JimBob2232 Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Questions on the health care debate. Not trying to turn this thread into a debate about health care, but I dont understand how the democrat's tactic today is legal. Can someone knowledgeable help (i know thats asking alot on PPP) So the Senate passes a bill. Since the normal course of action is for the House to pass a bill, go to conference to handle differences, come up with one bill, send it back to both chambers for passage and then onto the president for signature. In this case, this is not possible because Scott Brown replaced Kennedy and now republicans can filibuster in the senate. So to get past this, the dems are using a reconciliation bill. As I understand it, this reconciliation bill only required 51 votes in the senate. So the house approves the senate bill IN TACT, and then approves the reconciliation bill and sends it to the house for passage. Thats all well and good, however the reconciliation bill has to be for budget/revenue issues. So it appears that Democrats are getting Barack Obama to process an executive order for things they do not like in the bill which do not relate to bugetary issues. Things like funding for abortion, etc. So in essense we have a bill which is not favored by the majority in the house, and is not fillibuster proof in the senate being signed into law because the president executed an executive order. Seems like this completely goes against the separation of powers. Again, please do not take this thread into a "republicans did it too" or "health care bill establishes death panels" or some other ridiculous drivel. I am interested in the constitutionality of what is occuring here. This seems completely illegal to me on the surface. Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 You're assuming they actually try to adhere to the Constitution Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 You're assuming they actually try to adhere to the Constitution HEHEH EXACTLY...our country has been sidestepping the Constitution since it was written...you had upholders/protectors...and those "living document" types...nobody cares about the people...not in Washington... You have money and power grabbers...that's it...this is not a republican/democrat issue...it's a people/government issue....in this particular debate you had the Democrats representing insurance companies covertly....with Republicans voicing thier support for the insurance companies...so if both sides were representing the insurance companies...what side was representing us????... For those who question the Dems support for the insurance companies...look at the stock prices of the insurance companies now that the Bill is coming close to fruition....they are taking on 30 something million more clients now...THAT is an increase in revenue... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 I was watching CNN and Wolf was interviewing that Debbie Wassermilf chick. She mentioned that there were negotiations between Stupak & Co with the White House concerning an Executive Order to fix the abortion provisions in Stupaks favor Legislators trading their votes for an Executive Order Separation of Powers? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Celtic_soulja Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Some people call that negotiation...some call it disgusting...I think they both change thier opinions based on if it's something they want passed, it's negotiation and something they don't it's disgusting...which leads me to believe all negotiations are disgusting...I'm a very deductive thinker...what can I say...everyone makes fun of me on the Stadium wall because I'm all about the statistics and empirical evidence...or as I like to call it the TRUTH lol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 Wassermilf is on Fvcks News right now saying the same thing So the Executive Branch is in negotiation with members of the Legislative Branch on the wording of an Executive Order to fix something in a Legislative Bill up for a vote RIP Separation of Powers 1787-2010 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 For those who question the Dems support for the insurance companies...look at the stock prices of the insurance companies now that the Bill is coming close to fruition....they are taking on 30 something million more clients now...THAT is an increase in revenue... You honestly believe that insurance companies will be adding ANY new clients, much less 30 million of them? What will actually happen is that those 30 million will be paying their $650 (or whatever ridiculously low number it ends up being) "fine" to the gubment for continuing to NOT have health insurance, because it still saves them thousands, and they can buy it when they need it and drop it when they don't. And many of the others who had health insurance "just in case," like me, will drop it and buy it when they need it. This will kill the insurance companies and eventually kill the country, as rising medical costs and no real cost cutting mechanisms put us further into debt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted March 21, 2010 Share Posted March 21, 2010 You honestly believe that insurance companies will be adding ANY new clients, much less 30 million of them? What will actually happen is that those 30 million will be paying their $650 (or whatever ridiculously low number it ends up being) "fine" to the gubment for continuing to NOT have health insurance, because it still saves them thousands, and they can buy it when they need it and drop it when they don't. And many of the others who had health insurance "just in case," like me, will drop it and buy it when they need it. This will kill the insurance companies and eventually kill the country, as rising medical costs and no real cost cutting mechanisms put us further into debt. Only the sick, people most likely to get sick and the elderly will have health insurance. It will become extremely expensive because the young and healthy will wait until they become ill to purchase it. The government will then trot out their subsidized plan and it will appear much more attractive. Individuals will switch to that. Companies will switch to it also. Because the allowances to the provider will be so low, less people will enter the medical profession and a good deal that are presently in it will leave. We then will have single payer rationed health care. Obama stated several years ago that it might take a decade or two to accomplish single payer healthcare. I think it will be sooner. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Questions on the health care debate. Not trying to turn this thread into a debate about health care, but I dont understand how the democrat's tactic today is legal. Can someone knowledgeable help (i know thats asking alot on PPP) So the Senate passes a bill. Since the normal course of action is for the House to pass a bill, go to conference to handle differences, come up with one bill, send it back to both chambers for passage and then onto the president for signature. In this case, this is not possible because Scott Brown replaced Kennedy and now republicans can filibuster in the senate. So to get past this, the dems are using a reconciliation bill. As I understand it, this reconciliation bill only required 51 votes in the senate. So the house approves the senate bill IN TACT, and then approves the reconciliation bill and sends it to the house for passage. Thats all well and good, however the reconciliation bill has to be for budget/revenue issues. So it appears that Democrats are getting Barack Obama to process an executive order for things they do not like in the bill which do not relate to bugetary issues. Things like funding for abortion, etc. So in essense we have a bill which is not favored by the majority in the house, and is not fillibuster proof in the senate being signed into law because the president executed an executive order. Seems like this