• 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

You are wrong; there is no time limit on debate yet. If you don't believe me, look for that time limit, and you'll find that it doesn't exist.

The bill still needs 60 votes to end debate and begin the final voting. If the public option is included in the bill, there won't be 60 votes.

Okay, I see what you're saying now. This cloture vote was on the motion to proceed. I thought you were mistaking what a cloture vote is. Yes, it looks like another cloture vote will be required to for a final vote on the bill. But this was definitely a cloture vote. It was a vote to limit debate on the motion to proceed.
 
Yea he's linking them together to get an emotional response from people who support his position already.

He's saying that the people who don't support this are like people who support slavery.

Just stop. Right now. He was saying nothing of the sort, and everyone who listened with an unbiased ear understood that.
 
You should know by now that these guys use logical fallacies, like appeals to emotion, to draw support.

Of course.

But he didn't in this case.

What is my bias?

You think politicians always use logical fallacies, or appeals to emotion, to draw support.
 
Yeah, well, he was making a point about the process, not a moral comparison. Don't get worked up about it.

He made a very bad point.
 
Of course.

But he didn't in this case.

He certainly did by comparing people who don't support this legislation to those who supported slavery etc.

You think politicians always use logical fallacies, or appeals to emotion, to draw support.

Do they not? Do i really need to bring all the evidence that is available from most any source?
 
He certainly did by comparing people who don't support this legislation to those who supported slavery etc.

No, he's not. Not at all. Read what he said.

Do they not? Do i really need to bring all the evidence that is available from most any source?

Yes, they often do. But that doesn't mean they are always doing it just because you think they might be.

Read what he said. Carefully.
 
No, he's not. Not at all. Read what he said.

I did and he is implying that people who don't support this are similar to people who supported slavery.

Yes, they often do. But that doesn't mean they are always doing it just because you think they might be.

Read what he said. Carefully.

See above.
 
It's clear Reid was using logical fallacies to win support for the bill.

In the final minutes of a daylong session, Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., accused Republicans of trying to stifle a historic debate the nation needed.

"Imagine if, instead of debating whether to abolish slavery, instead of debating whether giving women and minorities the right to vote, those who disagreed had muted discussion and killed any vote," he said.

Keep in mind that Democrats were the ones that opposed these things Reid brought up.
 
Last edited:
I did and he is implying that people who don't support this are similar to people who supported slavery.

No. He. Is. Not.

He is merely calling for open debate.

You are the one who is appealing to fallacy and emotion here, by twisting his words. You're the one acting like a politician.
 
No. He. Is. Not.

He is merely calling for open debate.

You are the one who is appealing to fallacy and emotion here, by twisting his words. You're the one acting like a politician.

Not at all, I was calling him out on his false comparison.

What need did he have to call for an open debate when they had all the votes to pass it?
 
No. He. Is. Not.

He is merely calling for open debate.

You are the one who is appealing to fallacy and emotion here, by twisting his words. You're the one acting like a politician.

:rofl What words did he twist?
 
You don't understand. A filibuster is when you block a vote for cloture. This was the vote for cloture. Now they only need 50 votes plus Biden to pass it from the Senate. There will be no filibuster as the chance has been missed.

oh, no, friend, they still need 60

they need 60 to CLOSE debate and get to a vote

there is no limit on how long debate can go on

they will begin debate after thanksgiving, it will go on for weeks, even months

with the xmas break in the middle, we're looking at february

and jiltin joe lieberman and stiff neck nelson have both made clear they'll filibuster if reid doesn't change things

changing the bill in the senate is a lot harder than it is in the house

any amendment can conceivably require 60

this bill is not likely to change much

it's got abortion language in it that will kill it in the house

the catholic bishops, whose power we've seen at 2am the nite before stupak went down, said reid's is the worst yet

DO NOT FRET THIS, it has very little chance of becoming law

it will still be in the senate by state of the union---LOL!

