 pm

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 15):
For all the lefties who ranted about the extraconstitutional actions of the Bush Administration (though few if any federal courts have ever agreed with you) where are you now when the Democratic Congress seeks to simply ignore our Constitution and railroad through legislation in a manner that is completely unconstitutional?

Let's see... the House would be voting on the corrected Senate bill, and the Senate would also be voting on the corrected Senate bill. That's unconstitutional... why, exactly?
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:21 pm

Quoting MadameConcorde (Reply 7):

First off, I hope you are feeling better.

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional.

No it's not, especially the way they are contemplating going about it. There are now several Constitutional challenges that this bill will face before it can finally become law, even if the President does get a chance to sign it.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
Maybe it would help if you actually read what the plan is, rather than relying on the Fox News version.

Interesting, you assail the Fox version of probable events (intoning that Fox is wrong because obstensibly it is a conservative outlet) and use a mediamatters description to try an prove your point.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
First of all, the House already voted on and passed the health care bill, back in November as a matter of fact. Second, the proposed rule change (which, by the way, would have to be approved by a vote of the House) would not mean that the House would not vote on the Senate bill. It would merely mean that, rather than taking one vote on the Senate bill as it currently stands and a separate vote on the corrections bill, the House would take one vote on the corrected version of the bill.

First of all the Constitution clearly states:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei#section2

Section 7.
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.


It's pretty simple, the Senate bill did not originate in the House so the House must take a vote on the Senate bill as is. If they make changes to it then the Senate must vote on it again since it is not then the same bill that the members passed. But I say let the House go ahead, that way when the Supreme Court rules that the law of the land, the Constitution, was not followed in the bills passage, it will once and for all be truly dead. Then perhaps the Democrats will seriously sit down and begin to discuss a law that works. Much of what is in the bills is agreeable to both sides, it is the approach taken that is not.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The title is completely misleading. The bill has passed both House and Senate. It's a question of hammering out the differences in 'conference'.

The election of Scott Brown eliminated that option.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
Health Care is not going to be an albatross, the only thing that matters to Americans now is Jobs. If the economy picks up, it'll be a moot point.

I doubt that is going to happen anytime soon. Business leaders have made it plain that they are not willing to go out on a limb and start hiring until the political direction in Washington becomes more clear. Since the democratic leadership insists on spendng virtually every minute of the day on passing this insane bill on health care instead of spending their time working on the economy, which poll after poll says the general public wishes they would do, business leaders have frozen their position and are using temps and OT to fill the gaps for the time being,

Not only does the democratic leadership face serious Constitutional problems in passing this bill the way they are now evidently planning on doing, the mandate faces its own Constitutional challenge. The national democratic leadership also faces Constitutional challenges from the States as at last count 35 of them were moving to pass legislation outlawing mandated purchases of health insurance.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
DfwRevolution
Posts: 8657
Joined: Sat Jan 09, 2010 7:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:33 pm

Quoting LTU932 (Reply 9):
This is also what I don't get. Why do certain democracies (e.g. the US, Costa Rica) allow the issuing of presidential decrees (for passing certain regulations that directly affect the public)? That isn't very democratic to me.

By "decree," I assume you mean executive order.

The U.S. federal government is divided into three branches: the executive, the legislature, and the judiciary.

The legislative branch (Congress) passes laws which are then signed into law by the President (the head of the executive branch). It is the responsibility of the executive branch and all of its departments (defense, treasury, justice, HHS, etc) to implement the policy objective of a law. Often, a law does not completely define how a policy is to be implemented. The President then issues an executive order declaring what is to be done and how. It’s not undemocratic. We elect an executive to do exactly that.

Sometimes an executive order will exceed the scope of powers outlined by Congress or the Constitution and it is the purpose of the judiciary to knock them back.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
Yes, you will all die when more americans can get healthcare.

So healthcare in Canada, UK, etc is just swell? Go ahead and smugly laugh at those who have legitimate objections to the proposed healthcare reform. The countries we should supposedly emulate have done no better job balancing treatment, research, and costs.

Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
It is absolutely not a massive overreaction by a frustrated opposition and insurance corporations fearing for their future profits.


The individual mandate that would make it illegal to not own health insurance - a legal concept which is totally incongruent with the notion of limited government - would be an enormous windfall to the profits of health insurance providers. It is no wonder why health insurance providers have donated to Democratic Congressional campaigns so heavily. This healthcare reform - supposedly for the little guy - is essentially a bailout for the health insurance providers, forever guaranteeing them profits.

What the insurance companies will fight tooth-and-nail is the conservative proposal submitted by Republicans to remove the barriers of selling insurance plans across state lines. This would actually make them compete outside of narrow geographic niches and thus provide better rates/coverage. But gee, we can't have that. We all know that the best products and services are offered by the government or a monopoly.  

[Edited 2010-03-11 14:40:51]
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 10:56 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 17):

Let's see... the House would be voting on the corrected Senate bill, and the Senate would also be voting on the corrected Senate bill. That's unconstitutional... why, exactly?

Did you read the link on the original post? The House would NOT vote on the corrected Senate Bill.

