• 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!

White House: Dems near accord on health care bill

they can't pass it cuz it's a pig

and you can't reconcile a pig, either

it's PHYSICALLY impossible

cuz the pig has too much SOCIAL reform in it

public option via reconciliation---LOL!

And it will lead to SO many new jobs, won't it? I mean, the key to getting the economy moving is to nationalize healthcare.
 
Republicans have been calling this healthcare summit, a televised meeting where they are highly encouraged to bring their ideas to the table for open negotiations, doing exactly what they've been asking for all along, "a trap."

Republicans keep saying they've been shut out, that the administration doesn't really want bipartisanship.

We took out the public option.
We took out the "death panel" clause despite it being nothing of the sort.
We changed the language regarding illegal aliens, despite the bill already prohibiting funds being used for those in this country illegally.
We added the across-state-lines selling of insurance.
We added a requirement for each state to address malpractice lawsuits. AKA tort reform.

All of these were Republican ideas. Demands made that Democrats gave in to.

Now the Republicans are getting another demand: televised, transparent negotiations for all Americans to see.

And they have the nerve to keep saying that they're being shut out, and that this is "a trap." The only way its a trap is if you guys actually have no helpful ideas.

How much more ground should the Democrats give before they just say "**** it, these people have absolutely no intention of governing."

Last chance, Republicans. We've been patient enough with you.

I agree with the above sentiment 110%!!! It's exactly what I've been saying to my wife, who is a Republican, for months now. (You should hear the "debates" we have at our house on this and other political matters...it gets scary sometimes!!! :shock: )

She believes as I do that part of the process that goes into creating legistlation is compromise. But the kind of compromise Republicans want is "there way or no way!" They say they've submitted all these ideas and the Dems have rejected most or all of them and yet when it's pointed out that this or that was, in fact, a Republican proposal that was either included, modified or removed suddenly the legistlation is STILL not good enough, and they STILL vote against it. It's stonewalling to the max! And it's one of the reasons the people are so frustrated and angry with DC politics.

I understand Conservative/Republican's opposition to health care reform, but when you tear down their reasons for opposing reform it boils down to power plays rather than doing what's right for the people who need health care reform the most in a way that truly brings down overall costs.

IMO, Republicans on the Hill have been very disingenuous to the American people at best and looking out for themselves at worst.
 
half a trillion cuts to m and m

10 years of taxes, 6 of benefits

mandates on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford, fines and potential criminalization down the road if they don't

200B of unfunded mandates on already bankrupt states in the form of massive expansion of medicaid, the ghetto of health care

the doc fix, a quarter T, off budget

the double counting of another quarter T, according to cbo

i could go on (and on), believe me

we have been over this ground a thousand times

it's a pig of a bill, a real stinker

you betcha, we opposed it

and we were REWARDED massively, 25 to 30 point swings towards red in MA, VA and NJ

ALL THREE extremely important and meaningful states

if you can pass it, pass it

grow the heck up

america has NEVER seen leadership act like such babies

it's a big part of YOUR problem
 
Texas is welcome to secede anytime it wants too.....good riddance.

That would certainly help balance the budget as Texas is not a contributor but rather a net dependent state.
 
half a trillion cuts to m and m

10 years of taxes, 6 of benefits

mandates on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford, fines and potential criminalization down the road if they don't

200B of unfunded mandates on already bankrupt states in the form of massive expansion of medicaid, the ghetto of health care

the doc fix, a quarter T, off budget

the double counting of another quarter T, according to cbo

i could go on (and on), believe me

we have been over this ground a thousand times

it's a pig of a bill, a real stinker

you betcha, we opposed it

and we were REWARDED massively, 25 to 30 point swings towards red in MA, VA and NJ

ALL THREE extremely important and meaningful states

if you can pass it, pass it

grow the heck up

america has NEVER seen leadership act like such babies

it's a big part of YOUR problem

Are you denying that we have a problem with healthcare? Why is it 17% of our GNP, highest in the 1st world? Why are so many uninsured? Why is it at the root of 60% of our personal bankruptcies? Are you proud of this reverse lottery that we are running in America, a lottery that 1/4 of the posters on the board will probably lose?

I do agree the current bill is a real stinker. Dems and Reps can agree that the existing healthcare bill is so watered down that it probably should not pass.... all the more reason for the Dems to reverse field and return the public option with a pass via reconciliation

BTW... as much as Rep want to gloat about NJ and VA...please do.. but making it a national issue is somewhere between silly and intellectually dishonest. People do not vote for their state governor based upon their feelings about the President or national issues. Case in point, the one national election held about the same time saw a congressional district elect a Dem for the first time in more than 100 years. MA is a bit more noteworthy, but even that isn't full proof of your postulate.
 
Last edited:
lawrence odonnell is the guy who had the famous meltdown last week on coffee joe and had his mic pulled

http://beltwayblips.dailyradar.com/video/9-11-conspiracy-theorist-lawrence-o-donnell-goes-crazy/

i've known odonnell for decades from mclaughlin group

he's a regular now on msnbc, sometimes subs for olbermann, indeed

odonnell, as well, was CHIEF OF STAFF in 1994 on SENATE FINANCE when hillary tried and failed to get thru her health care

finance is the GATEWAY and max baucus is the GATEKEEPER, always was

when odonnell talks about health care, therefore, i really listen

no one on tv knows more about parliamentary proceedings than the frothing truther who got his mic pulled

well, just now on olbermann, he characterized reid's statement today on this topic of reconciliation thus:

"if that decision (reconciliation) is made, i will work to put together a package that has the best chance of clearing the parliamentary hurdles..."

THIS is the LANGUAGE emanating from leadership which is being latched on to by some in the media who would have you believe leadership is doing anything other than talking out their behinds on this empty threat to reconcile

the point---reconciliation CANNOT be done, it's PHYSICALLY impossible

read reid again

does that sound like a man confident to you?

they're talking reconciliation for 2 or 3 reasons

1. they're posturing heading into the summit

2. they're appeasing the movement libs who are suffering heartbreak over this

3. they CAN'T APPEAR defeatist, now, can they?

of course they're gonna push happy talk
 
Last edited:
In my opinion, this is bad, and for the following reasons:

1) It mandates that most Americans purchase insurance. This IS Socialistic in nature.

2) It will add more than a trillion dollars to the deficit over the next decade.

3) It will make steep cuts in Medicare, a program that many Americans have spent a lifetime paying into already.

4) It will put the Federal government in the insurance business, something that it has no business being in.

In fairness, we should probably wait until Monday and see what's actually in the WH plan that contains the compromises -- and/or the reconciliation bill made up of House and Senate bills. (not sure when that's due)

All through this debate, people have been very quick to say what was in the bill and how it was going to effect our live in a negative way, then, down the road, the fact checkers end up saying that's just not the case.

Re: Medicare -- I've seen first hand how wasteful that can be. Providers really take advantage and charge up as many goods and services as they can.

The federal government is in the highway business, transportation business, tourist/leisure business, mail and parcel post business, to name a few.

I would rather see tax-incentives and guaranteed loans to non-profits and co-ops at the state and local level. Use the most successful state-run health care programs and offer incentives to other states to adopt similar programs.
 
wait to see what's in the bill?

LOL!

everyone knows what's in the bills

they're almost identical except the senate taxes cadillacs and the house goes after big earners

the house has stupak, the senate doesn't

wait to see what's in the compromise?

LOL!

like that's gonna make any difference

as if some unknown entity is gonna make its magic entrance

we already know what's in the bills, it's been all over everyone's favorite channel, cspan
 
This is absolutely horrible.

No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

I'm talking about reconciliation.

While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

This is not Change we can believe in.

This is not post partisanship.

This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.

This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.
 
This is absolutely horrible.

No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

I'm talking about reconciliation.

While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

This is not Change we can believe in.

This is not post partisanship.

This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.

This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.

I agree with most of what you said -- but I'm beginning to think this could be posturing or bluffing on the part of the Dems.

They have this reconciled bill standing by while the WH releases the "compromised" plan. It puts pressure on the GOP to take a good look at the compromises.

There's got to be a centrist version of health care reform that they can agree on.