conference with pelosi's place is gonna prove impossible

they've been hurrying as fast as their little stalinist asses can hustle---and you've seen the results

endless delays and missed deadlines

party leadership is recognizing---in the senate---the PO's gotta go

yet, like i said, any changes upstairs are almost insuperable

watch and see

wait til the sunday talks get hold of this tomorrow

it's gonna be death

Democrats hold line, but cracks show - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com
 
This was a cloture vote. Cloture puts a time limit on debate. By doing so, it allows the Senate to start debate without fear of a filibuster. But technically, cloture limits debate.

cloture limits debate

LOL!

frankly, friend, you don't know what you're talking about
 
:roll::roll::roll::roll:

You think that is funny. You think it is funny to jail people because they won't buy health insurance?

Can the gulags and fire squads be far behind?

There has never been a government program in our history that has come in at or under budget. This will bankrupt our nation and you will have to use a wheelbarrow to cart your bails of money to the grocery store to buy groceries. We are on the cusp of repeating the Weimer Republic with our worthless currency. There is no way in hell to pay for this insanity.

Welcome to American communism under Chairman Obama. I hope you enjoy this bitter fruit. You are the one who will pay the price for this political treachery by this band of gangsters in Washington, D.C. Eventually the commissars and their jack booted thugs will come for you. That is the way of all modern revolutions. Study your history.

And BTW, they only need 51 votes to pass this legislation. 60 was needed for cloture. Otherwise it would have been filibustered to death. That is no longer necessary.
 
Last edited:
From the articles I am reading they still need another 60 votes to close the debate, so it seems it is far from over and we may yet see that filibuster threat carried out.
 
the reid bill, in my opinion, contains some plusses:

1. pre existing conditions

2. portability

3. coverage for 25 mil

4. rewards for quality over quantity, preventive care

5. end yearly caps

6. end lifetime caps

7. relieve emergency rooms, uncompensated care

8. end recision, the dumping of a patient once he or she develops a tumor, for example

***

the negatives held herein, however, are innumerable

and huge:

25 bil in mandates on already bankrupt states

half a tril cuts to m and m

taxes---on benefits, on employers, on employees, on device makers, on drug makers, on the insured, on the uninsured, on payroll, on personal savings accounts over $2500, limiting the deduction for catastrophic costs, more

mandates on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford

fines if they don't, with criminalization and threats of jail time down the road

20 mil still uncovered

premiums up---says cbo

higher gdp devoted to health care---says cbo---up to 21.something percent

10 years of revenue vs 6 years of benefits

shell game, ponzie scheme

cbo---savings likely never to occur

doc fix, off budget, a quarter tril, passed in the house on thursday, under media blackout

jobs killer---taxes, fines, mandates, fees

taxes on upper, middle and lower classes

the real cost, 10 years of revenue vs 10 years of outlays---2014 to 2024---2.5 tril

the cost curve steepened up---cbo

rationing of services---mammograms, cervical screenings

taxpayer money for abortion

weak enforcement against illegals

no tort reform, defensive medical costs not addressed

no purchase across state lines

medicaid expanded to cover 15 mil more people, unfunded

obama says---my budget's balanced, you guys in CA and NV can pick up the tab

medicaid death rates---250% higher for cancer patients, 50% higher for cardio

medicaid is the ghetto of insurance plans

medicare advantage, home to 11 mil---zeroed out

reid has a one year doc fix, after which reimbursements drop 23%

doctor shortage

medicare doctors already refuse to treat medicare patients

reid morphs medicare into medicaid

kills innovation by punishing pharmaceuticals, device makers and vaccine growers

medicare costs have skyrocketed 55% in 10 years, will reach 1 tril by 2020---a solid case against govt options

kills rural care---medicare reimbursement rates are so paltry

mayo, everyone's model, announced recently it will no longer accept medicare or medicaid

harvard (obama's alma mater) medical school eviscerates reid---those who support it are "in denial:" costs, curves, crummy care