completely goes against the separation of powers. Again, please do not take this thread into a "republicans did it too" or "health care bill establishes death panels" or some other ridiculous drivel. I am interested in the constitutionality of what is occuring here. This seems completely illegal to me on the surface. Thanks Tonight they will vote on the Senate Bill and then they will vote on the reconciliation fixes bill. Then the bill will go to the upper chamber. This is where it will get interesting. According to the parliamentary rules, it does have to be budget related, which is part of the BYRD rule. The GOP claims that they will be able to strike several parts of the bill, and this is where the chief parliamentarian will have to rule what is in or out of bounds, and whatever is stricken then will have to go back to the lower chamber for another vote. From what I've been hearing, Judd Gregg claims that there are certain provisions that include S.S and if that is the case then there will be issues. Regarding Abortion, that cannot be included, to my understanding the President today is going to sign an executive order to include tighter restrictions on abortion language, but the left and right are both claiming that it won't be able to get enacted because the executive order is trumped by legislation. So the whole Stupak deal today, if I am understanding correctly basically was an excuse for Stupak to vote for the bill (which he was wanting to all along), not that there is anything wrong with that, that's what he believes in, but the reality is that it will never become law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JimBob2232 Posted March 22, 2010 Author Share Posted March 22, 2010 Tonight they will vote on the Senate Bill and then they will vote on the reconciliation fixes bill. Then the bill will go to the upper chamber. This is where it will get interesting. According to the parliamentary rules, it does have to be budget related, which is part of the BYRD rule. The GOP claims that they will be able to strike several parts of the bill, and this is where the chief parliamentarian will have to rule what is in or out of bounds, and whatever is stricken then will have to go back to the lower chamber for another vote. From what I've been hearing, Judd Gregg claims that there are certain provisions that include S.S and if that is the case then there will be issues. Regarding Abortion, that cannot be included, to my understanding the President today is going to sign an executive order to include tighter restrictions on abortion language, but the left and right are both claiming that it won't be able to get enacted because the executive order is trumped by legislation. So the whole Stupak deal today, if I am understanding correctly basically was an excuse for Stupak to vote for the bill (which he was wanting to all along), not that there is anything wrong with that, that's what he believes in, but the reality is that it will never become law. So now the republicans in the senate have to try to derail this bill. Essentially they have to argue AGAINST the provisions for the Louisiana Purchase and Cornhusker kick-back. So on one hand you have democrats buying votes and the republicans screaming bloody murder. Forward a few months, and you have republicans fighting to not repeal some of the fascets of the legislation they were against in the first place! Wow, I cant believe this is how our country is run. If this doesnt show how broken our legislative process is...nothing will. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Doc Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Wow, I cant believe this is how our country is run. If this doesnt show how broken our legislative process is...nothing will. Hey, maybe we need nationalized government...oh wait, nevermind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 From what I've been hearing, Judd Gregg claims that there are certain provisions that include S.S and if that is the case then there will be issues. My understanding is that the parliamentarian can be overruled by the president of the Senate. And we both know who that is. And since he can barely complete a full sentence without sounding like Big Cat off the meds, I'm sure the SS hangup will simply be overlooked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billnutinphoenix Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 If Stupak isn't one of the dumbest representatives, I don't know who is....He got an assurance about on an Executive order that even if Obama signs it, it is meaningless... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 If Stupak isn't one of the dumbest representatives, I don't know who is....He got an assurance about on an Executive order that even if Obama signs it, it is meaningless... It's very similar to what Ben Nelson did, they both said they were adamant about not allowing federal funding for abortions, and I truly believe that's the way they felt going into the process, but when the pressure was tightening up on both of them, and Democratic leadership turned the screws, and they felt the outside pressure they buckled. They agreed to some bull **** language that in reality did nothing to achieve what they had been fighting for, but gave them enough political cover so that they could at least go to sleep comfortably for a few nights and try to explain it to their pro-life constistuents in some lame ass press release. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Big Cat Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 My understanding is that the parliamentarian can be overruled by the president of the Senate. And we both know who that is. And since he can barely complete a full sentence without sounding like Big Cat off the meds, I'm sure the SS hangup will simply be overlooked. Oh Jesus! Oh Sweet Jesus! Stop! Please Stop! My sides! Oh, my sides are killing me! You're-ho-ho-ho-GENIUS! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Magox Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 My understanding is that the parliamentarian can be overruled by the president of the Senate. And we both know who that is. And since he can barely complete a full sentence without sounding like Big Cat off the meds, I'm sure the SS hangup will simply be overlooked. I wouldn't put it past them to do it, if push comes to shove, but my guess is that it won't get to that point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OCinBuffalo Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I was watching CNN and Wolf was interviewing that Debbie Wassermilf chick. She mentioned that there were negotiations between Stupak & Co with the White House concerning an Executive Order to fix the abortion provisions in Stupaks favor Legislators trading their votes for an Executive Order Separation of Powers? Just a quick point of order: Milf stand for Mother I'd LIKE to.... Not Mother there's no way in hell, even if it meant the health care bill failed, I'd.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IDBillzFan Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 I wouldn't put it past them to do it, if push comes to shove, but my guess is that it won't get to that point. I think the SS stuff is pretty clearly a reason to throw it out. I don't know if it's in there, but if it is, the fix it bill is gone. Unless Biden thinks otherswise, with the operative words being "Biden thinks." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
/dev/null Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Just a quick point of order: Milf stand for Mother I'd LIKE to.... Not Mother there's no way in hell, even if it meant the health care bill failed, I'd.... You wouldn't? I would Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Joe Miner Posted March 22, 2010 Share Posted March 22, 2010 Suing the Gov't Suppose all 37 states bring some kind of lawsuit. Is it even possible anything comes from this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts