It is highly unlikely to pass. We are talking about a margin of 16 votes in the House. That means there is intense pressure and money being put on 16 Democrats by both sides.
Resolution bill
- Thread starter Stu
- Start date
It is highly unlikely to pass. We are talking about a margin of 16 votes in the House. That means there is intense pressure and money being put on 16 Democrats by both sides.
Unless the House Democrats successfully implement the so-called "self-executing rule," which would allow them to bypass the process of voting on the Senate bill. Apparently, the House would simply attach a bunch of "fixes" to the bill in conference committee and instruct representatives to vote on those fixes only.
Still, I'm not sure that the self-executing rule will guarantee total passage of the bill. Unless there is some other rule I'm not aware of, any changes made to the bill in conference committee (including these "fixes") will force it back to the Senate side for a second vote to adopt the revisions. And so far, the Senate Democrats have not embraced the House Democrats' more radical proposals; so if these fixes are just repackaged amendments from earlier House bills, and assuming the Senate has to vote on the revisions, it's possible the whole thing will stall again (*fingers crossed!*)
Still, I'm not sure that the self-executing rule will guarantee total passage of the bill. Unless there is some other rule I'm not aware of, any changes made to the bill in conference committee (including these "fixes") will force it back to the Senate side for a second vote to adopt the revisions. And so far, the Senate Democrats have not embraced the House Democrats' more radical proposals; so if these fixes are just repackaged amendments from earlier House bills, and assuming the Senate has to vote on the revisions, it's possible the whole thing will stall again (*fingers crossed!*)
I would start over with a new congress. Better yet, I would start over with a much smaller government.
I like the cut of your jib, Azure Knight.
The political horizon is looking pretty dark for those of us who favor limited government. The Democrats and the Obama administration appear willing to do anything to expand the federal government to even more bloated proportions.
There are, however, two small chinks of light in all the gloom. The first is a growing number of Republicans who are promising to repeal the legislation, assuming they manage to win enough seats in the midterm election. Of course, Congress is only half the equation. Even if the GOP wins both houses and passes legislation calling for the repeal of Obamacare, Obama himself still must sign the bill into law. And there's no way he's doing that after planting his flag's pole firmly in the brain of federal-republicanism.
The second is that a number of state legislatures are reaffirming their rights as sovereign units of government within a federal system. Some are even drafting legislation that would require their state to agree to Obamacare before it can take effect within their borders. There's an interesting New York Times article about this, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html
Ultimately, though, I'm very worried. We'll just have to wait and see what happens early next week.
The political horizon is looking pretty dark for those of us who favor limited government. The Democrats and the Obama administration appear willing to do anything to expand the federal government to even more bloated proportions.
There are, however, two small chinks of light in all the gloom. The first is a growing number of Republicans who are promising to repeal the legislation, assuming they manage to win enough seats in the midterm election. Of course, Congress is only half the equation. Even if the GOP wins both houses and passes legislation calling for the repeal of Obamacare, Obama himself still must sign the bill into law. And there's no way he's doing that after planting his flag's pole firmly in the brain of federal-republicanism.
The second is that a number of state legislatures are reaffirming their rights as sovereign units of government within a federal system. Some are even drafting legislation that would require their state to agree to Obamacare before it can take effect within their borders. There's an interesting New York Times article about this, here: http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/17/us/17states.html
Ultimately, though, I'm very worried. We'll just have to wait and see what happens early next week.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
Something needs to be done about health care. The problem is, it is being approached in the wrong way, and it is the wrong time to do it.
Maybe in 10 years once the economy is stabalized (hopefully), we can address health care. To me I am getting the feeling that the pro-healthcare people are trying to pass a bill, for the sake of passing a bill. So much hype and energy has gone into it now that most people that are even for it have forced themselves to accept it and don't even know it. Congress has a very bad case of group think right now.
Maybe in 10 years once the economy is stabalized (hopefully), we can address health care. To me I am getting the feeling that the pro-healthcare people are trying to pass a bill, for the sake of passing a bill. So much hype and energy has gone into it now that most people that are even for it have forced themselves to accept it and don't even know it. Congress has a very bad case of group think right now.
I was surprised to read a Washington Post editorial yesterday saying a similar thing. And the Post certainly isn't opposed to health care reform! But even they are concerned that the Pelosi "deem and pass" tactic is ugly and dangerous.
Some commentators have also made the very good point that if this health care reform bill is what the public supposedly desperately wants, then why are Democrats and the Obama administration crafting the wretched thing in the dark, as if it were an unnatural Frankenstein monster that they're ashamed of? If the public truly desires the bill, no amount of supposed conservative "fear mongering" would be able to derail the process.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
As with any major overhaul type bill, there is going to be controversy. Sometimes it is warranted, sometimes it is not. In this case, the healthcare bill could have serious ramifications on the livelyhoods of everyone in the country. Therefore, people are going to be against this. I do not believe that the obama administration and the vast majority of the pro-healthcare people have malice intent with trying to pass this bill. Power does corrupt though, and I do believe that the pressure from all sides is causing people to forgo what they normally think.
It's a shame that there is no way to accurately poll everyone in the country on this to see what the true opinion of everyone is.
It's a shame that there is no way to accurately poll everyone in the country on this to see what the true opinion of everyone is.
It does seem that the bill will reach the Oval office, but I wonder if the Supreme Court won't, in the end, put itself into the mix. I was imagining today that they might get the opportunity to rule the coming legislative procedures unconstitutional.
- Nov 12, 2008
- 14,153
- 1,334
- 0
- MBTI
- INFJ
- Enneagram
- 1w2 sx/so/sp
op2:
And then people will complain that judicial review is unconstitutional. The fun just never ends.
I'm supportive of this legislation, assuming the reconciliation goes through. I understand the rational behind what they are doing and given that every Congress and President since WWII has been trying to tackle the health care system, I don't see any point in stalling any further. There isn't much more to be said. There are those who want less government involvement but cannot offer practical alternatives to how to provide affordable coverage for most people. The only alternative options we have to cut costs are a public option or a complete privatization with the option to refuse treatment. Both of those are morally abhorrent to the right and left wings of society respectively, so that leaves us with the compromise of exchanges, mandatory health insurance, and increased regulation. If anyone can think of a practical option that we could come up with in the next 100 years that would satisfy everyone, then please have at it, but this is probably the best we will come up with no matter how many times we go back to the drawing board. The problem here is that everyone wants to adhere to their own ideology and nobody is willing to compromise on that to provide practical options that could pass. I don't like the bill for its lack of a public option, but I'm not so concieted as to believe that the country could profit from further drawing out this battle when nobody is offering any viable alternatives.
http://www.politico.com/static/PPM138_100319_recon.html
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall
An interesting piece on what Democratic Health and Communication Staff should avoid and focus on when it comes to the healthcare bill. It seems that this bill would not reduce the deficit (as it has been claimed). Instead, the revisions would be voted on later that would add to the cost.
So much for transparency.
http://www.politico.com/livepulse/0310/EXCLUSIVE__Democrats_plan_doc_fix_after_reform.html?showall
An interesting piece on what Democratic Health and Communication Staff should avoid and focus on when it comes to the healthcare bill. It seems that this bill would not reduce the deficit (as it has been claimed). Instead, the revisions would be voted on later that would add to the cost.
So much for transparency.
Last edited:
How irrational. Instead of waiting for the origin of the memo to be verified you have already decided that it is the truth. Furthermore, you provide no specifics as to how the CBO scores indicate that the bill won't reduce the deficit. Why are you buying into the hype and not using your ability to reason? You don't think it is conceivable that as the deadline to vote on this legislation nears, that people who are desperate to see it not pass won't sink as low as to put out false documentation or to distort the data to stall the process even further? If you are so certain as to the validity of these claims, then simply post how the CBO scores indicate that the deficit will not be reduced.
So sayeth the CBO on Friday...
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2
Politico is verifying the memo for authenticity.
http://finance.yahoo.com/news/Medicare-fix-would-push-apf-2700343586.html?x=0&.v=2
Politico is verifying the memo for authenticity.
Last edited:
Bullshit. Here is the actual released CBO report that was released yesterday.
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/113xx/doc11355/hr4872.pdf
Find where in there it says anything about what the yahoo story says. This is distortion of numbers because the Republicans know that if they can put the rumor out there that this will actually run red, even if it isn't supported by the evidence, then they can further stall the process. That is why only 3 news sources on the entire damn internet have actually picked up the AP story. This is fodder for the blogosphere.