Quote:
House Rules Chairwoman Louise Slaughter is prepping to help usher the healthcare overhaul
through the House and potentially AVOID A DIRECT VOTE [emphasis added] on the Senate overhaul bill, the
chairwoman said Tuesday.

Slaughter is weighing preparing a rule that would consider the Senate bill passed once the
House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Thu Mar 11, 2010 11:57 pm

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 20):
Did you read the link on the original post? The House would NOT vote on the corrected Senate Bill.

The link states that the Senate bill would be considered "passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version." The House would clearly be voting on the corrected Senate bill. If they reject the corrections, they reject the entire bill as well.

Here's the non-sensationalized version of what's going on. To get around having lost the 60th vote in the Senate, which would be needed to pass a revised version of the HCR bill coming out of conference, the Dems plan to have the House vote to approve the current Senate bill. Of course, there are a number of elements of the Senate plan which House Dems dislike - these points would have been hammered out in conference, but with that option taken away, the new plan is to institute the necessary changes through reconciliation. There's one problem with this plan, which is that it requires House Dems to vote in favor of the Senate plan without knowing for sure that the Senate will approve the necessary edits. Hence this proposed idea - have the House vote only on the corrections, and state that a yes vote on the corrections will implicitly assume approval of the underlying bill as well. That way, if the Senate doesn't pass the corrections, the House can say that it never voted for the uncorrected bill.

It's not clear to me, though, what would happen if the House passed the corrections bill but the Senate did not. Either the two bodies have now not voted on the same law, so it doesn't take effect, or (because the vote on the corrections bill presumes a vote on the uncorrected bill), the uncorrected version would take effect, having been approved explicitly by the Senate and implicitly by the House.

http://www.slate.com/id/2247472/

This is actually already done in the House - it's how they "vote" to approve increases in the federal debt limit. Under the "Gephardt Rule," voting aye on a budget invoking an increased debt limit is also taken as a vote in favor of a resolution explicitly increasing the limit.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:04 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
passed the health care bill

Passed a health care bill, not this one.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
The bill has passed both House and Senate.

See above. A seperate bill passed each chamber. The bills (plural) have yet to go to conference. This is the step the Triumvirate wishes to avoid.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
It would merely mean that, rather than taking one vote on the Senate bill as it currently stands and a separate vote on the corrections bill, the House would take one vote on the corrected version of the bill.

The House MUST vote on the Senate bill, as-is, no changes, no corrections or enhancements. If it passes in this state, then the bill would go to The President to sign. Then, and only then, can The Senate work it out through reconcilliation. There can be no bill of reconcilliation until The President signs this thing. The House will not get a second vote. So, Speaker Pelosi has to trust that Leader Reid will put all the things that she is promising to her minions.

Quoting comorin (Reply 12):
Health Care is not going to be an albatross, the only thing that matters to Americans now is Jobs. If the economy picks up, it'll be a moot point.

Really? If this thing passes, every encumbant will have to face it in November. Especially, if unemployment climbs into the teens (wait, we're already in the teens, aren't we? Wasn't Stimulus supoosed to deal with that?, but I digress). This bill spends too much money at a time when the government can not afford it.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 12:43 am

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 22):
The House MUST vote on the Senate bill, as-is, no changes, no corrections or enhancements. If it passes in this state, then the bill would go to The President to sign. Then, and only then, can The Senate work it out through reconcilliation. There can be no bill of reconcilliation until The President signs this thing. The House will not get a second vote.

You're almost certainly correct. It seems to me that this is more of a political CYA move than anything else. For quite a lot of Democratic representatives in potential swing districts, the politically optimal outcome is that they individually vote against the reform plan, but that the House as a whole passes the plan. That way, their vote isn't held against them by conservatives and right-leaning moderates, but the Dems get their base-energizing major legislative accomplishment for the term. If the House votes to adopt a rule stating that approval of the corrections bill also constitutes approval of the baseline bill, then nervous representatives can move the bill towards passage while still telling their constituents that they didn't vote in favor of the icky Senate bill with its Cornhusker Kickbacks and weaker defunding of abortion. Of course, that claim would only be true in a technical sense, but those distinctions tend to be easy to gloss over in the current media climate.
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:03 am

Quoting OA412 (Reply 6):
We all know what allegory is. I still contend that this does not rise to the level of "holocaust".

Just wait until November, if this thing passes.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
Maybe it would help if you actually read what the plan is, rather than relying on the Fox News version.

Ummm... the report was not from Fox

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 10):
First of all, the House already voted on and passed the health care bill, back in November as a matter of fact.

Different bill, different vote.

It looks like this attempt to circumvent the Constitution has been killed.

Quote:
The Senate Parliamentarian has ruled that President Barack Obama must sign Congress’ original health care reform bill before the Senate can act on a companion reconciliation package, senior GOP sources said Thursday.

The Senate Parliamentarian’s Office was responding to questions posed by the Republican leadership. The answers were provided verbally, sources said.
http://cdn.rollcall.com/media/44110-1.html
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:10 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):

The link states that the Senate bill would be considered "passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version." The House would clearly be voting on the corrected Senate bill. If they reject the corrections, they reject the entire bill as well.

