Reconciliation...

[Murf76]

Yeah, starting all the way over and re-hashing out ALL of the already agreed upon parts is MUCH more efficient than just working on the disputed parts.

I'm sorry ...can you show me which party is immune to adding pork? That's right. You can't. Both sides do it.

Again, it doesn't matter if Mitch McConnell agrees that 'water is wet' if Obama's holding his head under 'until the bubble's stop'.

The poison pills are not negotiable, therefore the entire bill is unacceptable.



And in regards to pork... I think Washington is going to be seeing a big wake-up call on that. There is NO MONEY. And when we have NO MONEY... the waste is intolerable.

 

[Liability]

Can the GOP go to the Supreme Court with a petition to preempt this reconciliation before it gets started?

Quick hunch: no.

(A) the issue would not yet be "ripe." They have jurisdiction over proper cases and controversies, but they are not allowed to offer mere "advisory" opinions.

(B) I suspect that how the Congress passes a bill is gonna get relegated to the trash-bin known as a "political question." As a rule, the Court will not take such a case.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

The American People will not accept ObamaCare nohow, noway and nowhere! Stop this takeover of 1/6 of our economy; it is only the beginning with these Fascists pigs.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Can the GOP go to the Supreme Court with a petition to preempt this reconciliation before it gets started?

Quick hunch: no.

(A) the issue would not yet be "ripe." They have jurisdiction over proper cases and controversies, but they are not allowed to offer mere "advisory" opinions.

(B) I suspect that how the Congress passes a bill is gonna get relegated to the trash-bin known as a "political question." As a rule, the Court will not take such a case.

Then what are we going to take to the Supreme Court and who will do it? What good is a Supreme Court if it can't protect us from a dictator?

 

[Vanquish]

Murf, figures you'd spout the party line about the McCain comment. McCain was taking a shot at the Pres and the Pres responded back IN KIND. You can take his response as arrogant...but only if you forget the context which was McCain trying to pin BO's fat to the fire. You try to bite...you get bit back. That's how it works.

I'm not a shill for the DNC. I'm a left-leaning centrist. I'm pro-life, I'm pro-gun, I'm pro-term limits. Those are 3 big checkmarks in the conservative column. I'm also for spending more on ferreting out welfare cheats (the insurance companies do do one thing right...they spend the right amount uncovering fraud) and I'm against immigration amnesty/enforcing immigration without giving in. Ohh...wait...am I sounding like a liberal? Thought not.

In fact, I pride myself on going with good ideas..not a particular party. To be new-ageiy about it, "my self-esteem is invested in it" if that paints a clearer picture for you. That being the case, I DVR'd the damn thing...and watched it trying to be as unbiased to either side as possible. It's my belief that anyone who does that...doesnt have to agree with BO, but should admit to themselves he tried to be fair.

You don't agree..and that's your choice. But just saying that he monopolized the conversation isn't proof enough for me. He was the moderator and also the person to whom most of the questions were addressed to. I'll totally agree with you that there could have been a much better process inside that room. I've negotiated settlements and done mediations that were just as emotional and contentious/detailed...and gotten to an agreement. (Not being arrogant, just trying to relate to the situation)

I'll even go so far as to say that the pork in the bill is worthy of starting over...IF we could be sure that it wouldnt happen again. But we both know it will. In a perfect world would starting over be a good idea? Sure. I agree. But this isnt a perfect world. There are some Republicans who want to do it because it might be the right thing to do. There are others who want to do it as a delaying tactic and perhaps a killing tactic. A way to attack BO for not doing something yet.

If you can't at least admit that there are good AND bad reasons to start over, you're not being very objective.

 

[Liability]

Can the GOP go to the Supreme Court with a petition to preempt this reconciliation before it gets started?

Quick hunch: no.

(A) the issue would not yet be "ripe." They have jurisdiction over proper cases and controversies, but they are not allowed to offer mere "advisory" opinions.

(B) I suspect that how the Congress passes a bill is gonna get relegated to the trash-bin known as a "political question." As a rule, the Court will not take such a case.

Then what are we going to take to the Supreme Court and who will do it? What good is a Supreme Court if it can't protect us from a dictator?

