Healthcare reform

[kapkomet]

Every Bill which shall have passed the House of Representatives and the Senate, shall, before it become a Law, be presented to the President of the United States: If he approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objections to that House in which it shall have originated, who shall enter the Objections at large on their Journal, and proceed to reconsider it. If after such Reconsideration two thirds of that House shall agree to pass the Bill, it shall be sent, together with the Objections, to the other House, by which it shall likewise be reconsidered, and if approved by two thirds of that House, it shall become a Law. But in all such Cases the Votes of both Houses shall be determined by yeas and Nays, and the Names of the Persons voting for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively. If any Bill shall not be returned by the President within ten Days (Sundays excepted) after it shall have been presented to him, the Same shall be a Law, in like Manner as if he had signed it, unless the Congress by their Adjournment prevent its Return, in which Case it shall not be a Law.

 

EVERY BILL, not just hand picked ones that they don't want to go on record for voting. That's for starters.

 

The veto language is about as specific as anything in the Constitution. You have to vote, go on record. Now, you weenies who want to make this some f***ing bulls*** argument to get your way, or on the flip side say rather flippantly "the Republicans did it" will twist this and say it doesn't mean the same thing. Ya'll want to parse it and get something out of it. f*** that.

 

The part in bold, even though it's talking about vetos, is explicit. And if the intent was to circumvent actually voting for something, then why bother?

 

Kaperbole ™ aside, this one pisses me off, and anyone that has an ounce of support for this is f***ing nuts, I don't care what party you are. You just absolutely are looking for a way to shove this up our ass without being held accountable. And it's wrong. Why isn't that clear? The process here kind of is the point. When you do this "deem the bill" crap on common business, wrong is wrong, but it's not a policy decision that rams unpopular legislation up our ass. Furthermore, the filibuster exists within the existing confines of the system, people vote, now you can't pass legislation (it was Ted Kennedy's seat for Chriss' sakes!). Get the f*** off it and move on. Oh, government knows better. I forgot. People don't, government officials do. WTF happened to common sense?

 

I also like the quotes from the Obama staff... "PROCESS DOESN'T MATTER". Really? REALLY? But it sure as f*** does when you're trying to try war criminals. Oh, the hypocracy.

 

 

\

[lostfan]

Kap I can say with high confidence that probably 90% of people don't know, or even care, about anything that was talked about in the last 2 pages of this thread. Later on, nobody is going to remember this just like nobody remembers all of the other times it happened. My point.

[kapkomet]

Kap I can say with high confidence that probably 90% of people don't know, or even care, about anything that was talked about in the last 2 pages of this thread. Later on, nobody is going to remember this just like nobody remembers all of the other times it happened. My point.

 

 

Really? I think people will remember. This isn't some random name a post office bill on some stupid procedural vote. BIG difference.

 

With all the crap said here, my bottom line is, I hope there's either enough votes for this to pass or it dies. We don't need this bulls*** from Congress. But, the mere fact that they are talking about doing this makes it CLEAR that they will do whatever it takes, constitutional issue be damned.

[lostfan]

Nobody ever remembers. I sometimes get idealistic and I think they will, but they won't. History (especially recent) is revisionist, people remember it the way they want to.

[jasonxctf]

for arguments sake, say this bill passes and it sucks. We can always change it later.

 

(paging no child left behind)

[NorthSideSox72]

Really? I think people will remember. This isn't some random name a post office bill on some stupid procedural vote. BIG difference.

 

With all the crap said here, my bottom line is, I hope there's either enough votes for this to pass or it dies. We don't need this bulls*** from Congress. But, the mere fact that they are talking about doing this makes it CLEAR that they will do whatever it takes, constitutional issue be damned.

And again you seem to forget that various versions of the bill DID have enough votes to pass, but were blocked by some OTHER political sleight of hand, namely the 60-vote block in the Senate. The Dems want to use this Slaughter solution, the GOP uses the procedural filibuster. Neither really make sense on their face, but they are both part of the game. Do you accept both, or neither?

 

[Balta1701]

And again you seem to forget that various versions of the bill DID have enough votes to pass, but were blocked by some OTHER political sleight of hand, namely the 60-vote block in the Senate. The Dems want to use this Slaughter solution, the GOP uses the procedural filibuster. Neither really make sense on their face, but they are both part of the game. Do you accept both, or neither?

It's always different.®

[Rex Kickass]

And again you seem to forget that various versions of the bill DID have enough votes to pass, but were blocked by some OTHER political sleight of hand, namely the 60-vote block in the Senate. The Dems want to use this Slaughter solution, the GOP uses the procedural filibuster. Neither really make sense on their face, but they are both part of the game. Do you accept both, or neither?