Sorry son but the Constitution doesn't allow this. Never has. Never will. Even the Democratic Senate Parliamentarian agrees that it's unconstitutional.

Heck. It's so clearly unconstitutional, that I hope they do it. Shoot their load. Take the heat in November. Then have the first court who gets the case overturn it on Presentment Clause grounds.
 
User avatar
OA412
Crew
Posts: 3859
Joined: Thu Dec 28, 2000 6:22 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:28 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24):
Just wait until November, if this thing passes

Whoopee. And we'll get a Republican majority (i.e. more of the same). You know what I'd like to see in this country? Real change, not the same stale political parties that are beholden to their special interests. How lovely would it be if one or both of the parties in this country grew a pair and actually decided to do what was best for the people of this country? Now that would be something to look forward to come November.
Hughes Airwest - Top Banana In The West
 
User avatar
DocLightning
Posts: 20154
Joined: Wed Nov 16, 2005 8:51 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:36 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 5):

- The huge cost, at a time when our budget is already stretched beyond the breaking point with unfunded liabilities. Even with 10 years of revenue and 6 of spending, it's still upside-down.

You keep talking about cost except the GAO and several independent sources have all said that it will reduce the deficit.
-Doc Lightning-

"The sky calls to us. If we do not destroy ourselves, we will one day venture to the stars."
-Carl Sagan
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:37 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):
The link states that the Senate bill would be considered "passed once the House approves a corrections bill that would make changes to the Senate version." The House would clearly be voting on the corrected Senate bill. If they reject the corrections, they reject the entire bill as well.

Again, that bill did not originate in the House, it clearly contains revenue raising features, and so is unconstitutional unless the House takes the bill, makes it their own, and passes that on a vote, then sends it to the Senate.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):
Here's the non-sensationalized version of what's going on. To get around having lost the 60th vote in the Senate, which would be needed to pass a revised version of the HCR bill coming out of conference

That is incorrect. Reconciliation was intended to get around the 60 vote super majority, and that was reserved for budgetary changes, until now when desperation has set in.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):
and state that a yes vote on the corrections will implicitly assume approval of the underlying bill as well.

It's still the Senates bill, and contains revenue raising.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 21):
This is actually already done in the House - it's how they "vote" to approve increases in the federal debt limit. Under the "Gephardt Rule," voting aye on a budget invoking an increased debt limit is also taken as a vote in favor of a resolution explicitly increasing the limit.

But the raising of the debt limit is in the bill In this case they are only voting on the corrections and then sending to the Senate to be passed. There is never a vote on the bill itself. That is unconstitutional.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:43 am

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24):
Ummm... the report was not from Fox

The misinterpretation and/or distortion of the report was, however.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 24):
It looks like this attempt to circumvent the Constitution has been killed.
Quoting GatorFan (Reply 25):
Sorry son but the Constitution doesn't allow this. Never has. Never will.

I think you two are still missing the point of what's going on here. The chain of events would go something like this.

1) House votes on proposed rule change.

If rule change does not pass...

2) House votes directly on original Senate bill.
3) President signs bill as approved by Senate and House.
4) House and Senate take up corrections bill.

If rule change does pass...

2) House votes directly on corrections bill; approval of the corrections bill, by rule change, entails implicit approval of original Senate bill, but lets Representatives say they didn't vote yes on the original bill.
3) President signs bill as approved by Senate and (implicitly) by House.
4) Senate takes up corrections bill as already passed by House.

The original goal, I think, was for Obama to hold off on signing the Senate bill until the reconciliation bill had also been passed, but that idea was shot down by the Senate parliamentarian. The House was still going to have to pass the original bill first, but Dem leaders hoped it wouldn't have to be signed into law prior to reconciliation.

http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/8...-bar-for-passing-healthcare-reform
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:33 am

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 29):
The House was still going to have to pass the original bill first, but Dem leaders hoped it wouldn't have to be signed into law prior to reconciliation.

And in order for Speaker Pelosi to get the votes she needs, she will have to trust that Leader Reid can cajole or strong-arm his minions to make the changes that the Speaker has promised. I think too many of the 'swing representatives' have been around Washington too long to buy into that little deal.

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
You keep talking about cost except the GAO and several independent sources have all said that it will reduce the deficit.

Source? Everything I've seen says increase in spending. Except for the President's 'bill'; that was, as I recall, too vague to score.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:37 am

Quoting DocLightning (Reply 27):
You keep talking about cost except the GAO and several independent sources have all said that it will reduce the deficit.

By increasing taxes by a 950 billion dollars and increasing spending by (if you believe them, which I do not) by about 100 billion less than that.

That means, in approximate numbers, $95 billion per year in new taxes, and $140 billion in new expenditures - not counting inflation.

Now explain to me again how this will reduce the deficit, apart from the one-time slight of hand of having 4 extra years of revenue.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 29):
The misinterpretation and/or distortion of the report was, however

How could that be, if I picked up the report from a non-fox site and had not seen anything on this story on Fox?