david broder, dean of journalists, published a piece today, titled, "budget buster"

catholic bishops call reid the worst yet, we saw what their eminences did to ms pelosi at 2am

states can opt out only after paying in

disincentives for primary care

40% of primary care doctors will not treat medicare patients

60% of specialists won't either

cuts to education and other state run services as CA and NV are suddenly saddled with bil's in liabilities

states will have to raise taxes

aarp and ama endorse---in today's times, a political minus

the CLASS ACT---young folks will have to pay premiums close to grampa's, resulting in healthy folks running away while the ill and aged are eager to join

louisiana purchase---300 mil bribe for ms landrieu

***

worst of both worlds

dems are signed on the bottom line under all of the above, with very little chance of passage

no one around here, for example, will deny or defend any of the poisons detailed above

this thing is gonna go on for weeks, even months

every day it's debated is death to the dems

this bill is a monstrosity, even your liberal acquaintances know it

reid, baucus, durbin, levin, rockefeller, wyden---they're stuck with it

pelosi and obama, too

senate leadership is beginning to realize they're gonna have to take out the PO

cuzza jiltin joe and stiff neck nelson, amongst others

yet changes upstairs are very, very difficult

and pelosi downstairs is gonna be hella pissed

abortion alone will kill it for her bluedogs

stupak said---hell to pay

the bishops back him up

having to work so hard just to start debate is very telling

you'll see

dems are doomed, this bill is the ugliest things america has ever seen

reaction against it is gonna be huge

it's already much bigger than/since virginia

just look at these pages, libs are throwing in the towel

hang in, friends

patience
 
from politico, tonite, after the vote

Democrats hold line, but cracks show - Carrie Budoff Brown - POLITICO.com

Reid has promised a “free-wheeling, wide-open amendment process,” said Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.), who added that Republicans are likely to attempt to filibuster each amendment, meaning Reid would have to hold together his 60 votes time and again.

"The battle has just begun," McConnell added. "The American people are asking us to stop this bill, and we are going to do anything and everything we can to prevent this measure from becoming law."

But as it has for months, the public option remained the greatest obstacle to passing a bill.

Two of those who voted yes on Saturday – Sen. Ben Nelson (D-Neb.) and Sen. Joseph Lieberman (I-Conn.) -- have already said they’d join a filibuster of the current bill and both have raised objections to the public option.
 
broder's "budget buster:"

David S. Broder - David Broder: Fears of health-reform cost are justifiable

It's simply not true that America is ambivalent about everything when it comes to the Obama health plan.

The day after the Congressional Budget Office (CBO) gave its qualified blessing to the version of health reform produced by Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, a Quinnipiac University poll of a national cross section of voters reported its latest results.

This poll may not be as famous as some others, but I know the care and professionalism of the people who run it, and one question was particularly interesting to me.

It read: "President Obama has pledged that health insurance reform will not add to our federal budget deficit over the next decade. Do you think that President Obama will be able to keep his promise or do you think that any health care plan that Congress passes and President Obama signs will add to the federal budget deficit?"

The answer: Less than one-fifth of the voters -- 19 percent of the sample -- think he will keep his word. Nine of 10 Republicans and eight of 10 independents said that whatever passes will add to the torrent of red ink. By a margin of four to three, even Democrats agreed this is likely.

That fear contributed directly to the fact that, by a 16-point margin, the majority in this poll said they oppose the legislation moving through Congress.

I have been writing for months that the acid test for this effort lies less in the publicized fight over the public option or the issue of abortion coverage than in the plausibility of its claim to be fiscally responsible.

This is obviously turning out to be the case. While the CBO said that both the House-passed bill and the one Reid has drafted meet Obama's test by being budget-neutral, every expert I have talked to says that the public has it right. These bills, as they stand, are budget-busters.

Here, for example, is what Robert Bixby, the executive director of the Concord Coalition, a bipartisan group of budget watchdogs, told me: "The Senate bill is better than the House version, but there's not much reform in this bill. As of now, it's basically a big entitlement expansion, plus tax increases."