 

The "slaughter solution" or "deem and pass" which are "non-voting" measures in the Congress actually consist of a vote. The vote is to approve the reconciliation amendment to the Senate bill, and then the house would deem the Senate bill approved. So by voting no to the reconciliation amendment, you are voting no to the Senate bill as well. From what I understand of it, and granted my knowledge of Congressional parliamentary procedure is not the greatest, in either case the Senate bill is considered.

 

It'll be awful hard to talk about the Congress not voting on the bill when they vote on the bill in the "deem and pass" procedure, if that happens.

 

Kucinich announced he's flipping to a yes vote on the Senate bill with reconciliation fixes. Whip count is 208 - Yes. With the Eric Massa resignation, majority in the house is currently 216.

 

15 Democratic Representatives have yet to commit to voting on this package. Of those 15, 10 of them voted for the original House measure. Unless two of those people flip to no, this passes and health care reform happens.

[Balta1701]

[bmags]

The "slaughter solution" or "deem and pass" which are "non-voting" measures in the Congress actually consist of a vote. The vote is to approve the reconciliation amendment to the Senate bill, and then the house would deem the Senate bill approved. So by voting no to the reconciliation amendment, you are voting no to the Senate bill as well. From what I understand of it, and granted my knowledge of Congressional parliamentary procedure is not the greatest, in either case the Senate bill is considered.

 

It'll be awful hard to talk about the Congress not voting on the bill when they vote on the bill in the "deem and pass" procedure, if that happens.

 

Kucinich announced he's flipping to a yes vote on the Senate bill with reconciliation fixes. Whip count is 208 - Yes. With the Eric Massa resignation, majority in the house is currently 216.

 

15 Democratic Representatives have yet to commit to voting on this package. Of those 15, 10 of them voted for the original House measure. Unless two of those people flip to no, this passes and health care reform happens.

 

I think it's becoming increasingly clear that stupak was bluffing, he may have some, but his "dozen" was more of a mccarthyesque briefcase.

[Y2HH]

 

Idiots.

 

And while I'm not a part of any such parties, that's radicals, which exist in every party, and are equally stupid people.

[bmags]

and deserve to be called out.

[bmags]

that seems to be an effective place to panhandle, however.

[Controlled Chaos]

Not one dime?

 

Posted By Dr. Mark Neerhof On Wednesday, March 17th, 2010 @ 12:00 AM In Opinion, Opinion:Lower Section | No Comments

 

When President Obama addressed Congress in September on health care, he assured them and the American people that he would not sign a plan that adds one dime to the deficit, neither now nor in the future. This focus on cost is appropriate in the context of a federal deficit of $1.4 trillion and a national debt in excess of $12 trillion. Now, seven months later, the House is considering the Senate bill that proposes spending roughly $1 trillion over the next 10 years in order to save money. In order to get the Congressional Budget Office estimates in a favorable light, numerous budget gimmicks were employed. Rep. Paul Ryan (R-Wis.) estimates that when you strip out these budget gimmicks, the bill would add $460 billion to the deficit over the first 10 years, and in the second 10 years, that deficit would increase by $1.4 trillion. That’s a bit more than a dime.

 

There are also hidden costs not accounted for in these figures. These figures assume that physician’s payments under Medicare are going to be severely reduced. Many physicians are already dropping Medicare because of low reimbursements (i.e. Mayo Clinic in Arizona), and this is only going to worsen with further cuts. That means that if physician reimbursements were maintained, the costs (deficit) would further increase. Medicare, a program that currently has $38 trillion in unfunded obligations, is also being slashed by $464 billion. Medicaid, currently with $17 trillion in unfunded obligations, will be dramatically expanded. Medicaid reimbursements for physicians and hospitals currently are even lower that Medicare. Medicaid is also the leading budget item on many state budgets, including my home state of Illinois that has a budget deficit this year of in excess of $4 billion. Those deficits will necessarily increase when the Medicaid roles expand. As a consequence, state taxes will dramatically increase. And what about those with private insurance? In Massachusetts, where a plan similar to ObamaCare was instituted in 2006, health insurance premiums are the highest in the country, and state insurance regulators this last week approved premium increases of up to 32 percent. The Senate bill also includes nearly $500 billion in new taxes. This level of taxation will undoubtedly cause many Americans to lose their jobs.

 

And what would be the cost of the Senate bill with respect to the quality of health care? As a result of the Medicare cuts in this bill, the chief Medicare actuary estimates that 20 percent of Medicare providers will either go out of business or stop seeing Medicare patients, leaving an increasing number of Medicare recipients with fewer physicians to care for them. Given decreasing reimbursements, the length and cost of training, and malpractice costs, what will be the incentive for the brightest and the best to go into medicine? The quality of medical school applicants will decrease. Taxes on new medical devices are a disincentive for research and development of new medical innovations. All of these will have a negative long-term impact on the quality of care in the United States.