Meanwhile, Anthem Blue Cross has started price gouging Californians. If that trends spreads to other states and people see their monthly premiums go up 39%++... The GOP is going to have some 'splaining to do.
 
This is absolutely horrible.

No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

I'm talking about reconciliation.

While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

oh, no, my so right on friend, that might be a worry if they had a chance but they don't, they're gonna get their clocks cleaned, there will be no precedent

Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

This is not Change we can believe in.

This is not post partisanship.

This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual
.

!!!

This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.

excuse my liberties with this masterpiece of a post, my friend, but i got excited, which at my age almost never happens anymore

thanks for that

i'm alive, baby!

just kidding

yes, you are so right, so spot on

which is just ONE MORE reason they WON'T do it, never would, never could, never intended to

as you point out, ANOTHER PROBLEM with the nuke option is its LACK OF LEGITIMACY

more specifically, IT IS PERCEIVED as lacking legitimacy

and on an issue so very, very large and so very, very controversial, as you so powerfully note

that is, if they even TRY for ONE DAY to push THIS bill by anything other than NORMAL PARLIAMENTARY PROCEDURE they will be SEEN as CHEATERS

on top of everything else

awesome post, sir, BEST i've seen around here in awhile, my opinion

cliff
 
Last edited:
oh, yes, and for all the reasons so powerfully put forth above, THE PARTY WILL NEVER GET 51 SHOULD IT EVEN TRY

THAT'S how REPUGNANT is this approach

you'll see
 
And it will lead to SO many new jobs, won't it? I mean, the key to getting the economy moving is to nationalize healthcare.

while it was unintended, there is more than a little truth in your statement

the medical system is presently undersized to accommodate the large increase in the number of patients who will be seeking medical attention
while it will require some time to train those new medical practitioners, jobs must be added to that industry

in my opinion, an aspect more important to the economy as a result of expanded access to health care via a public option is the resulting boon to small businesses. many employees are now tied to their jobs only because to do something else would cost them health coverage. having portability of health insurance will allow many to move to other places of employment where the opportunities are greater. while large businesses have been subject to ever higher health care expenses, they now have an ability to negotiate favorable rates which small businesses do not enjoy. that provides them an economic advantage - which will be lost once the public option is available
and just as small business has suffered that disadvantage historically, our nation's international trade sector has waged economic battle on an uneven playing field. those businesses operating in countries with nationalized health coverage do not incur the same overhead expenses for health expenses as do those in the USA. while we still need to renegotiate the free trade agreements to become fair trade agreements, allowing our nation's employers economic parity with their international rivals relative to health care costs will only make our domestic economy more dynamic
 
This is absolutely horrible.

No, I'm not talking about them putting the Public Option back in. Enough people will be talking about that.

I'm talking about reconciliation.

While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent. Reconciliation is there for budgetary purposes only. Primarily it seems in the cases where a filibuster could potentially cause the government to simply not have a working budget or to institute budgetary changes to increase the flow of money into the government. Even a Democrat, Robert Byrd, highlighted this issue when he was in opposition of Bill Clinton's attempt to use it in 1993 for HIS health care plan stating such a use was out of bounds for what reconciliation was meant for.

The last time it was done successfully for a "questionable", ie not directly budgetary reason, was in regards to the Bush Tax cuts. At the times Democrats and liberals were against such a use but it was at least a realistic stretch, as the purpose was at least extremely closely tied to budgetary since it was taxes which is directly tied to revenue brought in. Also, while questionable, it was at least reasonably similar to past uses of it.

The last time it was attempted to be done questionably and failed to happen was with Republicans attempting to use it for ANWR and the democrats, rightfully, being upset at the attempted use and putting enough political pressure to stop it from happening.

This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial, when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once? Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America....not because its "socialist" to require health care, not because of the "abomination" of the Public Option, but because of the underhanded and despicable methods that the Democrat Party will go to force down the throats of the American People a bill that is one of the most highly contest, controversial, and divisive bills in recent memory.

This is not Change we can believe in.

This is not post partisanship.

This is anything but a divergence from politics as usual.