Here's another expert, Maya MacGuineas, the president of the bipartisan Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget: "While this bill does a better job than the House version at reducing the deficit and controlling costs, it still doesn't do enough. Given the political system's aversion to tax increases and spending cuts, I worry about what the final bill will look like."

These are nonpartisan sources, but Republican budget experts such as former CBO director Douglas Holtz-Eakin amplify the point with specific examples and biting language. Holtz-Eakin cites a long list of Democratic-sponsored "budget gimmicks" that made it possible for the CBO to estimate that Reid's bill would reduce federal deficits by $130 billion by 2019.

Perhaps the biggest of those maneuvers was Reid's decision to postpone the start of subsidies to help the uninsured buy policies from mid-2013 to January 2014 -- long after taxes and fees levied by the bill would have begun.

Even with that change, there is plenty in the CBO report to suggest that the promised budget savings may not materialize. If you read deep enough, you will find that under the Senate bill, "federal outlays for health care would increase during the 2010-2019 period" -- not decline. The gross increase would be almost $1 trillion -- $848 billion, to be exact, mainly to subsidize the uninsured. The net increase would be $160 billion.

But this depends on two big gambles. Will future Congresses actually impose the assumed $420 billion in cuts to Medicare, Medicaid and other federal health programs? They never have.

And will this Congress enact the excise tax on high-premium insurance policies (the so-called Cadillac plans) in Reid's bill? Obama has never endorsed them, and House Democrats -- reacting to union pressure -- turned them down in favor of a surtax on millionaires' income.

The challenge to Congress -- and to Obama -- remains the same: Make the promised savings real, and don't pass along unfunded programs to our children and grandchildren.
 

Yeah!!!!! :applaud


balloon_release_lots_of_balloons.jpg


This opens the path to Congress passing Health Care Reform with a simple majority of 51 votes!!!
 
Last edited:
Yeah!!!!! :applaud


balloon_release_lots_of_balloons.jpg


This opens the path to Congress passing Health Care Reform with a simple majority of 51 votes!!!
a Pyrrhic victory, if there ever was one.

you are for all ounce and purposes, lost the war! The real hurdle is to close debate. You didn't get one single republican vote and Joe Lieberman is going to kill the public option. This health bill will become nothing more than an allocation of money, and a large amount of money at that.

Or, debate could last to next november and then, kill the bill.

If you got 61, 62, or 63 votes, you would actually have a chance. the only time you could get 60 was to open debate.

Reality bites, doesn't it?
 
Last edited:
You think that is funny. You think it is funny to jail people because they won't buy health insurance?

Can the gulags and fire squads be far behind?

There has never been a government program in our history that has come in at or under budget. This will bankrupt our nation and you will have to use a wheelbarrow to cart your bails of money to the grocery store to buy groceries. We are on the cusp of repeating the Weimer Republic with our worthless currency. There is no way in hell to pay for this insanity.

Welcome to American communism under Chairman Obama. I hope you enjoy this bitter fruit. You are the one who will pay the price for this political treachery by this band of gangsters in Washington, D.C. Eventually the commissars and their jack booted thugs will come for you. That is the way of all modern revolutions. Study your history.

And BTW, they only need 51 votes to pass this legislation. 60 was needed for cloture. Otherwise it would have been filibustered to death. That is no longer necessary.

I don't think it's funny to jail people who won't buy health insurance. It's quite a stupid idea in fact.

But to suggest that communism (as well as gulags and firing squads) is close behind is pretty ludicrous.
 
This opens the path to Congress passing Health Care Reform with a simple majority of 51 votes!!!

51 votes---LOL!

another obamacare apologist who has no clue what's going on, what a surprise

to believe that 60 votes are not needed to end debate and get to a vote requires an almost stunning absence of...

well...

a tv, for one thing

LOL!

a rudimentary understanding of high school civics is another
 
Back
Top Bottom