Reconciliation On Health Care (or anything else), How Can You Defend It?

[Care4all]

What is a Constitutional republic?

I know what a Democratic republic is, and it is NOT a republic, as in the Republic of Congo, but the term constitutional republic tells me nothing???

what if our constitution said 10 people, who are not voted on democratically, will run the republic?

Originally, we didn't have popular vote for Senators and Representatives, they were appointed by state governments.

Wiki has a pretty good definition of Constitutional Republic, the germane points being a codified Constitution which limits government power - with separation thereof.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Nope, I don't believe you are correct on this....!


I believe in the beginning we had representation to democratically vote on, only the Senate was appointed by the individual State government, to represent them.

We are a Democratic Republic...we are not a socialist republic, we are not a fascist republic, we are not a communist republic we are not a totalitarian republic...we are a Democratic Republic....we are a FORM of Democracy....

we have a form of democracy governed by the constitution, and not a parliamentary democracy as example, that rules a Republic.

I am fine with Constitutional republic, but it tells us nothing by that title and I am wondering why the PC police changed it from what we were taght in my day and my parent's day?

 

[boedicca]

Nope, I don't believe you are correct on this....!


I believe in the beginning we had representation to democratically vote on, only the Senate was appointed by the individual State government, to represent them.

We are a Democratic Republic...we are not a socialist republic, we are not a fascist republic, we are not a communist republic we are not a totalitarian republic...we are a Democratic Republic....we are a FORM of Democracy....

we have a form of democracy governed by the constitution, and not a parliamentary democracy as example, that rules a Republic.

I am fine with Constitutional republic, but it tells us nothing by that title and I am wondering why the PC police changed it from what we were taght in my day and my parent's day?

You're right - I stand corrected. Senators were not popularly elected in all states; Representative were.

The PC Police (Progressives) have an agenda to do away with the checks and balances that protect the political minority - i.e., their attacks on the Electoral College. It's of a piece that they would substitute "Democratic" for "Constitutional" to further an attitudinal shift.

 

[California Girl]

At the risk of repeating myself, and just because I would really like at least one of the liberals with some integrity on here to answer me this. What changed Obama's view from his stance in 2007 when he said, specifically regarding health care.... that to use the 50 + 1 vote on healthcare was something that he absolutely would not do. In fact he said that if anyone had to use 50 + 1 (or reconciliation if you will, or the nuke option, or a 'straight up and down' vote I believe is the phrase of the day)... if a President had to use 50 + 1 then he had lost the ability to govern. He further said that the President who used this may have airforce one and the perks, but he certainly wasn't the President. So, if this was so abhorrent to him in 2007, why is it ok now?

Please no waffle about Bush or the GOP having used it previously. Basic math confirms that two wrongs do not equal one right.

I would need to see what he actually said before i could comment one way or the other...do you have a link to the comment or was it posted in an earlier link that i missed Cali?

I have to say, surprisingly, the MSM doesn't seem to be covering it. Only the right wing sites are running the video and audio clip but here is a direct quote. You may take my word for it, or check for yourself....

You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody's disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can't, you can't deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We're not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

 

[Care4all]

At the risk of repeating myself, and just because I would really like at least one of the liberals with some integrity on here to answer me this. What changed Obama's view from his stance in 2007 when he said, specifically regarding health care.... that to use the 50 + 1 vote on healthcare was something that he absolutely would not do. In fact he said that if anyone had to use 50 + 1 (or reconciliation if you will, or the nuke option, or a 'straight up and down' vote I believe is the phrase of the day)... if a President had to use 50 + 1 then he had lost the ability to govern. He further said that the President who used this may have airforce one and the perks, but he certainly wasn't the President. So, if this was so abhorrent to him in 2007, why is it ok now?

Please no waffle about Bush or the GOP having used it previously. Basic math confirms that two wrongs do not equal one right.

I would need to see what he actually said before i could comment one way or the other...do you have a link to the comment or was it posted in an earlier link that i missed Cali?

I have to say, surprisingly, the MSM doesn't seem to be covering it. Only the right wing sites are running the video and audio clip but here is a direct quote. You may take my word for it, or check for yourself....

You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody's disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can't, you can't deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We're not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

the healthcare bill in the house PASSED ALREADY with a majority and the senate did NOT use reconciliation to pass the healthcare bill, they used the filibuster, with 60 votes to pass the bill.

that's my answer, they DID NOT, under any terms, use reconciliation TO PASS the health care bill in the senate, last december....no lie there on obama's part...

also, wanting a congtress that supports him from both sides of the aisle was thwarted by republicans, no?

i don't consider what goes on in conference with amendments to merge the 2 bills together, so they are on the same page, as reconciliation.....reconciliation takes place prior to any bill being presented on the floor for debate and a vote....this was NOT DONE in the senate and the senate passed the Bill without it.

 

[California Girl]

I would need to see what he actually said before i could comment one way or the other...do you have a link to the comment or was it posted in an earlier link that i missed Cali?

I have to say, surprisingly, the MSM doesn't seem to be covering it. Only the right wing sites are running the video and audio clip but here is a direct quote. You may take my word for it, or check for yourself....

You've got to break out of what I call the sort of 50 plus one pattern of presidential politics which is you have nasty primaries where everybody's disheartened and beaten up. Then you divide the country 45 percent on one side, and 45 percent on the other, and 10 percent in the middle and (unintelligible) and Florida behind. And battle it out and then maybe you eke out a victory of 50 plus one. Then you can't govern. You know, you get Air Force One, I mean there are a lot of nice perks for being president. But you can't, you can't deliver on healthcare. We are not going to pass universal healthcare with a 50 plus one strategy. We're not going to have a serious, bold energy policy of the sort I proposed yesterday unless you build a working majority.

the healthcare bill in the house PASSED ALREADY with a majority and the senate did NOT use reconciliation to pass the healthcare bill, they used the filibuster, with 60 votes to pass the bill.

that's my answer, they DID NOT, under any terms, use reconciliation TO PASS the health care bill in the senate, last december....no lie there on obama's part...

also, wanting a congtress that supports him from both sides of the aisle was thwarted by republicans, no?

i don't consider what goes on in conference with amendments to merge the 2 bills together, so they are on the same page, as reconciliation.....reconciliation takes place prior to any bill being presented on the floor for debate and a vote....this was NOT DONE in the senate and the senate passed the Bill without it.

Whether you consider it to be or not, it is. They are about to use it to pass this. With a 50+1, straight up and down, reconciliation, nuke option or whatever name you want to call it. They are planning to use it to force it through. So, what say you?

 

[Missourian]

I dunno...maybe because they want to remain a viable political party? just a guess.

but if you want a piece of that bet, just say so.

So Democrat will remain a viable political party when they use reconciliation to pass their agenda...but the Republicans wouldn't.

our agenda? we are using reconciliation to pass health care reform. If you want to use it to pass the plethora of conservative agenda items on which I was commenting, go right ahead. I dare ya.

Yes, the Congressional Democrat's and Obama's agenda.

This 2000 page bill that the Democrats want to ram through using reconciliation certainly isn't the will of the American people:

CNN Poll: 73% Oppose Health Care Bill

February 24th, 2010

Washington (CNN) –



Full results [PDF]


Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.The most telling results of the CNN poll were among Democrats and Independents.
.
.
.

..........In Favor.........Start Over or Stop Work
________________________________________
​

Dems.............49%..........................50%

Indies.............18%..........................79%

Repubs.............6%..........................93%

.
.
.
.

​

Notice that even the majority of Democrats are opposed to Obamacare in it's current form.​

 

[maineman]

So Democrat will remain a viable political party when they use reconciliation to pass their agenda...but the Republicans wouldn't.

our agenda? we are using reconciliation to pass health care reform. If you want to use it to pass the plethora of conservative agenda items on which I was commenting, go right ahead. I dare ya.

Yes, the Congressional Democrat's and Obama's agenda.

This 2000 page bill that the Democrats want to ram through using reconciliation certainly isn't the will of the American people:

CNN Poll: 73% Oppose Health Care Bill

February 24th, 2010

Washington (CNN) –



Full results [PDF]


Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.The most telling results of the CNN poll were among Democrats and Independents.
.
.
.

..........In Favor.........Start Over or Stop Work
________________________________________
​

Dems.............49%..........................50%

Indies.............18%..........................79%

Repubs.............6%..........................93%

.
.
.
.

​

Notice that even the majority of Democrats are opposed to Obamacare in it's current form.​

what can I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

 

[boedicca]

what ca I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

How nice - playing the Race Card.

Government taking over health care and drive the country further into debt bears absolutely no resemblance to fulfilling the value of "all men are created equal".

Forcing an equal outcome is not the same as having equal inalienable rights.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

That can't be. They already told us we can't read. MediCaid/MediCare could not be examples of PROVIDING general welfar, right?

Yes they are. They are PROMOTING the general welfare of people incapable of providing their own healthcare due to mental incapacity or physical handicaps.....not because they turned down coverage because they feel they don't need it or refuse to get a goddam job and work for a living!

You people really need to wake the fuck up and realize that it's NOT the job of government to take up the slack of you able-bodied freeloaders!!!!!

So ALL of the Tea Baggers and GOP supporters carrying signs stating "Hands off my MediCare" are able bodied freeloaders now?

Sorry....if you're too fucking stupid to see that they are ENTITLED to that Medicare because they are 65 years old then there is no hope for you. My suggestion is go get read up on the current laws in place.

 

[Skull Pilot]

what ca I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

How nice - playing the Race Card.

Government taking over health care and drive the country further into debt bears absolutely no resemblance to fulfilling the value of "all men are created equal".

Forcing an equal outcome is not the same as having equal inalienable rights.

Look at what the MA version of Obama Care has done

http://www.usmessageboard.com/healthcare-insurance-govt-healthcare/107870-why-doesnt-obama-use-romney-care-as-an-example.html

If that's what some of you call "doing the right thing", I'd hate to see what you define as wrong.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

are you suggesting that providing some baseline level of marginal support is NOT promoting general welfare? Are you suggesting that some small degree of provision is precluded by language from the various tactics that might be employed to promote such welfare?

Re-read what you type. you said PROVIDING...the constitution says promoting .

I am indeed implying that the government was not given the power to actually provide for the general welfare due to the language. If the language read Provide for the general defence, provide for the general welfare you would be right. However it does not say that.

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

and providing them help entails reforming healthcare in a bipartisan fashion....NOT trying to implement a partisan progressive bill that brings us several steps closer to a European style socialist society.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

if we "provide a bit of it for those folks who need some help" then we are providing the general welfare, not promoting it.

I disagree. If, for example, I PROVIDE free condoms to AIDS infected prostitutes and encourage them to have their johns use them, I a PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare of society as a whole. got it? good.

Wrong...you are guilty of the felony of Pandering by pimping out your AID's infected prostitutes.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

our agenda? we are using reconciliation to pass health care reform.

No you're not...your using reconciliation in an attempt to ram a flawed bill down the throats of the majority of Americans. This is a Republic....and however much you progressives wish this country is not a dictatorship

 

[PatekPhilippe]

the healthcare bill in the house PASSED ALREADY with a majority and the senate did NOT use reconciliation to pass the healthcare bill, they used the filibuster, with 60 votes to pass the bill.

Care4All...you are aware that those were 2 different Bills right? and why would the Democrats "use the filibuster" to pass a Bill? This makes no sense.

 

[Missourian]

our agenda? we are using reconciliation to pass health care reform. If you want to use it to pass the plethora of conservative agenda items on which I was commenting, go right ahead. I dare ya.

Yes, the Congressional Democrat's and Obama's agenda.

This 2000 page bill that the Democrats want to ram through using reconciliation certainly isn't the will of the American people:

CNN Poll: 73% Oppose Health Care Bill

February 24th, 2010

Washington (CNN) –



Full results [PDF]


Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.The most telling results of the CNN poll were among Democrats and Independents.
.
.
.

..........In Favor.........Start Over or Stop Work
________________________________________
​

Dems.............49%..........................50%

Indies.............18%..........................79%

Repubs.............6%..........................93%

.
.
.
.

​

Notice that even the majority of Democrats are opposed to Obamacare in it's current form.​

what can I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

First, the Civil Rights Act was supported by the majority of Americans...only one Republican joined the Southern Democrat filibuster in the Senate.

Second, I'm afraid "Trust us, we know what's best for you" isn't going to cut the mustard.

Americans, both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of health care reform...but this bill is not the reform Americans want.

Do Congressional Democrats and President Obama think "we the people" are incapable of reaching our own intelligent decision on health care reform?

Do they believe we are so mentally deficient that they must take it upon themselves to show us the error of our ways?

Because that is exactly how this reconciliation process sounds to the American people.

"No, we don't care what you think...we know what's best for you."

 

[maineman]

Yes, the Congressional Democrat's and Obama's agenda.

This 2000 page bill that the Democrats want to ram through using reconciliation certainly isn't the will of the American people:

CNN Poll: 73% Oppose Health Care Bill

February 24th, 2010

Washington (CNN) –



Full results [PDF]


Twenty-five percent of people questioned in the poll say Congress should pass legislation similar to the bills passed by both chambers, with 48 percent saying lawmakers should work on an entirely new bill and a quarter saying Congress should stop all work on health care reform.The most telling results of the CNN poll were among Democrats and Independents.
.
.
.

..........In Favor.........Start Over or Stop Work
________________________________________
​

Dems.............49%..........................50%

Indies.............18%..........................79%

Repubs.............6%..........................93%

.
.
.
.

​

Notice that even the majority of Democrats are opposed to Obamacare in it's current form.​

what can I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

First, the Civil Rights Act was supported by the majority of Americans...only one Republican joined the Southern Democrat filibuster in the Senate.

Second, I'm afraid "Trust us, we know what's best for you" isn't going to cut the mustard.

Americans, both Democrats and Republicans are in favor of health care reform...but this bill is not the reform Americans want.

Do Congressional Democrats and President Obama think "we the people" are incapable of reaching our own intelligent decision on health care reform?

Do they believe we are so mentally deficient that they must take it upon themselves to show us the error of our ways?

Because that is exactly how this reconciliation process sounds to the American people.

"No, we don't care what you think...we know what's best for you."

Americans who polls show do not support the "bill" oddly enough support all the major provisions OF the bill. Portability... no caps on claims.... expanded coverage.... no denial for pre-existing conditions... most americans support a public option, even....but for some reason, they don't like this "bill". curious.

now be honest. Have YOU read the entire bill? I know I have not. I have read a synopsis of it provided by my congresswoman's office.... and I am a political junkie. WHat percent of those americans that claim they are "against the bill" have read even two sentences of it? or have any REAL idea about what is really contained therein? If you would be honest, I would imagine you might put that percentage somewhere at under 3% like I do.... in which case, what does it even mean?

 

[jillian]

I can justify it.... aside from what care said, which is dead on right....

when a minority insists on blocking the majority for no reason but their own political gain, you have to do what you have to do.

as republicans did 22 times.

i don't recall seeing a single thread on it, though. why? because there wasn't anything wong with it then and there isn't anything wrong with it now.

 

[maineman]

what ca I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

How nice - playing the Race Card.

Government taking over health care and drive the country further into debt bears absolutely no resemblance to fulfilling the value of "all men are created equal".

Forcing an equal outcome is not the same as having equal inalienable rights.

LMAO! That's not playing the race card. That is stating a fact. People are hesitant to accept something new because they place a negative connotation on uncertainty and change. When people realize that this bill will reduce the deficit, improve the quality of the health care system, and put a leash on the insurance companies' mistreatment of AMericans, they'll quickly grow to accept it and to approve of it.

Nothing in this bill has even the faintest resemblance to government taking over health care.

Unlike the massive Bush tax cuts for millionaires, which was passed by reconciliation, by the way...this bill actually reduces the deficit and decreases our debt.... according to the non-partisan CBO.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

I can justify it.... aside from what care said, which is dead on right....

when a minority insists on blocking the majority for no reason but their own political gain, you have to do what you have to do.

as republicans did 22 times.

i don't recall seeing a single thread on it, though. why? because there wasn't anything wong with it then and there isn't anything wrong with it now.

Care is not right...they WERE 2 DIFFERENT BILLS!!!! Now you are rewriting history saying one Bill was voted on in the House and Senate???!!! If this were true then Obama would have already signed it into law!!!!

C'mon people....just because the "Republicans did it" is NO JUSTIFICATION FOR RAMMING A FLAWED BILL DOWN THE THROATS OF THE MAJORITY OF AMERICANS WHO OUTRIGHT REJECT IT!!!!!

No matter how rabid an Obama supporter you are you cannot actually believe that paying 10 years of taxes for 6 years of benefits will be deficit neutral down the road....WHEN WILL YOU ALL WAKE UP TO THIS FACT!!!!!

 

[PatekPhilippe]

what ca I say? sometimes doing the right thing isn't popular with folks. I wonder how many white folks south of the mason-dixon line were happy with washington when they passed the civil rights act? When people see the benefits in action, they will approve of the results.

How nice - playing the Race Card.

Government taking over health care and drive the country further into debt bears absolutely no resemblance to fulfilling the value of "all men are created equal".

Forcing an equal outcome is not the same as having equal inalienable rights.

LMAO! That's not playing the race card. That is stating a fact. People are hesitant to accept something new because they place a negative connotation on uncertainty and change. When people realize that this bill will reduce the deficit, improve the quality of the health care system, and put a leash on the insurance companies' mistreatment of AMericans, they'll quickly grow to accept it and to approve of it.

Nothing in this bill has even the faintest resemblance to government taking over health care.

Unlike the massive Bush tax cuts for millionaires, which was passed by reconciliation, by the way...this bill actually reduces the deficit and decreases our debt.... according to the non-partisan CBO.

Did you get kicked out of the Navy for smoking pot? If you actually believe this, it's little wonder you passed over for Captain.