This is despicable, pathetic attempt at extreme partisan politics and if signed by Obama the man should have his picture in the dictionary next to "Fraud" based on his rhetoric and promises given during the campaign.

Dead on! I don't think they'll actually go through with it, though. Heads would roll...
 
Dead on! I don't think they'll actually go through with it, though. Heads would roll...

Don't count on that. My money says that HCR will pass. One of two things will happen:

1) They WILL actually go through with the public option, through reconciliation. Arlen Specter just signed onto the public option, and this is where the HCR bill is headed.

OR

2) Republicans will compromise by caving in on other parts of the bill, thus killing the public option. This could very well be the Democrats' threat of their own "nuclear option".

We will know for sure by the end of next week which of the 2 directions the bill will take. Either way, get ready to bend over and take it. The robber barons are coming soon, to a wallet near you.

However, there might be a hurdle here, in that the Senate parliamentarian may deny the public option, and declare it is against the rules. Let's hope for that.

FINAL NOTE: This is the same Democratic Congress that bashed Bush for his "my way or the highway" approach. Seems that some Democrats actually would make outstanding Neocon Republicans, if they chose to switch parties. :mrgreen:
 
Last edited:
One of two things will happen:

1) They WILL actually go through with it. Arlen Specter just signed onto the public option, and this is where the HCR bill is headed.

OR

2) Republicans will compromise by caving in on other parts of the bill, thus killing the public option. This could very well be the Democrats' threat of their own "nuclear option".

We will know for sure by the end of next week which of the 2 directions the bill will take. Either way, get ready to bend over and take it. The robber barons are coming soon, to a wallet near you.

That's the thing...I'm not going to bend over and take anything, and I don't suspect the rest of America will either. You think people were mad before? Just wait. There is a populist rage waiting to boil over in this country. Using reconciliation to pass this monstrosity would be an act of outright defiance on the part of the Congress. That is the very definition of tyranny and many Americans are on their last nerve...
 
You talk like Obama WANTS to sink the economy. I have a lot of disagreements with Obama, but I will never stoop so low as to claim that he is unamerican, wants the economy to fail, or any other ludicrouos garbage. Despite my feeling strongly that Obama is wrong, I DO realize that he loves this country just as much as I do. I just think his policies are wrong.

He loves what he thinks America SHOULD be. Not what she is today.
 
Don't count on that. My money says that HCR will pass. One of two things will happen:

1) They WILL actually go through with the public option, through reconciliation. Arlen Specter just signed onto the public option, and this is where the HCR bill is headed.

OR

2) Republicans will compromise by caving in on other parts of the bill, thus killing the public option. This could very well be the Democrats' threat of their own "nuclear option".

We will know for sure by the end of next week which of the 2 directions the bill will take. Either way, get ready to bend over and take it. The robber barons are coming soon, to a wallet near you.

However, there might be a hurdle here, in that the Senate parliamentarian may deny the public option, and declare it is against the rules. Let's hope for that.

FINAL NOTE: This is the same Democratic Congress that bashed Bush for his "my way or the highway" approach. Seems that some Democrats actually would make outstanding Neocon Republicans, if they chose to switch parties. :mrgreen:

There may still be some hope. I heard or read somewhere this week that 8 states have passed or added legislation that will allow them to refuse and more are following suit. I will look around and see if I can find an article.
 
While yes, this is TECHNICALLY legal, this is incredibly bad precedent.

No, what is incredibly bad precedent is requiring a supermajority for every piece of legislation, filibusters with no way for the majority to get its way, negotiating in bad faith for months (e.g. Chuck Grassley), and then not supporting legislation after getting one's way on almost everything one claims to care about (e.g. Olympia Snowe).

Zyphlin said:
This time it is most definitively NOT budgetary. Any attempts to tie it to a budgetary method would take an amount of political acrobatics so large that it'd be qualified for Cirque de Soleil. This would be akin to saying that a tax on automakers to limit carbon emissions was Military legislation by attempting to tie it to less reliance on foreign oil and then to national security and then to terrorism and then to the War on Terror. Technically right? Sure. Realistically and understandably? Absolutely not.