I didn't suggest we can't (eventually) attack the legislation, if it passes. What I did was respond to your specific question which was whether it can be done PREEMPTIVELY. Unless you meant to ask some other question. Maybe I misunderstood.

I don't believe the bill can be properly attacked on a Constitutional basis before it even gets passed.

IF there are sound, fair, reasonable, factually supportable arguments to make concerning the inherent unConstitutionality of the eventual Health Care bill, then the time to raise those claims is after it gets passed or after it first starts to get implemented.

 

[Meister]

Has anyone thought about what happens when we end up having to fund this "deficit neutral bill"?

 

[Liability]

Has anyone thought about what happens when we end up having to fund this "deficit neutral bill"?

When? During the first 3 to 4 years of additionally imposed taxation without any implementation of the other components of the bill?

 

[Meister]

Has anyone thought about what happens when we end up having to fund this "deficit neutral bill"?

When? During the first 3 to 4 years of additionally imposed taxation without any implementation of the other components of the bill?

At some point reality is going to set in...(you know the dirty little secret of this bill) the part where the jimmied numbers are exposed and that it won't be deficit neutral, and that it will require additional funding. The 4 years isn't going to make a difference in the long run of this bill.
Will congress enact additional taxes, or will it become unfunded?

 

[Vanquish]

Quick hunch: no.

(A) the issue would not yet be "ripe." They have jurisdiction over proper cases and controversies, but they are not allowed to offer mere "advisory" opinions.

(B) I suspect that how the Congress passes a bill is gonna get relegated to the trash-bin known as a "political question." As a rule, the Court will not take such a case.

Then what are we going to take to the Supreme Court and who will do it? What good is a Supreme Court if it can't protect us from a dictator?

I didn't suggest we can't (eventually) attack the legislation, if it passes. What I did was respond to your specific question which was whether it can be done PREEMPTIVELY. Unless you meant to ask some other question. Maybe I misunderstood.

I don't believe the bill can be properly attacked on a Constitutional basis before it even gets passed.

IF there are sound, fair, reasonable, factually supportable arguments to make concerning the inherent unConstitutionality of the eventual Health Care bill, then the time to raise those claims is after it gets passed or after it first starts to get implemented.

So you're asking the SCOTUS to stop a procedural mechanism on grounds that it's improper procedurally? Yeah, they wont do that either.

 

[boedicca]

Has anyone thought about what happens when we end up having to fund this "deficit neutral bill"?

Uh. Yeah. The 50% plus of the population who oppose it have. Here's what's going to happen, similar to everywhere else socialized medicine (and control by any other name is still statism) has been tried:

- For the first few years, the government will collect the taxes without expending benefits, and claim a success because they are using the funds to reduce the structural deficit.

- The supply of doctors will stagnate or drop as many retire early and students choose other careers.

- Innovation will drop because the ROI to invest in new equipment, medicines, and techniques will have too high a hurdle rate after factoring in the ObamaCare board approval.

- Demand will increase because the consumer is shielded from prices.

- As demand starts outpacing supply, the 100+ ObamaCare boards will change the mandated standards of care to raise age eligibility levels, eliminate more medicines and procedures, thus creating a bureaucratic "faceless" form of rationing of longer wait times for care and denial of approval for "non standard care".

- The elite levels of government will get special and preferred care denied the rest of us, ala Obama's virtual colonoscopy.

If we're lucky, enough doctors and practitioners will enter the underground economy so those of us who wish to bypass the system may acquire treatment for cash.

 

[Liability]

Then what are we going to take to the Supreme Court and who will do it? What good is a Supreme Court if it can't protect us from a dictator?

I didn't suggest we can't (eventually) attack the legislation, if it passes. What I did was respond to your specific question which was whether it can be done PREEMPTIVELY. Unless you meant to ask some other question. Maybe I misunderstood.

I don't believe the bill can be properly attacked on a Constitutional basis before it even gets passed.

IF there are sound, fair, reasonable, factually supportable arguments to make concerning the inherent unConstitutionality of the eventual Health Care bill, then the time to raise those claims is after it gets passed or after it first starts to get implemented.

So you're asking the SCOTUS to stop a procedural mechanism on grounds that it's improper procedurally? Yeah, they wont do that either.