 

As a nation, we are at a proverbial crossroads. The road to the left takes us to a government takeover of health care, with the addition of the largest entitlement of all, at a time when we are unable to pay for the entitlements we already have. This expansion of entitlements will bankrupt the country, will be detrimental to the quality and availability of health care, and will centralize control of our health care system in Washington bureaucracies. The road to the right takes us back to square one with health care reform, allowing a bipartisan, targeted approach to the problems we all recognize. This approach would be more consumer-driven, effectively making health care more like the rest of the economy. This would include making individuals owners of their health insurance by giving the same tax incentives to individuals as employers, encouraging health savings accounts, eliminating restrictions on interstate sales of health insurance, establishing state-wide high-risk pools for patients with pre-existing conditions, and tort reform. These reforms would make patients better consumers, make health insurance affordable to many more people, and eliminate obvious sources of waste, such as frivolous lawsuits.

 

No matter how many times it is said, it is hard to take someone seriously when he states that the proposed health care reform will not increase the deficit. The American people aren’t buying it either, as evidenced by a recent Rasmussen poll which found that 81 percent of voters believe that health care reform will increase the deficit. Rep. Joe Wilson’s (R-S.C.) protocol-breaking outburst during Obama’s address to Congress last year was correct.

 

 

Dr. Neerhof, an associate professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of Chicago Pritzker School of Medicine, is an Executive Board member of Docs for Patient Care, the nation’s largest group of physicians dedicated to maintaining the doctor-patient relationship.

 

 

[Balta1701]

Medicare is underfunded by $38 trillion. Therefore, it is a terrible idea to do anything that could cut $500 billion from its expenses.

[kapkomet]

The "slaughter solution" or "deem and pass" which are "non-voting" measures in the Congress actually consist of a vote. The vote is to approve the reconciliation amendment to the Senate bill, and then the house would deem the Senate bill approved. So by voting no to the reconciliation amendment, you are voting no to the Senate bill as well. From what I understand of it, and granted my knowledge of Congressional parliamentary procedure is not the greatest, in either case the Senate bill is considered.

 

It'll be awful hard to talk about the Congress not voting on the bill when they vote on the bill in the "deem and pass" procedure, if that happens.

 

Kucinich announced he's flipping to a yes vote on the Senate bill with reconciliation fixes. Whip count is 208 - Yes. With the Eric Massa resignation, majority in the house is currently 216.

 

15 Democratic Representatives have yet to commit to voting on this package. Of those 15, 10 of them voted for the original House measure. Unless two of those people flip to no, this passes and health care reform happens.

 

You people who want to defend the Slaughter rule as something that is "just part of the game" are f***ing nuts.

[NorthSideSox72]

You people who want to defend the Slaughter rule as something that is "just part of the game" are f***ing nuts.

I assume then that you feel the same way about the procedural filibuster then?

 

[kapkomet]

I assume then that you feel the same way about the procedural filibuster then?

 

 

It's not the same thing. Not even close. You can't even begin to compare that to this.

 

I spelled it out a few posts back. The filibuster is senate rules but they do vote, whether you like the procedure or not. No, I don't really care for it, but this is a whole different and explicit level.

[StrangeSox]

It's always different.®

 

 

It's not the same thing. Not even close. You can't even begin to compare that to this.

 

I spelled it out a few posts back. The filibuster is senate rules but they do vote, whether you like the procedure or not. No, I don't really care for it, but this is a whole different and explicit level.

 

lulz

[lostfan]

lol, I wanted to do that but it's already been done so...

[BigSqwert]

This tweet from Glenn Greenwald made me laugh yesterday:

Fox this morning kept saying: (1) House will pass HCR without a vote! & (2) Kucinich to reveal this morning how he'll vote on HCR! Strange.

[NorthSideSox72]

It's not the same thing. Not even close. You can't even begin to compare that to this.

 

I spelled it out a few posts back. The filibuster is senate rules but they do vote, whether you like the procedure or not. No, I don't really care for it, but this is a whole different and explicit level.

I wasn't talking about the classic filibuster, I was talking about the procedural 60-vote hurdle, which like this deeming procedure... IS IN TEH RULES, and therefore is acceptable legally. But in both cases, its a bit sketchy, in my view.

 

[Balta1701]

I wasn't talking about the classic filibuster, I was talking about the procedural 60-vote hurdle, which like this deeming procedure... IS IN TEH RULES, and therefore is acceptable legally. But in both cases, its a bit sketchy, in my view.

Hell, you could say the same thing about the classic filibuster. It's all in how each house writes its rules.

[NorthSideSox72]

Hell, you could say the same thing about the classic filibuster. It's all in how each house writes its rules.

Well, yeah, but Kap already said he was OK with that one, so I was focusing on the other comparison.

 

[Balta1701]

(Hopefully) Final House CBO score is in. $940 billion total cost, $150 billion cut to the deficit over 10 years., $1.3 trillion over 20. Timing of this release is important because the speaker has a pledge to give all members 72 hours between the CBO score's release and the vote on the bill. This sets up the final House bill for mid-day Sunday.