The House is going to try and use the Slaughter Rule to pass healthcare. Instead of voting on the actual healthcare bill, they will vote on procedures and this will cause the bill to pass without voting on the actual bill.
On such an important issue as healthcare (1/6th of the economy) shouldn't a vote on the actual bill be required.
Also, I am disappointed in Kuchinich. Even though I don't agree with most of his positions, at least he did not waiver from his beliefs. With healthcare, he has.
(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]The House is going to try and use the Slaughter Rule to pass healthcare. Instead of voting on the actual healthcare bill, they will vote on procedures and this will cause the bill to pass without voting on the actual bill.
On such an important issue as healthcare (1/6th of the economy) shouldn't a vote on the actual bill be required.
Also, I am disappointed in Kuchinich. Even though I don't agree with most of his positions, at least he did not waiver from his beliefs. With healthcare, he has.
Well, I don't remember hearing you complain about it when the Republicans used it. Lets face it, your opinions are all partisan. Democrats do it-bad. Republicans do it-necessary and good. Spin that!
(03-17-2010 11:19 AM)RobertN Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]The House is going to try and use the Slaughter Rule to pass healthcare. Instead of voting on the actual healthcare bill, they will vote on procedures and this will cause the bill to pass without voting on the actual bill.
On such an important issue as healthcare (1/6th of the economy) shouldn't a vote on the actual bill be required.
Also, I am disappointed in Kuchinich. Even though I don't agree with most of his positions, at least he did not waiver from his beliefs. With healthcare, he has.
Well, I don't remember hearing you complain about it when the Republicans used it. Lets face it, your opinions are all partisan. Democrats do it-bad. Republicans do it-necessary and good. Spin that!
Why don't you provide some examples (for once) of bills passed by the Republicans with only a simple majority on a purely partisan basis. Weren't these bills actually voted on?
If the Republicans are as bad as you claim they are, why do you keep usings their actions to justify the acts of the Democrats? Do the Democrats have any desire to rise above the Republicans, or do they only wish to see how much they can get away with.
I would say both sides are in the wrong. Its disingenuous and hypocritical of the Dems to try to pass massive legislation without a vote. However, the abuse of the filibuster on virtually every single piece of legislation by Republicans is also not how our founding fathers intended for Congress to operate. Neither is healthy for our country.
(03-17-2010 12:09 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ]I would say both sides are in the wrong. Its disingenuous and hypocritical of the Dems to try to pass massive legislation without a vote. However, the abuse of the filibuster on virtually every single piece of legislation by Republicans is also not how our founding fathers intended for Congress to operate. Neither is healthy for our country.
+100.
(03-17-2010 12:12 PM)NIU17 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 12:09 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ]I would say both sides are in the wrong. Its disingenuous and hypocritical of the Dems to try to pass massive legislation without a vote. However, the abuse of the filibuster on virtually every single piece of legislation by Republicans is also not how our founding fathers intended for Congress to operate. Neither is healthy for our country.
+100.
your vote only counts as one, so it should be +1
I agree. The problem is neither party wants to solve problems. The way to start to fix healthcare is to pass a bill, much smaller than current one, that gets everyone on board. Tort Reform, Pre existing condition, eliminate cap limits, interstate insurance. Hammer out the easy ones, enact that bill then work on the more complex issues.
The democrats just want to pass any bill regardless of the quality. This is scary. The government has never done anything cheaper than private industry.(except when they are giving their buddies kickbacks). This bill improves healthcare for 30 million people and makes healthcare worse for 150 million(plus more expensive). The rich can still afford to pay for their medical needs out of pocket. I can not afford $100K for a procedure. I will be SOL when rationing happens.
(03-17-2010 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]I will be SOL when rationing happens.
I dont understand this fear. Health care is already rationed by your provider. Or it is rationed by your own inability to pay for a procedure.
(03-17-2010 01:10 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]I will be SOL when rationing happens.
I dont understand this fear. Health care is already rationed by your provider. Or it is rationed by your own inability to pay for a procedure.
There will be waiting lines for more services. Look at what happened to HMOs. They were supposed to be the next best thing but because people did not have to pay for services, they went when they had a hang nail. Doctors stopped accepting HMOs because they were paid very little capitation money for the number of visits. That is why HMO cost have gone up faster than traditional PPO plans. Look at Canada and the UK. You have to wait 6 months for surgery. That will happen in the U.S. We need to do more tweaking than having a single payer system like the liberal democrats want. Then they have control.
(03-17-2010 12:12 PM)NIU17 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 12:09 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ]I would say both sides are in the wrong. Its disingenuous and hypocritical of the Dems to try to pass massive legislation without a vote. However, the abuse of the filibuster on virtually every single piece of legislation by Republicans is also not how our founding fathers intended for Congress to operate. Neither is healthy for our country.
+100.
(03-17-2010 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]I agree. The problem is neither party wants to solve problems. The way to start to fix healthcare is to pass a bill, much smaller than current one, that gets everyone on board. Tort Reform, Pre existing condition, eliminate cap limits, interstate insurance. Hammer out the easy ones, enact that bill then work on the more complex issues.
The democrats just want to pass any bill regardless of the quality. This is scary. The government has never done anything cheaper than private industry.(except when they are giving their buddies kickbacks). This bill improves healthcare for 30 million people and makes healthcare worse for 150 million(plus more expensive). The rich can still afford to pay for their medical needs out of pocket. I can not afford $100K for a procedure. I will be SOL when rationing happens.
I disagree. This country was not designed so that the whole system could be fundamentally changed based on the whims of the administration or party that happens to be in power at the time. That is why the checks and balances were instituted. The system is supposed to have inertia.
New laws should receive sufficient discussion and analysis before passing. Too many members of the House and Senate have not even read the whole bill. It would be better to pass nothing.
Did you complain equally when Repubs used it seventeen times in last several admins...?
(03-17-2010 02:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote: [ -> ]Did you complain equally when Repubs used it seventeen times in last several admins...?
Please list them. I heard it was not that many. My issue with using this is it impacts 1/6th of our economy, using a sneaky way to pass it is wrong. Healthcare is a big issue. Lets make changes that improve it. SS and Medicare are becoming disasters and so with socialized medicine. Once the government gets its hands on anything, they ruin it.
SS and Medicare a just ponzi schemes waiting to fall.
conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.
Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.
(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote: [ -> ]conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.
Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.
I, as a conservative, don't like that the Repubs used it. And, in fact, I just heard an audio clip of Steny Hoyer from a couple of years ago ranting about how wrong it was. He was correct.
However, when it was used by the Repubs, it was for nothing nowhere as important (or as unpopular) as this. There is no comparison between this and a bill to ban smoking in certain buildings.
(03-17-2010 01:10 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 12:48 PM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]I will be SOL when rationing happens.
I dont understand this fear. Health care is already rationed by your provider. Or it is rationed by your own inability to pay for a procedure.
No, it is not. You are treating insurance as the same thing as health care. It isn't.
(03-17-2010 02:10 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. This country was not designed so that the whole system could be fundamentally changed based on the whims of the administration or party that happens to be in power at the time. That is why the checks and balances were instituted. The system is supposed to have inertia.
The fillibuster was never intended by the founding fathers. If you want to talk about the Constitution, they spelled out in it exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto. Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority -- just 41 Senators -- stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment. In the 1950s, an average of one bill was filibustered in each two-year Congress. In the last Congress, 139 bills were filibustered. Its gotten completely out of hand. How do you have inertia, as you put it, to carry out the business of the country when the entire system is ground to a halt? Even the most mundane and non-controversial issues such as executive branch appointments have been subjected to a Republican filibuster. This isn't about reasoned opposition
(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote: [ -> ]conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.
Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.
(03-18-2010 09:22 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 02:10 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. This country was not designed so that the whole system could be fundamentally changed based on the whims of the administration or party that happens to be in power at the time. That is why the checks and balances were instituted. The system is supposed to have inertia.
The fillibuster was never intended by the founding fathers. If you want to talk about the Constitution, they spelled out in it exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto. Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority -- just 41 Senators -- stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment. In the 1950s, an average of one bill was filibustered in each two-year Congress. In the last Congress, 139 bills were filibustered. Its gotten completely out of hand. How do you have inertia, as you put it, to carry out the business of the country when the entire system is ground to a halt? Even the most mundane and non-controversial issues such as executive branch appointments have been subjected to a Republican filibuster. This isn't about reasoned opposition
(03-17-2010 03:55 PM)cyberdawg Wrote: [ -> ]conservative political commentator appeared on ctlt/wgn & made mention of the more prominent examples this morning at 6am.
Classic examplers years ago were raising the debt and banning smoking in certain facilities.
(03-18-2010 09:22 AM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 02:10 PM)Huskie_Jon Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree. This country was not designed so that the whole system could be fundamentally changed based on the whims of the administration or party that happens to be in power at the time. That is why the checks and balances were instituted. The system is supposed to have inertia.
The fillibuster was never intended by the founding fathers. If you want to talk about the Constitution, they spelled out in it exactly where they wanted supermajorities, reserving them for unique matters such as treaties, impeachment and overriding a presidential veto. Otherwise, they believed in majority rule.
On an almost daily basis, the Republican minority -- just 41 Senators -- stops bills from even coming to the floor for debate and amendment. In the 1950s, an average of one bill was filibustered in each two-year Congress. In the last Congress, 139 bills were filibustered. Its gotten completely out of hand. How do you have inertia, as you put it, to carry out the business of the country when the entire system is ground to a halt? Even the most mundane and non-controversial issues such as executive branch appointments have been subjected to a Republican filibuster. This isn't about reasoned opposition
You did not seem to be such a strong opponent of the fillibuster when it was being used against the folllowing appellate court nominees:
Miguel Estrada
Priscilla Owen
Charles W. Pickering
Carolyn Kuhl
David W. McKeague
Henry Saad
Richard Allen Griffin
William H. Pryor
William Gerry Myers III
We all tend to extract and use what meets our needs from the Constitution, the 'intentions' of founding fathers, the Bible, the Koran, the whatever.
Rarely does anyone concede or agree with any position which challenges one's own perspectives from equally valid interpretations and sources of truths.
We still dont know what was intended by " A well regulated militia being necessary, "
(03-17-2010 12:32 PM)huskiealum03 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 12:12 PM)NIU17 Wrote: [ -> ] (03-17-2010 12:09 PM)niuhuskie84 Wrote: [ -> ]I would say both sides are in the wrong. Its disingenuous and hypocritical of the Dems to try to pass massive legislation without a vote. However, the abuse of the filibuster on virtually every single piece of legislation by Republicans is also not how our founding fathers intended for Congress to operate. Neither is healthy for our country.
+100.
your vote only counts as one, so it should be +1
I can twist some arms to get some more votes!
(03-17-2010 10:05 AM)klake87 Wrote: [ -> ]The House is going to try and use the Slaughter Rule to pass healthcare. Instead of voting on the actual healthcare bill, they will vote on procedures and this will cause the bill to pass without voting on the actual bill.
On such an important issue as healthcare (1/6th of the economy) shouldn't a vote on the actual bill be required.
Also, I am disappointed in Kuchinich. Even though I don't agree with most of his positions, at least he did not waiver from his beliefs. With healthcare, he has.
It's called Reconciliation. W and the rethugs did it a number of times during his 8 years. Elections have consequences, deal with it!
