|
Forum Rules | Firearms Safety | Firearms Photos | Links | Library | Lost Password | Email Changes |
Register | FAQ | Calendar | Search | Today's Posts | Mark Forums Read |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
March 17, 2010, 05:56 PM | #51 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
Comment deals with insurance companies, but government has no better a track record, and if granted a monopoly, will be even less responsive. Medicare already has a higher claim rejection rate than private insurance. My daughter was complaining about her insurance, which is just a catastrophic plan, and how she changed to one that was slightly less restrictive and cost less. Still dissatisfied. So I said, "it sounds like you got a less bad deal and are paying less for it. How would that happen if there was a government monopoly?" She isn't fully against Obamacare, but is now thinking hard about personal freedoms at risk due to more government intervention everywhere.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
March 17, 2010, 07:18 PM | #52 |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
For giggles go ahead and google "doctors drop medicare". You should get about 1 googleplex in articles about doctors who have dropped it.
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
March 17, 2010, 09:00 PM | #53 |
Staff
Join Date: April 13, 2000
Location: Northern Virginia
Posts: 41,374
|
My former sister-in-law fled Canada's "health care" system because it would have taken several months to get her in for an MRI that would have diagnosed her debilitating neck pain.
She came across the border to Buffalo and had an MRI that day. She would have waited even longer for the surgery to correct the disk issue that was causing the debilitating pain. She had it two days later in Buffalo.
__________________
"The gift which I am sending you is called a dog, and is in fact the most precious and valuable possession of mankind" -Theodorus Gaza Baby Jesus cries when the fat redneck doesn't have military-grade firepower. |
March 17, 2010, 10:29 PM | #54 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Ahem.... Getting back to the actual topic (y'all do remember what that was? Hmmm?)
A self-enacting rule, by and of itself is not inherently unconstitutional. Consider: In the House, we have Bill A, which is a very unpopular bill, but has passed the Senate. It is also a bill that some members (of the House) see as essential to the country. We also have Bill B, which is hugely popular, in the House. The leadership of the House knows that Bill A may not pass a straight up-down vote. So.... The rules committee (Composed of a majority of the current party of majority) proposes the self-enacting rule that will include both Bill A and Bill B. The rule states that should the House agree upon the rule, both bills will be deemed as passed. Some members will vote "yes" in order to get Bill A passed (as enacted in the Senate), and other members will vote "yes" to to get Bill B passed. The measure carries and Bill A is sent to the President, while Bill B is sent to the Senate. The individual representatives can therefore go back to their constituency and make the claim that in order to get Bill "X" passed (whichever their constituency likes), they had to make a compromise. Plausible and such compromise is politics at its core. No real problem. In fact this is what has happened in the past. In the present case, we have the Healthcare bill (Bill A) that the Senate passed and we have a reconciliation bill (Bill B) that the House has devised to get rid of things they didn't like in the Senate version. And we have the self-enacting rule. Should the rule be approved by the House, then the Healthcare bill will have been deemed to have passed. Um, so will the reconciliation bill. The Healthcare bill will be forwarded to the President who is just waiting to sign it into law. Meanwhile, the reconciliation bill will be sent to the Senate who may or may not pass it as sent. For the sake of the argument, let's say the Senate passes the reconciliation bill as worded. That gets sent to the President (who will most likely sign it) and the newly created law will have been immediately amended (as I understand Senate rules, this bill could come to a vote with as little as 20 hours of debate). What makes this particular "Slaughter Rule" different than those self-enacting rules of the past? By voting for the rule ("yes"), the members will have voted 1) to agree with and to pass the Senate Healthcare bill, and 2) to disagree with the Healthcare bill, because they are also voting for passage of the reconciliation bill. This is a self-contradictory vote. This is the logical conundrum that I see. It's entirely possible that the SCOTUS will see this in the same manner. |
March 18, 2010, 02:47 AM | #55 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 17, 2004
Location: Michigan
Posts: 734
|
Interesting discussion.