Your prejudice is showing. Do I accuse you of being a brainless sycophant for Obama talking points?
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
Ken777
Posts: 9103
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:18 am

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 4):
Doesn't it make more sense to enact each component separately so that substantive evaluation and debate can take place for each issue rather than this kind of cacophony of debate that never seems to nail down on one single point?

No, not really.

The Republicans are going to stall any bill, be it a full bill or a baby step.

And the issue of debate doesn't fly any more. There have been years of debates and discussions. There has been an election where health care reform was a top topic. And, as McCain said during the campaign, elections have consequences.

Quoting AirStairs (Reply 4):
And doesn't it make sense to enact measures incrementally so that we can tell what works and what doesn't?

It's giong to be years before a clear picture develops. Pre-existing discrimination ends and I can see the insurance companies and employers pushing for public options to "keep premiums down". There is also the issue of some explosive premium increases this year. How would you fix the problems of a 39% increase in California if you were elected as a conservative congressman who wanted to get re-elected?

Quoting fr8mech (Reply 8):
No, it's not Constitutional.

That may be up to the Supreme Court to determine, IF the conservatives push it. Odds are, however, that a push towards a legal review will also bring forth the public option as a "legal alternative". Then the liberals will be able to tell the conservatives that they had their chance to avoid a public option.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 31):
Now explain to me again how this will reduce the deficit, apart from the one-time slight of hand of having 4 extra years of revenue.

Let's start with the elimination of the 15% excess costs for Medicare Advantage. Why are conservatives so intense in keeping this surcharge in place? Conservatives traditionally believe that private insurance can do the job better than government - why does it cost 15% MORE for private industry to do the job?

And then there is fraud, which is going to demand more investigative and system funding =- along with some empty prison cells. Senator Corburn, the conservative MD/Republican, put that at the top of the list at the start of the Health Summit. Supposed to be a $100 Billion a year issue.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:29 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
Let's start with the elimination of the 15% excess costs for Medicare Advantage. Why are conservatives so intense in keeping this surcharge in place? Conservatives traditionally believe that private insurance can do the job better than government - why does it cost 15% MORE for private industry to do the job?

Compared to what - Medicare/Medicaid? Could it have anything to do with the fact that government programs severely underpay the medical providers, to the point that doctors are increasingly reluctant to service medicare patients? I'm no expert but if that is the case, Medicare Advantage still does damn well. On top of that, the customers are happy with it.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
Klaus
Posts: 20649
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 7:41 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 8:35 am

Quoting DfwRevolution (Reply 19):
Quoting Klaus (Reply 1):
Yes, you will all die when more americans can get healthcare.

So healthcare in Canada, UK, etc is just swell? Go ahead and smugly laugh at those who have legitimate objections to the proposed healthcare reform. The countries we should supposedly emulate have done no better job balancing treatment, research, and costs.

Providing decent general health care instead of letting poorer people fall through all the way until they hit emergency care rock bottom is a matter of human dignity. And yes, the countries which have it are the better for it. The USA look like a third-world country by comparison.
 
tcrew
Posts: 9
Joined: Fri Jan 01, 2010 8:49 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:22 am

It seems that in the 14 months since health care reform has been re-introduced the basic tenets of what is actually occuring has been lost in the cloud of politics and information overload.

President Obama has forged healthcare reform to the forefront. He will own this, good or bad. Republicans, in the minority, have been forced to respond to the Democrats introduction of reforms. Would we be debating the best way to reform healthcare right now if Senator McCain had won in 2008? In reality, all they really need to do is propose enough reforms of their own that make it appear their oppositions reforms are unneccessary, thus preventing passage of any bill. They are well aware that passage of a democratic bill that is successful would surely secure their minority position for the foreseeable future. Be wary of the one who decries the proposed reform when they spent numerous recent years in the majority passing 2 tax cut plans, a war in Iraq and Medicare prescription reform which all added TRILLIONS to the deficit with no plan to recoup the lost money. Was it impossible while spending all of that money last decade to enact the Republican proposed healthcare reforms, which would have REDUCED the deficit? On the other hand, do not bemoan those same Republicans for utilizing the tactics provided by law to slow down reform. Our government (and citizens for that matter) is averse to change of any kind, even if it can possibly benefit them. And our laws allow for the process to proceed slowly; 14 months and counting for the current round. There are also the tactics which allow the overcoming of the process-dragging procedures. Both sides have been the majority and minority and used tactics on both sides to their advantage. No reason to start arguing their suitability, just because your side is targeted by it now.

Some facts:
Tens of millions of citizens are uninsured, millions more are underinsured. These are not free-loaders gaming the system nor are they Warren Buffetts paying cash for transplant procedures. They are working (or possibly not working with todays economy) people just trying to live a life.

We exist in a country where insurance on the whole is attached to your employment and buffetted by tax breaks. Many do not see the true cost of health care insurance and are severely limited in their employment mobility.

Healthcare costs are in a world of their own with regard to year over year increases.

Any given average citizen is one health problem away from a financially ruined life, WITH insurance.

Pre-existing conditions do give you a scarlett letter.

Insurance companies are for-profit companies. They are in the business of making money, not saving lives. I do not demonize them for this, that is what they are established to do. They are profitable by selling insurance plans that are never needed (thankfully) and claimants who are denied (whether legit or wrongfully).

If you find no love for the current President, at least admire him for bringing this debate forward. And remember... laws can be rewritten and amended, unconstitutional actions/infringements can be rectified, pols can be voted out of office, and majorities can be lost. The great thing about our country is that it is fundmentally fluid, yet painfully rigid. We have a Democratic majority. Don't be surprised that they have brought forward a Democratic proposal for reform.
TCrew
 
fr8mech
Posts: 6719
Joined: Mon Sep 26, 2005 9:00 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:29 am

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
That may be up to the Supreme Court to determine, IF the conservatives push it. Odds are, however, that a push towards a legal review will also bring forth the public option as a "legal alternative". Then the liberals will be able to tell the conservatives that they had their chance to avoid a public option.

It wouldn't take a Conservative to push, just a citizen who has suddenly been required by his government to pay for health insurance that he doesn't want and feels he doesn't need.

The 'legal alternative' of which you speak is no better. Everyone is still forced to pay, under penalty of law.

But, it wouldn't get that far. The Parlementarian has already ruled. It looks like Speaker Pelosi will have to convince her folks that she has gotten everything they want from Leader Reid. And, I don't think she can convince enough folks in The House to put away their healthy dis-trust that The Senate will make the 'corrections' The House wants. Why should it? The Senate has already passed a bill they like.
When seconds count...the police are minutes away.
 
CaliAtenza
Posts: 1631
Joined: Mon Dec 25, 2006 1:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 11:51 am

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):

In the whole time we've debated this topic on this forum, finally one rational, well thought out post comes out  Wow!  
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 1:46 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 29):
I think you two are still missing the point of what's going on here. The chain of events would go something like this

I understand exactly what the point is. I've actually worked on the Hill so I have a pretty good understanding of the process.

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 29):
If rule change does pass...

2) House votes directly on corrections bill; approval of the corrections bill, by rule change, entails implicit approval of original Senate bill, but lets Representatives say they didn't vote yes on the original bill.
3) President signs bill as approved by Senate and (implicitly) by House.
4) Senate takes up corrections bill as already passed by House.

THIS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
 
NIKV69
Posts: 10910
Joined: Wed Jan 28, 2004 4:27 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:13 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 32):
The Republicans are going to stall any bill, be it a full bill or a baby step.

The Republicans can't stop anything. Why do you insist on blaming the GOP for all your failings? The DNC does not need anyone to pass anything they want. Pelosi doesn't have the votes in the house. Has nothing to do with the GOP. I can't believe how you drone on about the GOP when the country and probably a third of the DNC doesn't even want this. Can we stop with the MSNBC propaganda just once?

Quoting CaliAtenza (Reply 37):
In the whole time we've debated this topic on this forum, finally one rational, well thought out post comes out

Especially about the part about tax breaks and employers.
Hey that guy with the private jet can bail us out! Why? HE CAN AFFORD IT!
 
Yellowstone
Posts: 2821
Joined: Wed Aug 16, 2006 3:32 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:35 pm

Quoting GatorFan (Reply 38):
THIS WOULD BE UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

I'm still not understanding why you think this is the case. I gave you the example of the Gephardt Rule, by which the House never takes direct votes on increasing the federal debt limit. Instead, a vote on the budget as a whole is taken to imply a vote in favor of whatever debt limit the budget invokes, so a concurrent resolution on increasing the debt limit is assumed to have passed by the same margin as the budget. This has not been struck down, and it's been there for a while. Why is this different from the current proposal, where a vote on the corrections bill would be taken as an implied vote on the original bill as well?
Hydrogen is an odorless, colorless gas which, given enough time, turns into people.
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:44 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 40):
I'm still not understanding why you think this is the case. I gave you the example of the Gephardt Rule, by which the House never takes direct votes on increasing the federal debt limit. Instead, a vote on the budget as a whole is taken to imply a vote in favor of whatever debt limit the budget invokes, so a concurrent resolution on increasing the debt limit is assumed to have passed by the same margin as the budget. This has not been struck down, and it's been there for a while. Why is this different from the current proposal, where a vote on the corrections bill would be taken as an implied vote on the original bill as well?

Read the scholarly work in the Gephardt rule and you'll see that most Constitutional scholars question its validity. The problem is finding someone who has standing to sue.
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:45 pm

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Republicans, in the minority, have been forced to respond to the Democrats introduction of reforms. Would we be debating the best way to reform healthcare right now if Senator McCain had won in 2008? In reality, all they really need to do is propose enough reforms of their own that make it appear their oppositions reforms are unneccessary, thus preventing passage of any bill.

Most Republicans recognize the need for reform, but 1) Respect a bit more the concept of Constitutional limits, and 2) want to take a more incremental approach, implementing reforms that take little or no money to implement first. It does not cost the government anything to outlaw pre-existing condition limitations (on what exactly?), or to ensure that insurance coverage cannot throw you out after you've become sick. Many things can be done which will not require tax increases or massive increases in government spending.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
They are well aware that passage of a democratic bill that is successful would surely secure their minority position for the foreseeable future.

The way things are going, it would ensure the minority status of the Democrats come November. The people do not want this bill.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Our government (and citizens for that matter) is averse to change of any kind, even if it can possibly benefit them. And our laws allow for the process to proceed slowly; 14 months and counting for the current round.

Welfare Reform, a topic which was also the subject of over a decade of heated arguments, was passed in only 2-3 months, and in the end had bipartisan support.

And yes, the government SHOULD be averse to change. Our Constitution was specifically designed to constrain the government from getting involved in our lives. We do not want a nanny state. We want a government that provides a safety net for the most needy, defends our borders and supplies needed infrastructure and rules.

We want the Constitution to be obeyed, even if it has to be amended by the proscribed process. No president has the power to fire the CEO of a private corporation. There is no authority to take over a car company & blow off the stock holders & hand the keys to the UAW. There is no company who is too big to fail. There is no debt that can be resolved by borrowing more money to become solvent. There is no such thing as zero consequences for reckless deficit spending and printing trillions of dollars of freshly minted paper, with nothing to back it up but more debt to China (or worse yet, to the Fed). Capitalism is not a bad thing, our country has grown & prospered because of it. The quickest way to kill our economy is to insist on policies of “equality” which really mean redistribution of wealth. There is no constitutional mandate to require citizens to purchase any good or service simply because they are citizens. There is no country on this planet with open borders. There is no sense in pushing “climate” legislation based on junk science. There is no morality in using executive orders to bypass congress to allow the EPA to set restrictive economically stifling rules about carbon emissions. The is no logic in designating carbon dioxide, the gas we breathe out of our own bodies with every single breath as hazardous!! It is insanity for our own government to power grab our lands and waterways and to refuse to allow our own abundant gas & oil reserves to be explored and used responsibly for our own country’s welfare, while we are simultaneously loaning Brazil billions of our tax dollars to drill for oil in their country. And to turn a blind eye to Islamic extremism even in our own military, just for “political correctness” is one of the stupidest things in the 21st century, to be sure. And it is nothing but tyranny to hear that our own government is contemplating taking over our private IRAs & savings “for our own good” because we must be too stupid to manage our own money. If you are not outraged then you are not paying attention!!!

OK, rant over
Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):

Tens of millions of citizens are uninsured, millions more are underinsured. These are not free-loaders gaming the system nor are they Warren Buffetts paying cash for transplant procedures. They are working (or possibly not working with todays economy) people just trying to live a life

Well, not quite. About half the uninsured don't want insurance. They are young, feel invincible and don't want to shell out money every month. Short-sighted, absolutely. But the Federal government has no authority to require them to buy insurance (the state governments do, however).

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
We exist in a country where insurance on the whole is attached to your employment and buffetted by tax breaks. Many do not see the true cost of health care insurance and are severely limited in their employment mobility

Which should be a big reason why you should be opposing Obamacare. We should be eliminating the employer/health care relationship and instead Obama seeks to strengthen it.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Healthcare costs are in a world of their own with regard to year over year increases

Another reason to oppose Obamacare. The source of the increases in the cost of health insurance is not increasing profit margins in the insurance industry, which are not high, but rather the increasing costs of the underlying health care. Hospitals, doctors, medical suppliers are inflating their prices. Obamacare does nothing to address that. In fact, it's doing the reverse, imposing new taxes on these providers which will necessarily be passed on to the insurance companies, who will justifiably pass it down to you and me. Dick Durban admitted that this bill will do nothing to lower the cost of health care.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Any given average citizen is one health problem away from a financially ruined life, WITH insurance.

Pre-existing conditions do give you a scarlett letter

No argument - those things need to be addressed. But it doesn't cost a trillion dollars to do it.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Insurance companies are for-profit companies. They are in the business of making money, not saving lives. I do not demonize them for this, that is what they are established to do. They are profitable by selling insurance plans that are never needed (thankfully) and claimants who are denied (whether legit or wrongfully)

But their profit margins are only one tenth of the profit margins of the health care providers and suppliers. Why pick on them and not do anything about where the real money is?

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
If you find no love for the current President, at least admire him for bringing this debate forward.

He brought the debate forward, but I think that even if McCain or Mr. Gumby had won in 2008, the debate would be happening. In the past few years the cost of health care has gone from worrisome to nuts, with family plans costing over $1000 per month - No way would there not be a debate about it by now.

[Edited 2010-03-12 06:48:50]
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 2:53 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 42):
want to take a more incremental approach, implementing reforms that take little or no money to implement first.

I definitely appreciate the merits of this approach, but from a practical standpoint - if you go one step at a time, how long will it take? Will Washington be able to do anything else for years and years? It will never end, and nothing would get solved. You give Washington WAY to much credit.

Also, you have to admit that there is some opposition for no other reason than political gain. You must see that.
Step into my office, baby
 
gatorfan
Posts: 305
Joined: Mon Oct 12, 2009 9:43 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:00 pm

Quoting Yellowstone (Reply 40):
I gave you the example of the Gephardt Rule

You might be interested to see what Sen. Byrd (D-WV) had to say about the Gephardt Rule:

From the March 21, 1995 Congressional Record:

Starting on the 3rd Column of Page 34 of the attached pdf.

http://0-www.gpo.gov.library.colby.e...-21/pdf/CREC-1995-03-21-senate.pdf

Quote:

Now, the distinguished Senator refers
to the Gephardt rule. The Gephardt
rule has never been adjudicated by the
courts. We do not know how the courts
would hold on the Gephardt rule.
Furthermore, I might suggest that if
we can deem, in the words of the
amendment that has been offered by
Mr. DOLE, if we can deem, and I read
the language therefrom, ‘‘a measure
enrolled pursuant to paragraph one of
subsection (A) with respect to an item
shall be deemed to be a bill under
clauses 2 and 3 of section 7 of article I.
Quote:
Neither House can create a rule that
would in itself, violate the Constitution
of the United States, or supervene
it, or take precedence over it. All rules
of the House and Senate—even though
the House and Senate are given the
power and authority under article I,
section 5, to determine the rules of—all
Senate and House rules must fall if inconsistent
with the Constitution of the
United States.
Now, if a bill enrolled pursuant to
paragraph 1 of subsection (A) with respect
to this item shall be deemed to be
a bill, if one of these little ‘‘billettes’’
may be deemed to be a bill, if the Constitution
said ‘‘Every bill which shall
have passed the House of Representatives
and the Senate, shall, before it
becomes a law, be presented to the
President of the United States’’; if we
can deem that and thereby avoid the
requirements of the Constitution, I
wonder if we might not just deem an
appropriation bill that passes the
House of Representatives, just deem
that it has passed the Senate?
Any appropriation bill that passes
the House, why not just deem it to
have passed the Senate and go home? It
would seem to me to be just as appropriate
to deem an appropriations bill
that has passed the House, deem it as
having passed the Senate, as to deem
the section or a paragraph or an item
in the appropriations bill, deem that to
be a bill.
 
dxing
Posts: 5859
Joined: Wed Nov 12, 2008 5:14 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:08 pm

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
President Obama has forged healthcare reform to the forefront. He will own this, good or bad.

That much is true. The rest of that paragraph totally omitts the reforms that the GOP was pushing for years when it was in the majority. At that time though it was the democrats that blocked any real reform since at that time it was single payer government run or nothing. Never did the GOP have a 60 seat majority in the Senate to bring a cloture vote to the floor. In politics you fight the battles you know you can win. Health care reform was a dead end as long as the GOP was in charge and the democrats were going to make sure of that.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Tens of millions of citizens are uninsured, millions more are underinsured. These are not free-loaders gaming the system nor are they Warren Buffetts paying cash for transplant procedures. They are working (or possibly not working with todays economy) people just trying to live a life.

And many things could have been done to help them out but again, it was single payer or nothing as introduced every year by Rep. Dingell of MI. The democrats were, and still are not, interested in market reform, only government take over. They've been wholesale against cross state line sales to insure portability, tort reform to reduced the cost of defensive medicine, and tax credits to aid lower middle income families in the purchase of insurance.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
We exist in a country where insurance on the whole is attached to your employment and buffetted by tax breaks. Many do not see the true cost of health care insurance and are severely limited in their employment mobility.

Which cross state line sales would aleviate and yet this administration is still staunchly against that.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Healthcare costs are in a world of their own with regard to year over year increases.

Of which the health insurance industry has little to say about.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Any given average citizen is one health problem away from a financially ruined life, WITH insurance.

Save the emotion. Any citizen is but one step away from a major, life changing event. There is no way to insure that everyone has a happy, healthy, no worry free life and it's a fools game to promote that.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Pre-existing conditions do give you a scarlett letter.

Which is why the GOP has been in ageement for years that it should be part of a reform package. Since that package did not include single payer government run, it was a non-starter for the democrats.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Insurance companies are for-profit companies. They are in the business of making money, not saving lives. I do not demonize them for this, that is what they are established to do. They are profitable by selling insurance plans that are never needed (thankfully) and claimants who are denied (whether legit or wrongfully).

What good does it do for an insurance company to routinely deny even a large minority of claims? Word will spread that they don't pay and they will lose business. The only documentation available shows the federal government, through medicare, to be the largest denier of payment of all insurance orginizations, yet some how that will change if they are included in some sort of public option?

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
If you find no love for the current President, at least admire him for bringing this debate forward. And remember... laws can be rewritten and amended, unconstitutional actions/infringements can be rectified, pols can be voted out of office, and majorities can be lost.

The debate was only brought forward as far as it has been because of the democratic 60 seat majority in the Senate. Since Browns election anyone would have to admit the drive has stalled. Now only very questionable palimentary procedures can be used to continue the bills progress. As to laws being rewritten, that is the problem with legislation this massive. Undoing it can be just a ticky as getting it started. On top of that without a clear 60 seat majority in the Senate, the democratic party will fillibuster any attempt to undo any part of it. Once it passes we are stuck with it until the country falls into bankruptcy.

Quoting TCrew (Reply 35):
Don't be surprised that they have brought forward a Democratic proposal for reform.

Yet they seem to be surprised that once the legislation is proposed, the citizens have said time and time again that this is not the proposal that works for them. Yet not surprised enough to stop and rework it so it is agreeable to the electorate.
Warm winds blowing, heating blue skies, a road that goes forever, I'm going to Texas!
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:14 pm

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
I definitely appreciate the merits of this approach, but from a practical standpoint - if you go one step at a time, how long will it take? Will Washington be able to do anything else for years and years? It will never end, and nothing would get solved. You give Washington WAY to much credit

Obamacare isn't due to be implemented for another 4 years. My way is faster. Smaller changes, implemented within 6-12 months. And let's not forget the price tag on Obamacare - $1 trillion in the first 10 years (with only 6 years of coverage), and closer to $2.5 trillion in the following 10 years. Anything is better than that.

I would also remind you that the cost of health care has risen in direct proportion to how heavily involved in the industry the federal government got over time. How can you overlook that bit of empirical evidence?

If your car is burning too much oil and gas, do you immediately send it to the junkyard and buy a new car, or do you try replacing a few gaskets first?

Quoting mt99 (Reply 43):
Also, you have to admit that there is some opposition for no other reason than political gain. You must see that


I suppose you may be right. I can't think of any Republicans who are like that, but I suppose there might be a few out there, just as you had a lot of Democrats who opposed everything that Bush did, but now do the same.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
Ken777
Posts: 9103
Joined: Thu Mar 11, 2004 5:39 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 3:52 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
Could it have anything to do with the fact that government programs severely underpay the medical providers, to the point that doctors are increasingly reluctant to service medicare patients?

Look at some of the providers' bills and see how high they are jacked up. CNN had a great story on the $1,000 toothbrush:

http://www.cnn.com/video/data/2.0/vi...1/cohen.health.care.bills.cnn.html

Take a look at it as there is more than the toothbrush. Also note the comment that insurance companies don't look at bills under $100,000 very closely. They just take their standard discount and send the check.

Medicare is a bit different. They focus on the costs of a treatment, medication or test. They are going to severely underpay on that toothbrush.

Some doctors I know limit Medicare patients to a percentage of the practice. The dermatologist I go to still takes us, but one of his partners has his limit. So his partners get the new ones.

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 33):
Medicare Advantage still does damn well. On top of that, the customers are happy with it.

So we should increase Medicare taxes 15% so everyone on Medicare can have gym memberships? You can have any health program working damn well if you pour the money into it,
 
User avatar
Dreadnought
Topic Author
Posts: 9942
Joined: Tue Feb 19, 2008 6:31 pm

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:09 pm

Quoting Ken777 (Reply 47):
Take a look at it as there is more than the toothbrush. Also note the comment that insurance companies don't look at bills under $100,000 very closely. They just take their standard discount and send the check.

Exactly what I pointed out above. In all the attempts to demonize those evil insurance companies, which only makes roughly 3.5% profit margin on average, Obamacare does not do anything about the outrageous overcharging going on by the health care providers - the main driver of skyrocketing costs.

By the way, I'm curious about one thing. Everyone talks about Healthcare being a sixth of our economy. Is that based on the gross invoicing before discounts, or net of discounts? I have a hard time believing that it is Net.
You have enemies? Good. That means you've stood up for something, sometime in your life. - W. Churchill
 
mt99
Posts: 6166
Joined: Wed May 26, 1999 5:41 am

RE: House To Pass Health Care Without Voting

Fri Mar 12, 2010 4:17 pm

Quoting Dreadnought (Reply 46):
If your car is burning too much oil and gas, do you immediately send it to the junkyard and buy a new car, or do you try replacing a few gaskets first?

Do you really think that the system is just itsy-bit broken?
Step into my office, baby

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: aerlingus747, Aesma, KLDC10 and 11 guests

Popular Searches On Airliners.net

Top Photos of Last:   24 Hours  •  48 Hours  •  7 Days  •  30 Days  •  180 Days  •  365 Days  •  All Time

Military Aircraft Every type from fighters to helicopters from air forces around the globe

Classic Airliners Props and jets from the good old days

Flight Decks Views from inside the cockpit

Aircraft Cabins Passenger cabin shots showing seat arrangements as well as cargo aircraft interior

Cargo Aircraft Pictures of great freighter aircraft

Government Aircraft Aircraft flying government officials

Helicopters Our large helicopter section. Both military and civil versions

Blimps / Airships Everything from the Goodyear blimp to the Zeppelin

Night Photos Beautiful shots taken while the sun is below the horizon

Accidents Accident, incident and crash related photos

Air to Air Photos taken by airborne photographers of airborne aircraft

Special Paint Schemes Aircraft painted in beautiful and original liveries

Airport Overviews Airport overviews from the air or ground

Tails and Winglets Tail and Winglet closeups with beautiful airline logos