This bill deals with taxes. This bill deals with spending. The CBO says this bill will reduce the deficit. So how exactly is it NOT budgetary? It's certainly more budget-related than ANWR, and it's a better match than the Bush tax cuts too since the CBO says this will actually reduce the deficit rather than increase it.

Zyphlin said:
If the Dem's actually do this, and do this on such a HUGELY contested bill (This entire bill makes the arguments about ANWR seem like deciding between going to Pizza Hut or Papa Johns after the little league game), especially interjecting an even more controversial provision, then this is going to cause a seismic shake up in the fabric of our Political Culture.

Yawn. This wouldn't even have been NECESSARY until about 20 years ago. You make it sound like a 60-vote supermajority for every piece of legislation is enshrined in the Constitution (or is at least a time-honored tradition), when in fact it hasn't even existed for very long. Until a couple decades ago, senators would literally have to filibuster and the majority could eventually get its way if they just waited for the opposition to stop talking. Now they don't even have to clear THAT hurdle to obstruct. They just tell the parliamentarian that they're filibustering, and they never have to say one word on the floor.

Zyphlin said:
By invoking Reconciliation on something so far from its intended purpose, and so amazingly controversial,

This is very close to the legislation that Bob Dole's health care commission endorsed. It's very close to the legislation which Republican Senator Scott Brown and Republican Governor Mitt Romney supported in Massachusetts. It's very close to what Republican Senator Olympia Snowe claimed to support last summer.

Are Bob Dole and Mitt Romney really that far out of the Republican mainstream? Is there any reason other than partisan politics that Scott Brown and Olympia Snowe (and probably several other Republicans) have not signed on to this?

Zyphlin said:
when in the past one of their own members even stated such a use was not in bounds for something similar (93's attempt) the Democrats are opening the flood gate for this to become the political norm rather than the EXTREME and appalling exception they're doing now.

As I said before, it's definitely more budget-related than ANWR and arguably more budget-related than the Bush tax cuts. But honestly I don't give a damn whether it's within the rules of reconciliation. If it's not, change the rules.

Zyphlin said:
Will this make it right when the Republicans do something similar in 2 or 4 or 8 years down the line, possibly on something even LESS tied to the budget or even more than just once?

It would be nice to have a functional government again, instead of one that's constantly paralyzed by obstructionism, yes.

Zyphlin said:
Absolutely not. However when that happens the Democrats and Liberals of this country will first have to look at themselves in the mirror and realize this as much their fault as anyones for setting the precedent and opening the flood gates for this. Much like their repeated filibustering in the early 2000's led to the even increased filibustering of the current Republicans that is so often bitched about, so too will this usher in a continuance of this era of disgustingly low politics which serves no one but the politicians.

I fail to see how passing legislation that is supported by a majority of the democratically-elected Senate, a majority of the democratically-elected House, and the democratically-elected President will usher in an "era of disgustingly low politics." Is that really such a radical idea? Why is 60% the magic number?

Zyphlin said:
If this goes forward as planned it is a dark day and a black mark upon America.

Hyperbole much? I'm surprised. You are sounding more like Scarecrow Akhbar than yourself.
 
Last edited:
That's the thing...I'm not going to bend over and take anything, and I don't suspect the rest of America will either. You think people were mad before? Just wait. There is a populist rage waiting to boil over in this country. Using reconciliation to pass this monstrosity would be an act of outright defiance on the part of the Congress.

Do you really think the American people care whether the bill is passed with reconciliation or with cloture? Do you think the American people even know what either of those words mean? All they're going to remember is whether health care reform passed.

Ethereal said:
That is the very definition of tyranny and many Americans are on their last nerve...

Yes, it's "the very definition of tyranny" for a bill with the support of 59% of the Senate, a majority of the House, and the President to become law. That's pretty much the same as Idi Amin. :roll:
 
Yes, it's "the very definition of tyranny" for a bill with the support of 59% of the Senate, a majority of the House, and the President to become law. That's pretty much the same as Idi Amin. :roll:

It may not be violent like Idi Amin but people are being railroaded.

Popularity doesn't make right, Just because a lot of people want something doesn't mean they should get it.
 
Back
Top Bottom