Code of conduct rules prevent me from giving my honest opinion of what is going on in the halls of congress right now though. ETA: Let me just say that I agree wholeheartedly with what Al said: Quote:
Sorry for the rant, carry on guys. |
|
March 18, 2010, 04:06 AM | #56 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Posts: 13
|
Quote:
Specifically, if you vote for something, whether you 'agree' with it is really beside the point, and, somewhat meaningless. Either its constitutional to tie two bills together in one vote, or it isn't. I don't see how the contents of the bills change that fact. Say a rule ties together a bill for a tax cut, and a bill that rescinds that tax cut. The end result is no change in law, its just political games, but is it unconstitutional? So, the House members will be voting yes or no on the senate bill (with its abortion language, which I understand is the sticking point for many), and the 'reconciliation' bill, which may or may not get passed in the senate. So they can say 'no, it wasn't my intention to pass that abortion language - the senate dropped the ball on that'. Anyone who buys that line is a fool, but as the saying goes, people get the government they deserve. Last edited by ganai; March 18, 2010 at 04:19 AM. |
|
March 18, 2010, 10:34 AM | #57 |
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Ganai, the entire post, was just my opinion. Whether that opinion is accurate and/or holds any weight, is yet to be seen.
I would posit that a vote for any particular legislation, is in fact, a vote to agree with (the merits of) that legislation. The Courts may or may not agree that this is irrelevant. That is still to be determined. For the average voting American however, it is entirely relevant. As I outlined, and as Mike Irwin has shown, back in post #14, this type of procedure has occurred in the past. However, the one overriding difference is that in the past, such a procedural move never encompassed legislation that will effect every single person living within the United States. Nor has any prior procedural move encompassed legislation that attempts to give the federal government control over one-sixth of the entire GDP of the nation. This is sweeping legislation and in such matters, it is absolutely necessary that each and every member of Congress should be held accountable for their vote. The Constitution is very clear on maintaining democratic accountability. That is why we have Art. 1.7.2 and 1.7.3. The procedural ruse that the House is attempting, defeats that clear accountability. Should this attempt be held Constitutional, then any time hereinafter that either House wishes to pass legislation that they know would never stand in an up-down vote, may be bypassed by similar machinations. We then become a country ruled by congressional fiat, where no Representative or Senator is ever accountable to the people. |
March 18, 2010, 11:14 AM | #58 |
Senior Member
Join Date: April 23, 2005
Posts: 462
|
I did read the link Mike provided, and what I see is that this procedure has been used to incorporate amendments to bills before the house w/o having house members actually vote on the amendments.
What's not clear to me is that the procedure has been used to pass a bill OUT of the house (either for signature or to the senate). The examples given in the white paper do not mention whether or not the bills so amended were later presented to the house for a final vote. I would argue that the first type of activity (amending bills before the house) falls squarely within the House's authority to set it's own rules for moving legislation forward. To use this procedure to pass a bill out of the house without having actually been voted on seems to run afoul of the constitutionally defined process for approving legislation that is submitted to the president or senate. |
March 18, 2010, 02:33 PM | #59 | ||
Junior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Posts: 13
|
Quote:
Quote:
Personally, I'd be happy to see this mechanism (self-enacting rule) killed, but it seems that if it was open to serious constitutional challenge, we'd have seen that challenge before now. |
||
March 18, 2010, 03:40 PM | #60 |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
The cat is amongst the pidgeons now...the House has voted 222-202 "to approve the Slaughter Rule". Breaking news, I am not sure what this really means, but 28 Dems voted with Reps against the measure, with half a dozen or so not there to vote, Dems and Reps.
I guess if Pelosi loses the actual vote on the Senate bill...if they actually have one...then she turns around and deems it passed? I suspect tempers are going to fray a bit. Why is this happening?
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
March 18, 2010, 05:55 PM | #61 | ||
Moderator Emeritus
Join Date: June 29, 2000
Location: Rupert, Idaho
Posts: 9,660
|
Quote:
Just in case you were wondering, ganai. Quote:
Seriously, though, this is being done in this manner because the House leadership knows that they do not have enough votes to pass the Senate bill on its own merit. Does anyone seriously think that the Senate is going to allow the House to gut their own bill by amending it with the reconciliation bill? It has been brought out a couple of hours ago, that this reconciliation bill, is a direct replacement for everything in the Senate bill. |
||
March 18, 2010, 05:59 PM | #62 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
|
At least one of the states has promised to sue congress over this if it passes. If it does find the supreme court I wonder if the justices are impartial enough to forget the snubbing they got at the state of the union address.
|
March 18, 2010, 06:58 PM | #63 | |
Junior Member
Join Date: September 9, 2009
Posts: 13
|
Quote:
I just don't see how the House could 'hide' their votes on this - surely at least 1/5 of them will want a record of the vote? Or is there some other parliamentary trick happening here that I'm unaware of? As far as why its happening - the Senate bill, as it currently is, wouldn't pass the House, and also, the Democrats no longer have 60 votes in the Senate, so they couldn't break a filibuster on a health care bill modified to get through the House. So for the Democrats, its the Senate bill, and then modify it after it is passed, or no health care reform at all. |
|
March 18, 2010, 07:28 PM | #64 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: November 19, 2004
Posts: 492
|
Antipitas...
Quote:
This has come up a lot on talk radio in the last few days... first it was "this process has never been used before!!!", and then it became widely known that it in fact has been used, hundreds of times, by every Speaker in every Congress in living memory. So then the objection switched to "this process has never been used to pass legislation of this scope", which is, even if true, irrelevant to any discussion of whether it's permissible. They have done it in the past, and been challenged in Court, and they won those challenges. Ergo, they can do it again now. --Shannon |
|
March 18, 2010, 08:35 PM | #65 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
I find it amazing the extent to which the party in power seems willing to shoot themselves in the foot politically over the healthcare issue.
Reconciliation, at the very least, sets a very bad precedent that could very easily come back to bite the Democrats in their proverbial hind ends in the future. What is often misunderstood about reconciliation is its purpose. A filibuster over a budget bill would be unconstitutional as Congress is Constitutionally mandated to produce a budget, doing nothing simply is not a legal option (hence the proper term: Budget Reconciliation). The problem with using it for other means is the precedent that it sets: should the Democrats find themselves in the minority again (which is a very real possibility in just a matter of months) then they have basically lost their power to filibuster and would be at the mercy of the Republicans. The Slaughter Rule is, in a nut shell, a way for the House to pass potentially unpopular bills without having their individual names attached to them. By using this tactic for such a well-known piece of legislation, however, they have brought to the public's attention the method in which they are able to "fly under the radar" so to speak. In doing so, it would seem to me that they leave the tactic open for court challenges (remember everything's Constitutional until SCOTUS says otherwise), or at the very least a campaign issue for future political opponents (If elected, I'll abolish the Slaughter Rule). Then again, the lack of political wisdom here is par for the course, this whole healthcare debate has been more politically damaging for the Democratic Party than what most Democrat administrations would be willing to endure. |
March 18, 2010, 08:56 PM | #66 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
One thing confusing me is why they might need an additional 16,500 IRS agents, yet:
Quote:
__________________
Quote:
|
||
March 19, 2010, 09:10 AM | #67 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: May 22, 2009
Location: Washington State
Posts: 1,037
|
Quote:
If you look at the matter from the perspective of the Obama Administration, I suspect the view appears differently: Obama was elected on a "hope & change" platform, and views health care as a devastating challenge to domestic politics...along with being financially un-sustainable into the future. If he fails to achieve SOME sort of bill, regardless of what it actually accomplishes, then his legacy is diminished; his ability to 'correct a looming financial, social, and healthcare-related disaster' vanishes; and his probability of being elected to a second term approaches near-zero. While no concensus exists on an appropriate resolution, there are many who are willing to concede that health care costs represent a significant burden to many citizens. Lots of Americans would like something done about it. They simply do not agree on what ought to be done. [And frankly, IMO the shrill arguments warning of "socialized medicine" conveniently ignore the fact that we already have socialized medicine in the form of medicaid and medicare, which together provide health care to something like 30% of Americans in one form or another (depending on whose numbers you accept). So it's a bit odd that this is held up as the boogeyman under the bed...] Congress is in a spot where they're damned if they do and damned if they don't. (They ought to be used to it by now, I suppose...)
