• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle

The Prof said:
this, from the careful constitutionalist who thinks it requires but a simple majority of 51 to END DEBATE

LOL!
Click to expand...

Just a side note - there's nothing in the Constitution about cloture or filibusters or 60 votes or any of that. It's just Senate rules.
 
underdog334 said:
Seniors who can't afford the supplement will need bankruptsy.
Click to expand...


It won't be as easy as that since the Republican controlled Congress passed the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005.

Actually the bill should have been called the Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and BUSINESS PROTECTION Act of 2005 since it addressed Chapter 7 and 13 bankruptcy (individuals/consumer), but curiously didn't touch Chapter 11 (business).

Anyway, the Democrats proposed 10 amendments to the bankruptcy bill. All were rejected by EVERY Republican Senator. Funny there were no talks about working across the aisle at that time, but I guess when you're the majority, minor inconveniences like that are of no concern.


Here are four that addressed medical bankruptcy concerns.

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 32
Corzine Amdt. No. 32; To preserve existing bankruptcy protections for individuals experiencing economic distress as caregivers to ill or disabled family members.

REJECTED. ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 28
Kennedy Amdt. No. 28.; To exempt debtors whose financial problems were caused by serious medical problems from means testing.

REJECTED. ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 29
Kennedy Amdt. No. 29; To provide protection for medical debt homeowners.

REJECTED. ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST

On the Amendment S.Amdt. 17
Feingold Amdt. No. 17.; To provide a homestead floor for the elderly.
(This was to insure that the elderly would not lose their home if they had to file for bankruptcy for such things as medical debts)

REJECTED. ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST


While we're here, at the height of the Afgan and Iraq conflicts, the democrats also proposed an amendment to that bill directed at our servicemen and women. This was to help protect our servicemen and women and their families financially from predator lenders primarily while they were out of country in our service.


On the Amendment S.Amdt. 16
Durbin Amdt. No. 16, As Modified.; To protect service members and veterans from means testing in bankruptcy, to disallow certain claims by lenders charging usurious interest rates to servicemembers, and to allow servicemembers to exempt property based on the law of the State of their premilitary residence.

REJECTED. ALL REPUBLICANS VOTED AGAINST

Support The Troops!!!
 
Wasn't this vote in the Senate essentially a procedural vote for or against holding a full debate in the Senate on their version of the health care reform legistlation that has clearned all Senate subcommittees?

If so, I can think of only one reason why Senate Republicans wouldn't want this proposed bill out on the Senate floor: Voting against a floor debate would have killed any and all discussions from the Senate on health care legistlation. PERIOD.

Seeing the "0" vote in both the House and the Senate by Republicans speaks volumns, IMO. They'll do whatever it take to kill any proposed legistlation on health care reform that isn't their own. I doubt the Republicans really believe the narrative they've put before the American people: 1) that "everyone (in Congress) believes health care reform is necessary", and 2) that they believe there is a better way to bring about health care reform other than what has already been proposed by the opposition.

My take on the matter is very clear: If Republicans truly believe their own narrative why would they be so afraid to just sit down and discuss the proposal placed before them? And if they have such grand ideas on better ways to bring about health care reform, why not bring those ideas to the table at this stage of the game - ideals that are far different than those that have already been proposed?

When you get past all the white noise out there, all the rhetoric, all the talking points, both sides have suggested making very similar changes to the health care system. They may have different ways of going about them, but they're proposing nearly identical changes. So, to not want to merely talk about it makes no sense to me except to confirm that Congressional Republicans do have an agenda: to do nothing except let the Dems take the fall on this issue should health care reform fail. This has been a power grab from the very beginning, nothing more...nothing less.
 
Last edited:
tell it to lieberman, nelson, bayh, landrieu, lincoln, pryor, dorgan...

tell it to the dogs, freshmen, dem gubs, catholics...
 
Objective Voice said:
Wasn't this vote in the Senate essentially a procedural vote for or against holding a full debate in the Senate on their version of the health care reform legistlation that has clearned all Senate subcommittees?
Click to expand...

Yes.

If so, I can think of only one reason why Senate Republicans wouldn't want this proposed bill out on the Senate floor: Voting against a floor debate would have killed any and all discussions from the Senate on health care legistlation. PERIOD.
Click to expand...

Yes.
 
STILL not a word from the Apologist's apologists about THE BILL itself

gee, i wonder why

LOL!
 
misterman said:
Just a side note - there's nothing in the Constitution about cloture or filibusters or 60 votes or any of that. It's just Senate rules.
Click to expand...
Whch is why it is constitutional because the senate is allowed to write it's own rules for debate.
 
DarkWizard12 said:
Whch is why it is constitutional because the senate is allowed to write it's own rules for debate.
Click to expand...

Yes. I agree with this, just to make clear. My earlier response might have been misleading. To say cloture is unconstitutional is in error because it's not a constitutional issue.
 
The Prof said:
you can't talk about the bill because of ME?

and my dozens of incoherent links?

LOL!
Click to expand...

I can't respond to any of your incoherent points.

Want me to discuss it? Okay: it's good.
 
address THE LINKS

hello

or not

they're really unanswerable
 
The Prof said:
address THE LINKS

hello

or not

they're really unanswerable
Click to expand...

No, just incoherent.

Make a few basic claims, in your little bullet points, and I'll address them. I don't have time to chase down every little factoid in some links.
 
Erod said:
These are the retorts of a beaten foe. I'd just move on to your next victim, prof.
Click to expand...

Victim of boredom maybe?;)
 
Erod said:
These are the retorts of a beaten foe. I'd just move on to your next victim, prof.
Click to expand...

Yes, because I won't play by his ridiculous rules, I lose. Right.
 
misterman said:
Yes, because I won't play by his ridiculous rules, I lose. Right.
Click to expand...

Look, his posts are a bit arduous, especially at first. But if you read them with the intended "cadence", they actually flow better than most.

He's set forth his points, and you're not playing along, which is your right. But it makes you look like you're changing the subject. I see liberals do it all the time. They've been doing at alarming levels since about...oh....January.
 
Erod said:
Look, his posts are a bit arduous, especially at first. But if you read them with the intended "cadence", they actually flow better than most.
Click to expand...

Yeah, they are like bullet points. But too many.

He's set forth his points, and you're not playing along, which is your right. But it makes you look like you're changing the subject. I see liberals do it all the time.
Click to expand...

See, when someone says "liberals do this" that's when I'm not interested.
 
misterman said:
See, when someone says "liberals do this" that's when I'm not interested.
Click to expand...

Well, they do. Don't know what to tell ya.

A few examples, perhaps?

How you can be for abortion rights, but anti-death-penalty takes a special talent in avoiding basic common sense. How you can look straight into the camera and say a public "option" does not destroy private insurance take a special talent. How you can be entirely responsible for promoting and pressuring banks to offer subprime mortgages, then blame the other party; how you can claim to be creating and "saving" jobs when unemployment is skyrocketing; how you can run on a platform of pulling trips out of Iraq and Afghanistan, then retain Bush's staff and do neither......and on and on and on.

Obama and his ilk suffer from an incurable character flaw. And they don't give a rip.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom