• 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!

Who'll Be Watching the Health Care Reform Debate on Sunday?

Who'll Be Watching the House Health Care Reform Debate on Sunday?


  • Total voters
    30
  • Poll closed .
Now I am not a legal scholar here, but how is it that mandated auto insurance would not have been shot down by the same lack of constitutionality then?

Those are mandated by the states, and plus it's only if you own a car. No one is forcing you to buy a car either.
 
Auto insurance mandates come from the states.

So states are allowed to coerce people to buy into a service, when the fed cannot?

I know, and a lot of leeway is left up to the states (less than should be - damn commerce clause interpretations), but this really seems odd that one is constitutional and the other could potentially not be.
 
Those are mandated by the states, and plus it's only if you own a car. No one is forcing you to buy a car either.

good point, I knew something was not processing completely in my thinking,
 
So states are allowed to coerce people to buy into a service, when the fed cannot?

I know, and a lot of leeway is left up to the states (less than should be - damn commerce clause interpretations), but this really seems odd that one is constitutional and the other could potentially not be.

The Constitution created a federal government of limited powers, but the states retained plenary authority over their citizens. Unless a state acts in a way that infringes upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution or that is preempted by federal authority, it can do whatever it wants.
 
The Constitution created a federal government of limited powers, but the states retained plenary authority over their citizens. Unless a state acts in a way that infringes upon rights guaranteed by the Constitution or that is preempted by federal authority, it can do whatever it wants.


LOL @ you taking it back to Civics 101 for me :)

I was being circuitous, but I was wondering if there was anything specific while overlooking the obvious.
 
Watching cspan right now (as they're voting on the latest motion) is like watching an ant colony. Everybody appears to be moving completely randomly, but you know there's got to be some underlying algorithms to it all.
 
What is a "motion to suspend the rules"? I suck at cspan.
 
What is a "motion to suspend the rules"? I suck at cspan.
Sounds like...a motion to suspend the rules...

Or, in other words, that "I move we suspend the rules".

I suppose whoever proposed it wants to punch out his opponent...lol.

Or are there even rules against that?
 
The rule just passed with 228 aye votes.

Gao the sole Republican to vote aye back in November, voted no.
 
The previous vote was a vote to have a vote on the rules.

Now they have held the vote on the rules: 224 - 206 with one non-voting, the rules are passed and that tells us that they have the votes to pass the health care reform and reconciliation bills, too. One more vote on an unrelated issue and then the two hour debate begins.
 
The previous vote was a vote to have a vote on the rules.

Now they have held the vote on the rules: 224 - 206 with one non-voting, the rules are passed and that tells us that they have the votes to pass the health care reform and reconciliation bills, too. One more vote on an unrelated issue and then the two hour debate begins.
a long, drawn out process, but will be worth it in a couple of hours:)
 
For those of us who admire the House, these debates are very satisfying.
 
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reminds us of the opposition slurs against all the great progressive initiatives of the past century, like Social Security and Medicare, and placed this health reform bill among those great achievements.
 
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reminds us of the opposition slurs against all the great progressive initiatives of the past century, like Social Security and Medicare, and placed this health reform bill among those great achievements.

I think you're absolutely right that this bill will eventually be looked at in the same light as SS/Medicare. Coincidentally, 2017 is the year when the real impact of those programs will begin to be felt as well.
 
Majority Leader Steny Hoyer reminds us of the opposition slurs against all the great progressive initiatives of the past century, like Social Security and Medicare, and placed this health reform bill among those great achievements.

Those great achievement are going bankrupt :) Good in theory by a failure in practice. This healthcare bill is not equal to social security and medicare. I heard today that they were equating it with civil rights legislation... They will say anything to crush the opposition without using facts.
 
I have it on. I don't know why, but I have it on.

And **** every one of those assholes who get up on that lecturn and praise this piece of **** legislation. Because they're about to **** every last one of us with it.
 
7:20 pm et, Stupak colloquy occurring now. It was a minute or less.
 
I think you're absolutely right that this bill will eventually be looked at in the same light as SS/Medicare. Coincidentally, 2017 is the year when the real impact of those programs will begin to be felt as well.

I agree with that too. That it will be looked on as a complete failure and financial black hole, just like SS and Medicare.
 
FWIW, I don't see any reason for them to acknowledge the protesters. I also very much doubt any challenge will be successful, though I certainly agree about November.

Bush used to acknowledge the opposition...
 
Oh goodie, Charlie Rangel. He should be in prison instead of at the lectern.
 
Last edited:
7:47 pm et, Rep. Charles Rangel speaking, proud to be part of this great legislation.
 
Back
Top Bottom