__________________
Treat everyone you meet with dignity and respect....but have a plan to kill them just in case. |
|
March 19, 2010, 09:13 AM | #68 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 14, 2006
Location: Browns Summit NC
Posts: 2,589
|
I didn't think the constitutional argument was about procedure, but whether they could force an individual to buy health insurance. Unlike car insurance there is no other party's losses to cover, just one's own. The argument can be made however that since you will get health care anyway and somebody else will have to pay for it you are effecting the rights of others.
|
March 19, 2010, 11:34 AM | #69 |
Senior Member
Join Date: July 20, 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 10,435
|
Doc Intrepid, I agree that Obama and the Democrats have put themselves between a rock and a hard place, politically at this point. You're right in that they've passed the point of no return, but that wasn't the case last summer. There are many other issues that Obama campaigned on which would probably give him just as big, if not bigger, political boosts than healthcare without the degree of risk. Were I Obama, I'd have "tested the waters" so to speak with healthcare, and once I got the reaction that he did, I'd have either let the issue quietly fade away or scale back the changes that I try to make.
Politically, I think that taking on issues like tort reform and insurance across state lines first would be wiser as Republicans support these measures. By doing that, the Democrats could still take credit for accomplishing some sort of reform, compromise with Republicans (this seems to be what the moderates want), and use it as a basis for more sweeping changes later if the desired results aren't achieved (we tried it your way and it didn't work, now it's our turn). Honestly, I think that the mistake here is letting healthcare overshadow issues like the economy and Iraq/Afghanistan Wars (two issues that Obama campaigned on heavily). However, at this point he's pushed health care so hard for so long that to drop it or compromise with Republicans would make him appear two-faced or weak to his base and opens him up for attack from both sides (Hillary 2012 anyone?). |
March 19, 2010, 11:51 AM | #70 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
When they own your bank and your doc, they have a lot of leverage on you to conform, and vote the "right" way. This is an ecological disaster, too. Think of all the trees which have to be converted to paper in this process.
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
March 20, 2010, 07:34 AM | #71 | ||
Senior Member
Join Date: February 9, 2002
Posts: 1,936
|
Quote:
This bill amends the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 to provide for a fine on people who don't have government approved health insurance. That's using the power to tax to force a private purchase. That is NOT what the power to tax is for, and furthermore, the entire bill is an assault on the structure of our government. James Madison, Federalist 45: Quote:
This isn't a proper federal role, and the power to tax and even the vaunted commerce power don't authorize it, IMO. |
||
March 20, 2010, 03:57 PM | #72 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: September 11, 2008
Posts: 1,931
|
Maybe my sarcasm is a bit too dry, I see a revenue bill. Others, you, myself get to pay officially for someone else's healthcare or union carve-out or abortion or whatever. Obviously illegals will be on the roll as well since the court will eventually rule they are entitled(similar to public schools).
Since it's a revenue bill(to me), I wish it had come out of the house. But oh well, none of this is my biggest issue with it.
__________________
Quote:
|
|
March 20, 2010, 07:55 PM | #73 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: October 21, 2009
Location: Quadling Country
Posts: 2,780
|
I think this whole thing will be challenged under Clinton Vs. The City of NY.
Quote:
__________________
Thus a man should endeavor to reach this high place of courage with all his heart, and, so trying, never be backward in war. |
|
March 20, 2010, 08:05 PM | #74 |
Senior Member
Join Date: August 21, 2000
Location: Minnesota, Twin Cities
Posts: 1,076
|
If the Feds can force us to buy health insurance, for our own good and the promotion of the general welfare, think about the other things they'll be able to force us to buy (and use).
Bicycle helmets, motorcycle helmets, trigger locks, etc. It could get ugly. They can make us buy things 'just in case we need it', like life jackets, and other stuff we may never use, but they will force us to have, just in case. After all, you never know when you'll be caught in a flood like N.O. and need a lifejacket. What about an inflatable raft for all folks in any federally declared flood plain. The opportunities for the feds to force us to buy crap is endless. Whether they would really go that far is up for debate. Based on past history, I favor the odds saying they would go quite far. To save us from ourselves? That's what they would have us believe. What they really want to do is save money that we would otherwise force them to spend because the put a program in place that demands they protect us from ourselves. It's getting out of control and they will need to maintain control, ever more so.
__________________
"If you love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen." Samuel Adams. |
March 20, 2010, 08:30 PM | #75 | |
Senior Member
Join Date: March 30, 2007
Location: South CA
Posts: 566
|
Quote:
__________________
Loyalty to petrified opinions never yet broke a chain or freed a human soul in this world — and never will. — Mark Twain |
|
Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
|
|