• 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!

Obama health plan would curb insurers on rate hikes

Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

And that is what they did with antitrust laws...

You mean the law which the Clinton Administration used to hound Microsoft until Gates agreed to donate billions to Left-wing causes.

And that is what they did with product safety laws...

You mean the laws that now have people seeking to regulate the proper use of hot dogs, because some kids choke on them.

And that is what they did with consumer fraud laws...

Here's a clue: Fraud is a crime, hence the government's proper role is to punish fraud.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Antitrust laws regulate whether or not a particular company controls an industry in a marketplace. They do not set price.

Product safety laws look at the objective safety of a product and set a minimum threshold for performance in order to allow things to be sold. They do not set price.

Consumer fraud laws protect individuals from actual criminal frauds perpetrated by corporations. They do not set price.

This entire thing just reeks of half-baked populism. How do they actually think this is going to work in practice?

They don't think it's going to work at all.

They're goal is to get it established, then show that it doesn't work because government needs more authority to make it work.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Dav, you went the wrong way with this. OP is about a new proposed regulation. Texmaster pipes in with an example of a regulation that did not work great. I list examples of ones that do, to show that just because one does not work does not mean all do. Nowhere did I claim or suggest that examples mean everything is like that, I pointed out that flaw in another person's post. Go back and look at what I quoted, and what my response was, and note the chain of logic.

He actually pointed specifically to occasions where the government manipulated prices (mortgages or gasoline), and the counter examples you gave were very different in nature. The government messing with prices has never worked. If it did work, the USSR would still exist.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Actually, now that I think about it, they know exactly what they're doing.

You hit it on the head- the public option was designed to put private insurers out of business. The administration denied that up and down, but it was confirmed by virtually every private economist that studied it.

http://www.heritage.org/research/healthcare/bg2311.cfm
 
Last edited:

Nice try, but not exactly the same thing. The fillibuster has a purpose to ensure debate. The senate was intended to the deliberative body where all voices were heard. The fillibuster was not intended to require 60 votes on all pieces of legislation. The Republicans have abused the fillibuster, including holding up over 200 pieces of HR passed legislation. They have abused their power, and like all abuse of power situations (where people don't respect the responsibility that comes with the power), stripping them of that power is an intelligent option.

The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.

I think, if you study the record, you will see the use of the fillibuster is now at an all-time high. The Republicans are abusing it.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

You hit it on the head- the public option was designed to put private insurers out of business. The administration denied that up and down, but it was confirmed by virtually every private economist that studied it.

The Public Health Insurance Option: Unfair Competition on a Tilting Field

Yes, a Heritage Foundation article is certainly credible evidence for your position.... a pretty circular argument if you ask me.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Yes, a Heritage Foundation article is certainly credible evidence for your position.... a pretty circular argument if you ask me.
Care to support that?
 
The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.

No, Republicans and moderate Democrats are using the filibuster as it was meant to be used- to prevent legislation that's wildly unpopular from being passed. A 2/3rds majority of Americans don't want the health care bill to be passed.
 
Re: Obama to Urge Oversight of Insurers� Rate Increases

Yes, a Heritage Foundation article is certainly credible evidence for your position.... a pretty circular argument if you ask me.

If you can refute anything in the article, let me know. Until CNN starts doing unbiased reporting on this kind of stuff, I'll keep posting Heritage foundation links.
 
The Dems hands aren't clean, but GOP has got them beat.

107 Congress - 61
108 Congress - 49
109 Congress - 54


110 Congress - 104 Holy ****!!

Talk about bringing things to a screeching halt!!


filibuster_chart.jpg


Does anyone have the total number by year. How many last year and how many so for this year?
 
The Dems hands aren't clean, but GOP has got them beat.

107 Congress - 61
108 Congress - 49
109 Congress - 54

110 Congress - 104 Holy ****!!

Talk about bringing things to a screeching halt!!


filibuster_chart.jpg


Does anyone have the total number by year. How many last year and how many so for this year?
How many of those Congresses were under Dem control? Could it possibly be the makeup of the two chambers that makes this option more important than for the Dems? Republican controlled Congresses only had marginal Republican majorities.
 
Nice try, but not exactly the same thing. The fillibuster has a purpose to ensure debate. The senate was intended to the deliberative body where all voices were heard. The fillibuster was not intended to require 60 votes on all pieces of legislation. The Republicans have abused the fillibuster, including holding up over 200 pieces of HR passed legislation. They have abused their power, and like all abuse of power situations (where people don't respect the responsibility that comes with the power), stripping them of that power is an intelligent option.

The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.

I think, if you study the record, you will see the use of the fillibuster is now at an all-time high. The Republicans are abusing it.


I see it is ok when Dems do it but not when the GOP does.

Healthcare is not a budget issue so reconciliation should not be used.
 
No, Republicans and moderate Democrats are using the filibuster as it was meant to be used- to prevent legislation that's wildly unpopular from being passed. A 2/3rds majority of Americans don't want the health care bill to be passed.

....of course you know the low ratings are largely those that don't want healthcare reform PLUS those that think this bill is particularly weak.

Given that you are so concerned about the public opinion, I must assume then you are also in favor of the public option, which is supported by over 60% of the voting populace... and agree with the intent of reform, also the opinion of the majority....
 
Nice try, but not exactly the same thing. The fillibuster has a purpose to ensure debate. The senate was intended to the deliberative body where all voices were heard. The fillibuster was not intended to require 60 votes on all pieces of legislation. The Republicans have abused the fillibuster, including holding up over 200 pieces of HR passed legislation. They have abused their power, and like all abuse of power situations (where people don't respect the responsibility that comes with the power), stripping them of that power is an intelligent option.

The 2005 issue was the Democrats wanting to use the fillibuster for its intended purpose: to further the debate and discussion.

I think, if you study the record, you will see the use of the fillibuster is now at an all-time high. The Republicans are abusing it.

The Dems hands aren't clean, but GOP has got them beat.

107 Congress - 61
108 Congress - 49
109 Congress - 54


110 Congress - 104 Holy ****!!

Talk about bringing things to a screeching halt!!

Does anyone have the total number by year. How many last year and how many so for this year?

You can't draw conclusions like this based on something as simple as the number of cloture votes.

In addition, it's pointless to use the number of cloture votes in an attempt to draw any conclusions about the changing perception/use of the filibuster over time. First, the number of votes needed for cloture was 67 until 1975 when it was reduced to 60. Second, the reason the number has fluctuated so wildly in recent years is because whether or not something counts as a technical filibuster depends on whether a Senator brings something up for a procedural vote. Since 99% of the time everyone knows how the vote will turn out, Senators don't make cloture motions that they know will be doomed to failure unless they're doing so for political reasons.

Think about it - if you were part of the majority and wanted to paint the minority as "obstructionist" in order to score political points, what would you do? You'd take a few dozen bills that you know would never win a cloture vote and bring cloture motions on all of them. They all fail, and BOOM! You've got a ready-made headline: "Obstructionist Minority Filibusters Record Number of Bills."

http://www.debatepolitics.com/break...oor-faces-uphill-battle-2.html#post1058509207

The purpose of the filibuster is to prevent Congress from enacting controversial bills via slight majorities in both houses. The purpose remains the same whether it's used once or a thousand times. Obama et al. had no problem with it when they were the ones benefiting.
 
Last edited:
I see it is ok when Dems do it but not when the GOP does.

Healthcare is not a budget issue so reconciliation should not be used.

The Dems have generally used the fillibuster for its intended purpose; to ensure a full debate. The Repubs have decided that it takes 60 votes to get anything through the senate; that is an abuse of power. My issue is not Dem or Rep, its about abuse of power.....
 
The Dems have generally used the fillibuster for its intended purpose; to ensure a full debate. The Repubs have decided that it takes 60 votes to get anything through the senate; that is an abuse of power. My issue is not Dem or Rep, its about abuse of power.....

I guess advise and consent is one you forget about
 
Back
Top Bottom