Healthcare Homestretch

[KnightBird]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html

[Gunner11]

Where do you people get this stuff. Have you read the abortion language in the bill? I have. The bill does not allow ANY change in funding for elective abortion, period. If the funding is suh a budget gimmic, why are the savings so much larger IN THE SECOND TEN YEARS.

 

You keep talking about the CBO and their projections, I ask again, what leads you to believe that the projections will be even close to accurate?

[Butters]

People have murdered in the past, does that mean it's OK?

 

Is the procedure which may be used in the house illegal? Is that what you are saying?

[Run To State]

Is the procedure which may be used in the house illegal? Is that what you are saying?

No, I'm saying two wrongs don't make a right. You think it's OK to pass it in this manner?

[Butters]

No, I'm saying two wrongs don't make a right. You think it's OK to pass it in this manner?

 

My question was just whether it has been done before. I don't know that it has or hasn't. If it's illegal or contrary to the House rules, then, no it shouldn't be used here or anywhere. If it is in the rules and has been used before, then, yes, why can't it be used here?

[2 Humped Camel]

You keep talking about the CBO and their projections, I ask again, what leads you to believe that the projections will be even close to accurate?

 

Where you objecting this much to CBO projections when they were used to justify the Bush Tax cuts in the early part of the decade?

[Run To State]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2010/03/12/AR2010031202287.html

You really believe that universal heath care is the reason?

[Run To State]

My question was just whether it has been done before. I don't know that it has or hasn't. If it's illegal or contrary to the House rules, then, no it shouldn't be used here or anywhere. If it is in the rules and has been used before, then, yes, why can't it be used here?

It's never been used for something this expensive or expansive.

[Bluegrasscard]

CBO numbers are in.

 

http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/03/cbo_health-care_reform_bill_cu.html

 

Dems are 'giddy'.

 

It would appear the fix is in. Other than 'the people' this bill is backed by big companies who get out of the health insurance business; insurance businesses that will now have force of law to expand their profits; unions who get to keep their premium benefits without taxation; and other special interest groups.

 

The price - increased cost for all since all the parties above will have their hands in your money and... a free society. We will all become surfs to the government powers and the insurance companies.

[Butters]

It's never been used for something this expensive or expansive.

 

So, I take it that the procedure has been used before and is not illegal or contrary to House rules. It's just a question of degree, not a constitutional issue. It comes down to whether you're for for HCR or against it.

[Gunner11]

Where you objecting this much to CBO projections when they were used to justify the Bush Tax cuts in the early part of the decade?

 

I am on record many times, claiming that I am unwilling to give any more of my hard earned dollars to the federal government, republican or democrat until, they prove to me that they can do a better job of managing money.

[Gunner11]

So, I take it that the procedure has been used before and is not illegal or contrary to House rules. It's just a question of degree, not a constitutional issue. It comes down to whether you're for for HCR or against it.

 

It is a constitutional issue and Pelosi and Slaughter submitted briefs to the Supreme Court that it was not constitutional to use the self-executing procedure in this manner in the past. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I guess they have changed their minds.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html

[Butters]

It is a constitutional issue and Pelosi and Slaughter submitted briefs to the Supreme Court that it was not constitutional to use the self-executing procedure in this manner in the past. Now that the shoe is on the other foot, I guess they have changed their minds.

 

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0310/34508.html

 

If inclined, you could look at it differently. Pelosi believed it was unconstitutional several years ago but was rebuked by the courts. She now accepts the court's ruling that the procedure is constitutional and employs it.

 

The republicans who previously advocated that the procedure was constitutional have now changed their minds. Despite the fact that they successfully advocated for a ruling that the procedure was constitutional, they now tell everyone the procedure is unconstitutional. Perhaps you could say that the republicans were for the procedure before they were against it.

 

Again, it boils down to whether you're for HCR or against it.

[Gunner11]

If inclined, you could look at it differently. Pelosi believed it was unconstitutional several years ago but was rebuked by the courts. She now accepts the court's ruling that the procedure is constitutional and employs it.

 

The republicans who previously advocated that the procedure was constitutional have now changed their minds. Despite the fact that they successfully advocated for a ruling that the procedure was constitutional, they now tell everyone the procedure is unconstitutional. Perhaps you could say that the republicans were for the procedure before they were against it.

 

Again, it boils down to whether you're for HCR or against it.

 

The court did not rebuke it and the republicans did not change their minds, the court stated that a minor text change/correction of a typo is not what the founding fathers intended by stating that the exact same bill must be passed by the senate and the house. Pelosi and Slaughter stood against it on a technicality, stating that the bill should not pass because it was not "exactly" the same because of a minor correction or a typo.

 

What they are trying to do now is the opposite and far from a technicality. The self-executing procedure would be not be a vote on the bill. The procedure would contain extremely differing language than what the bill contains. Nice try though.

[Butters]

The court did not rebuke it and the republicans did not change their minds, the court stated that a minor text change/correction of a typo is not what the founding fathers intended by stating that the exact same bill must be passed by the senate and the house. Pelosi and Slaughter stood against it on a technicality, stating that the bill should not pass because it was not "exactly" the same because of a minor correction or a typo.

 

What they are trying to do now is the opposite and far from a technicality. The self-executing procedure would be not be a vote on the bill. The procedure would contain extremely differing language than what the bill contains. Nice try though.

 

Which case are you referring to?