Out of curiosity, where did you get what I was allegedly "asking" from anything I had just posted?



I wasn't "asking" for any such thing. In fact, I didn't "ask" for anything at all.

I'm pretty sure that what I just finished saying was that the procedural mechanism of HOW Congress passes a bill would be a "political question" matter that the Court would NOT take.

 

[AvgGuyIA]

Quick hunch: no.

(A) the issue would not yet be "ripe." They have jurisdiction over proper cases and controversies, but they are not allowed to offer mere "advisory" opinions.

(B) I suspect that how the Congress passes a bill is gonna get relegated to the trash-bin known as a "political question." As a rule, the Court will not take such a case.

Then what are we going to take to the Supreme Court and who will do it? What good is a Supreme Court if it can't protect us from a dictator?

I didn't suggest we can't (eventually) attack the legislation, if it passes. What I did was respond to your specific question which was whether it can be done PREEMPTIVELY. Unless you meant to ask some other question. Maybe I misunderstood.

I don't believe the bill can be properly attacked on a Constitutional basis before it even gets passed.

IF there are sound, fair, reasonable, factually supportable arguments to make concerning the inherent unConstitutionality of the eventual Health Care bill, then the time to raise those claims is after it gets passed or after it first starts to get implemented.

Thanks. I sure hope we don't wait until 2013 when the Bill gets implemented; I'm hoping we can do it immediately while we are being taxed for the first 4 years.

 

[masquerade]

There is already a shortage of MD's. Many of them, if this bill passes, will retire.
Though new med schools are being constructed to keep up with applications, most of the students will be going into a specialty service rather than family care. Get ready for long waits and rationing of care.

 

[Vanquish]

Liability...I wasn't talking about YOU...I was talking to the person you were replying to. People around get so defensive. I did quote you so that's my bad.

 

[Murf76]

Murf, figures you'd spout the party line about the McCain comment. McCain was taking a shot at the Pres and the Pres responded back IN KIND. You can take his response as arrogant...but only if you forget the context which was McCain trying to pin BO's fat to the fire. You try to bite...you get bit back. That's how it works.

Again... what did McCain say that was a lie? All those carve-outs and bribes are right there in the Senate bill, Obama's starting point. Both McCain *AND* Obama had indeed promised to end this kind of corruption. But, Obama had no rational response for it, nothing but a snide comment to McCain about the election being over.

I'm not a shill for the DNC. I'm a left-leaning centrist. I'm pro-life, I'm pro-gun, I'm pro-term limits. Those are 3 big checkmarks in the conservative column. I'm also for spending more on ferreting out welfare cheats (the insurance companies do do one thing right...they spend the right amount uncovering fraud) and I'm against immigration amnesty/enforcing immigration without giving in. Ohh...wait...am I sounding like a liberal? Thought not.

In fact, I pride myself on going with good ideas..not a particular party. To be new-ageiy about it, "my self-esteem is invested in it" if that paints a clearer picture for you. That being the case, I DVR'd the damn thing...and watched it trying to be as unbiased to either side as possible. It's my belief that anyone who does that...doesnt have to agree with BO, but should admit to themselves he tried to be fair.

Refusal to budge off a fundamentally unacceptable piece of legislation is NOT "trying to be fair". Not even close. There were some items that could be hashed out on both sides, but the poison pills had to be abandoned in order to get there. A child could understand that. But not Obama? Is that what we're supposed to believe?
Or is it more likely that he never had any intention of conducting honest negotiations?

You don't agree..and that's your choice. But just saying that he monopolized the conversation isn't proof enough for me. He was the moderator and also the person to whom most of the questions were addressed to. I'll totally agree with you that there could have been a much better process inside that room. I've negotiated settlements and done mediations that were just as emotional and contentious/detailed...and gotten to an agreement. (Not being arrogant, just trying to relate to the situation)

I'll even go so far as to say that the pork in the bill is worthy of starting over...IF we could be sure that it wouldnt happen again. But we both know it will. In a perfect world would starting over be a good idea? Sure. I agree. But this isnt a perfect world. There are some Republicans who want to do it because it might be the right thing to do. There are others who want to do it as a delaying tactic and perhaps a killing tactic. A way to attack BO for not doing something yet.

If you can't at least admit that there are good AND bad reasons to start over, you're not being very objective.

Maybe you'd have a case for claiming that some Republicans are obstructing for political reasons... if the bill wasn't such a godawful pile of crap. As it is, the absolutely right and correct thing to do is to stop it any way possible.

At the bottom line, we aren't going to get GOOD LEGISLATION until this utter mess is pushed aside. There's no way forward until we move the wreck off the road.

And if they continue forward, like it appears they will... Democrats WILL pay for the "audacity" of ignoring the American people. They're operating under the assumption that their losses will be small and temporary. But even some of your own guys are saying different.

Trust in government--which has been trending substantially downward since the crash of 2008--is in tipping-point territory right now. A recent New York Times poll showed that 70% of Americans are angry or dissatisfied with how Washington is handling the people's business; 80% said that members of Congress are more interested in pandering to special interest groups than in serving the needs of people who elected them; and 81% said members of Congress across the board deserve to be thrown out. A new CNN poll out this week goes a step further and shows that 56% of Americans now think the federal government poses a threat to their rights, with even 37% of Democrats sharing that view.

Those numbers beg the question: Would the Democrats actually be better off if their comprehensive health care bill does not pass? I tend to think so, though as I argued last week, the best course for Democrats would be to skip the all-or-nothing trap and pass a center-out bill that contains the 80% of insurance reforms on which both sides already agree.

(more...)
http://www.forbes.com/2010/03/02/he...pularity-opinions-columnists-dan-gerstein.htm

This guy repeats the "80% meme" ... but at the bottom line, there were probably 8-10 things that Democrats and Republicans could have agreed on outside the format of the poisoned Senate bill. It wouldn't have taken long to run them up in another bill and fly them through both Houses. The fact that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it... should tell you something.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The fact that Obama, Reid, and Pelosi wouldn't even consider it... should tell you something.

and Congress's current 15% approval rating should tell Vanquish his "left leaning, centrist" Congress is all fucked up!!!!

 

[Wry Catcher]

A Henny Penny Polka party has broken out again. No facts, no compassion, no empathy, noting but avarice, bigotry and fear mongering. - no rational debate allowed!

Let's suppose the preamble to the our Constitution is a vision statement, provided by the founders for all future generatons to use as a guide post for governance. All agree, do we not, that providing for the common defense is good, just, and, dare I write "Constitutional"?
Then how may the "general welfare" be viewed? I know, this question may take some, err...thought and that may scare most of you. But, give it a try.
And what of "establish justice"; given that all of our founders were surely aware of the Magna Carta and The rights of Man - what of the support by some Americans who believe habeas corpus is simply a foreign word?

 

[EriktheRed]

Isn't it interesting how conservatives were right all along in our claims that Obama had ZERO intention of acting in a bipartisan way on this Healthcare Summit last week and that all he was doing was setting up his Reconciliation scenario.

I think that earns a big fat.... TOLD YA SO!

Some of us who support the legislation never thought he was in the first place.

So, what you're telling us essentially is that you have no problem with tyranny over the minority... just so long as you get your way.

No, I'm saying the minority has been a bunch of whiny bitches who obviously never had any interest in helping get this legislation passed in the first. Therefore, why bother to still worrying about working with them on this? Still, there's all this screaming of "bipartisanship!" all over the place so we had a forum so the poor, repressed minority can have a chance to voice their objections. Surprise, surprise...they still didn't have shit in the way of decent ideas.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

A Henny Penny Polka party has broken out again. No facts, no compassion, no empathy, noting but avarice, bigotry and fear mongering. - no rational debate allowed!

Let's suppose the preamble to the our Constitution is a vision statement, provided by the founders for all future generatons to use as a guide post for governance. All agree, do we not, that providing for the common defense is good, just, and, dare I write "Constitutional"?
Then how may the "general welfare" be viewed? I know, this question may take some, err...thought and that may scare most of you. But, give it a try.
And what of "establish justice"; given that all of our founders were surely aware of the Magna Carta and The rights of Man - what of the support by some Americans who believe habeas corpus is simply a foreign word?

The Founder had "Free Health Care For All" in the Constitution? Yeah?