• 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 Nears Key Senate Vote

repeter

repeter

DP Veteran
Joined
Apr 2, 2009
Messages
3,445
Reaction score
682
Location
California
Gender
Male
Political Leaning
Centrist
The title is a bit deceptive, the Senate is going to vote on starting the debate on health care this Saturday night.

In a show of unity, Senate Democrats sealed a 60-vote majority needed to advance health care legislation Saturday ahead of an evening showdown with Republicans eager to doom the bill and inflict a punishing defeat on President Barack Obama.
Click to expand...

Maybe I'm wrong, but both sides of the aisle have agreed we need to do something about health care, and regardless of whats in the bill, this vote will allow that necessary discussion to begin. So, my question is, who in their right mind would not want to discuss this health care bill. If it changes, okay, but this is just about starting the debate about it.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_health_care_overhaul
 
Because a "yes" vote to open debate is an admission of the belief that Government has the ability to compel that health insurance be provided to all & that this will cause the price of health insurance to go down..
 
I may be wrong but I believe this is how the Senate works.. you only need 50 votes to pass a bill, but you need 60 votes to start the debate (and prevent a filibuster). So if you really want to stop it from becoming law you vote against it going to the floor entirely. That's just good strategy.
 
Last edited:
The silenced majority said:
Because a "yes" vote to open debate is an admission of the belief that Government has the ability to compel that health insurance be provided to all & that this will cause the price of health insurance to go down..
Click to expand...

This would be good.
Still 6% are not covered.
Single payer is ??
Repealing the anti-trust for the insurance companies seems to be dead.
IMO, the legislators have little to be proud of.
 
Wait a minute...what about the filibuster? and Joe Lieberman?

There was no doubt about debate but, well, there you go. Filibuster.
 
The silenced majority said:
Because a "yes" vote to open debate is an admission of the belief that Government has the ability to compel that health insurance be provided to all & that this will cause the price of health insurance to go down..
Click to expand...

The belief that competition decreases prices?
 
repeter said:
The belief that competition decreases prices?
Click to expand...

If they "really" believed in Competition, they'd remove the barriers to inter-state insurance, and let that work it's self out for a decade or so before pushing any sort of "government option". It's very dishonest, and shows the lack of honesty in those that try to claim they support the "government option" because they believe in "competition"
 
MrVicchio said:
If they "really" believed in competition, they'd remove the barriers to inter-state insurance...
Click to expand...
Congress doesn't have the power to remove the barriers imposed by the States to inter-state insurance, bro, and if they did pass legislation to give Congress such authority, all we would hear would be right wing whack-o-loons screaming "Socialism."
 
RyrineaHaruno said:
Joe Lieberman is an ass, and is not need anymore.
Click to expand...

Sen. Joe Lieberman (I-Conn.) said Tuesday that he’d back a GOP filibuster of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid’s health care reform bill.

Lieberman, who caucuses with Democrats and is positioning himself as a fiscal hawk on the issue, said he opposes any health care bill that includes a government-run insurance program — even if it includes a provision allowing states to opt out of the program, as Reid has said the Senate bill will.

Joe Lieberman: I'll block vote on Harry Reid's plan - Manu Raju - POLITICO.com
 
repeter said:
The title is a bit deceptive, the Senate is going to vote on starting the debate on health care this Saturday night.



Maybe I'm wrong, but both sides of the aisle have agreed we need to do something about health care, and regardless of whats in the bill, this vote will allow that necessary discussion to begin. So, my question is, who in their right mind would not want to discuss this health care bill. If it changes, okay, but this is just about starting the debate about it.

Historic health care bill clears Senate hurdle - Yahoo! News
Click to expand...

No, this is about ENDING the debate about it. This vote prevents a filibuster.
 
Tsunami said:
I may be wrong but I believe this is how the Senate works.. you only need 50 votes to pass a bill, but you need 60 votes to start the debate (and prevent a filibuster). So if you really want to stop it from becoming law you vote against it going to the floor entirely. That's just good strategy.
Click to expand...

Correct, except it doesn't technically start the debate, it limits it to one hour per Senator (for each vote - there could be votes on amendments). Without cloture, which is what the 60-vote thing was, any Senator could talk as long as he or she wanted, i.e., filibuster.
 
MrVicchio said:
If they "really" believed in Competition, they'd remove the barriers to inter-state insurance, and let that work it's self out for a decade or so before pushing any sort of "government option". It's very dishonest, and shows the lack of honesty in those that try to claim they support the "government option" because they believe in "competition"
Click to expand...

That's EXACTLY what this bill does. It removes the barriers to inter-state insurance! It creates a national "exchange" for people and employers to buy insurance.

The public option is merely that - an option that would be offered for people who want to buy it. It would not be run by tax money, only premiums. Nobody would be forced to choose it. Some versions of the bill don't even contain a public option.
 
P.S. Just saw some media reports that say the vote "starts" debate on the bill. That's not technically true, but it is for practical purposes because if it had failed and the threat of filibuster remained, the Democrats would probably have just given up rather than face a filibuster.
 
I'm pretty sure this vote only starts debate. It is why Nelson is voting for debate in the first place, so that he could change the bill before final vote, otherwise it makes zero sense. All it takes is all republicans + Lieberman and booyah, filibuster wins. 60 votes fails.
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
I'm pretty sure this vote only starts debate. It is why Nelson is voting for debate in the first place, so that he could change the bill before final vote, otherwise it makes zero sense. All it takes is all republicans + Lieberman and booyah, filibuster wins. 60 votes fails.
Click to expand...

No, cloture limits debate, it doesn't start debate. The Senate can start debate any time they want. The reason this effectively starts debate is because the threat of a filibuster is gone. Without that, there would be no point in starting debate. So it does "start" debate, but technically it merely puts a time limit on it.

Everything you wanted to know about cloture but were afraid to ask:

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Virtual Reference Desk > Cloture
 
misterman said:
No, cloture limits debate, it doesn't start debate. The Senate can start debate any time they want. The reason this effectively starts debate is because the threat of a filibuster is gone. Without that, there would be no point in starting debate. So it does "start" debate, but technically it merely puts a time limit on it.

Everything you wanted to know about cloture but were afraid to ask:

U.S. Senate: Reference Home > Virtual Reference Desk > Cloture
Click to expand...
But isn't a flibuster when some senator gets to the floor and keeps the floor forever...and ever...and ever? Otherwise, please explain to me how Lieberman voted fr cloture when he said he would not?
 
Last edited:
DarkWizard12 said:
But isn't a flibuster when some senator gets to the floor and keeps the floor forever...and ever...and ever? Otherwise, please explain to me how Lieberman voted fr cloture when he said he would not?
Click to expand...

He obviously changed his mind. You'll have to ask him why. I'm sure lots of people are right now.
 
Faux News Is Lying About Rationing Again

Quick fact: Wallace falsely claims health bills direct task force to decide what services "aren't covered" | Media Matters for America

Faux News Is Lying About Rationing Again​

On Fox News Sunday, host Chris Wallace falsely claimed that it's a "fact" that the House and Senate health care bills direct the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force to "determine what services, what tests, screening, are covered and aren't covered," and asked whether that amounts to "government rationing."

In fact, the bills require insurers to implement task force recommendations in favor of specific preventive care, but they are not required to adopt those that recommend against preventive screening.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom