Democrats may pass healthcare without a vote! [Archive]

1bad65

03-16-2010, 11:17 AM

Is this insane or what? Even you guys who want this bill have to admit this is not the way to do things. This is America, we don't do things like this.

"Washington (CNN) -- Can the House of Representatives pass a health care bill without actually voting on it?

That question -- bizarre to most casual political observers -- took center stage Tuesday as top House Democrats struggled to find enough support to push President Obama's top legislative priority over the finish line.

The House is expected to vote this week on the roughly $875 billion bill passed by the Senate in December. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-California, needs 216 votes from her 253-member caucus to pass the measure. No Republicans are expected to back it.

Pelosi's problem: A lot of House Democrats don't like the Senate bill. Among other things, some House members have expressed concern the Senate bill does not include an adequate level of subsidies to help middle- and lower-income families purchase coverage. They also object to the Senate's proposed tax on high-end insurance plans.

Pelosi's solution: Have the House pass the Senate bill, but then immediately follow up with another vote in both chambers of Congress on a package of changes designed in part to make the overall legislation more acceptable to House Democrats.

Now, Pelosi also may try to help unhappy House Democrats by allowing them to avoid a direct up-or-down vote on the Senate bill. The speaker may call for a vote on a rule that would simply "deem" the Senate bill to be passed. The House then would proceed to a separate vote on the more popular changes to the Senate bill.

House Minority Leader John Boehner, R-Ohio, said Tuesday that Republicans will try to block the procedure. They will try to force a vote on a resolution requiring the Senate health care bill to be brought to an up-or-down vote."

Wasn't Obama just saying he wants an "up or down vote" on this?

Source:
http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/16/house.health.care/index.html?hpt=T1

David Jamieson

03-16-2010, 12:56 PM

1bad65

03-16-2010, 01:08 PM

I find it odd that not a single republican will support well... anything the potus does. So, no I don't find anything unusual about going around the republicans who seem to just be about refusing, sticking, jamming, and interfering with the process of governance since they lost the last election.

Actually several did on recent bills. Including Scott Brown.

so, I guess they are forcing the other side to dictate what laws will be passed or not due to their non participation in government and their refusal to work with the potus for whatever reason.

dang silly ass republicans. get your act together.

So, bottom line: Do you support a bill passing the House without a vote?

David Jamieson

03-16-2010, 01:22 PM

Actually several did on recent bills. Including Scott Brown.

So, bottom line: Do you support a bill passing the House without a vote?

can a bill not be defeated without a vote?

Drake

03-16-2010, 01:37 PM

Actually several did on recent bills. Including Scott Brown.

So, bottom line: Do you support a bill passing the House without a vote?

Didn't Reagan do the same thing?

Reality_Check

03-16-2010, 06:58 PM

The Republicans used self-extracting rules quite often when they were in the majority in the House.

http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

dimethylsea

03-16-2010, 08:57 PM

It's not "passing it without a vote".. it's consolidating several votes into a single vote so that the GOP can't point to one of the votes and scream while failing to mention the connected vote that canceled certain provisions of the first vote.

The whole process is only necessary because of the filibuster games the Senate GOP is playing anyway.

They are saying "we will take this vote, and this vote will include the passing of the Senate bill as is, but include the reconciliation version that amends the Senate bill to take out the objectionable parts".

It's not "passing healthcare without a vote".. it's passing healthcare with a way of voting that doesn't let the GOP lie and misrepresent the actual intentions of the legislators.

1bad65

03-17-2010, 07:00 AM

It's not "passing healthcare without a vote".. it's passing healthcare with a way of voting that doesn't let the GOP lie and misrepresent the actual intentions of the legislators.

BS. When you have a bill, you vote on it. It's that simple.

What they are trying to do is pass it, but not have a record of them voting for it.

If they do this, not only will it likely be called unconstitutional, the November elections will be even worse for them. Americans like fair play, not shenanigans.

1bad65

03-17-2010, 07:01 AM

Didn't Reagan do the same thing?

He never did it to take over 1/6th of the US economy.

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 07:29 AM

What they are trying to do is pass it, but not have a record of them voting for it.

No it's a way to pass the senate bill and the changes to the senate bill with one vote instead of two. That way the congressmen are not voting against their conscience on the senate bill on the hope that the changes will also be passed latter. It's a two fer.

What they are trying to do is pass it, but not have a record of them voting for it.

They will have a record, but not a record of the parts of the senate bill they are changing. So people can't point at parts of the senate bill democratic congressmen don't like and say look what they did, even though they changed it latter.

He never did it to take over 1/6th of the US economy

Yes, yes, we know. Everything is ok when republicans do it and nothing is ok when democrats do it. You’re not hypocritical at all. ;)

Drake

03-17-2010, 07:44 AM

He never did it to take over 1/6th of the US economy.

But he DID do it, and isn't that what this discussion is about?

Reality_Check

03-17-2010, 07:46 AM

BS. When you have a bill, you vote on it. It's that simple.

What they are trying to do is pass it, but not have a record of them voting for it.

If they do this, not only will it likely be called unconstitutional, the November elections will be even worse for them. Americans like fair play, not shenanigans.

So, it's okay when Republicans use self-executing bills? And, golly gee, when self-extracting bills were used in the past, they weren't judged to be unconstitutional.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting”
rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House
adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is
specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete
policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to
be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will
lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed”
provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this
sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in
[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the
Committee of the Whole.”

And from the Constitution:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

How again would this be unconstitutional?

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 08:08 AM

I honestly think he doesn't understand the self-executing process.

So the democrats want to pass both the senate bill and the changes to the senate bill. Instead of voting on each separately... They will only vote once with the understanding that a vote for either is a vote for both.

What they will likely vote on is the changes to the senate bill with the self-executing rule attached saying that if the changes to the senate bill passes, the senate bill its self will also be considered passed. If they passed the changes to the senate bill without passing the senate bill that wouldn't make much sense would it? And since many do not like the senate bill without the changes they won't have to vote on senate bill with only the hope that the changes will also be passed. Make sense?

So there will be a vote.

How is that unconstitutional? And why is it unconstitutional now but not when republicans or democrats did it the past 240 of times it was used?

Luk Hop

03-17-2010, 08:35 AM

........ So, no I don't find anything unusual about going around the republicans who seem to just be about refusing, sticking, jamming, and interfering with the process of governance since they lost the last election.....

?????

With the numbers the way they are in the House, there is no need to "go around" the republicans. This is being done to "go around" other democrats.

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 08:46 AM

With the numbers the way they are in the House, there is no need to "go around" the republicans. This is being done to "go around" other democrats.

It’s not "going around" anyone, there is still going to be a full vote. It is satisfying other democrats that don’t want to pass the senate bill, as is, without the changes. By voting for both at the same time they can be sure of what those changes to the senate bill will be instead of passing the senate bill first and hoping that everything works out latter.

1bad65

03-17-2010, 09:02 AM

Yes, yes, we know. Everything is ok when republicans do it and nothing is ok when democrats do it. You’re not hypocritical at all. ;)

Show me where Reagan (or any Republican) took over, or even tried to take over, 1/6 of the economy and I said it was cool. Good luck! :D

1bad65

03-17-2010, 09:04 AM

By voting for both at the same time they can be sure of what those changes to the senate bill will be instead of passing the senate bill first and hoping that everything works out latter.

But Obama promised the House Democrats if they passed the Senate bill, they would then make changes to it using 'Reconciliation'. Why not do that, unless of course they don't trust Obama? ;)

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 09:06 AM

Show me where Reagan (or any Republican) took over, or even tried to take over, 1/6 of the economy and I said it was cool. Good luck! :D

You know I was talking about the use of self-extracting rule to pass legislation. The rule is not made invalid because you don’t like the legislation being passed at the time. :p

Reality_Check

03-17-2010, 09:15 AM

But Obama promised the House Democrats if they passed the Senate bill, they would then make changes to it using 'Reconciliation'. Why not do that, unless of course they don't trust Obama? ;)

No, they don't trust the Senate. Regardless, as far as I know, the changes to the Senate bill contained in the self-executing rule would have to be passed by the Senate. Most likely via reconciliation.

1bad65

03-17-2010, 09:18 AM

You know I was talking about the use of self-extracting rule to pass legislation. The rule is not made invalid because you don’t like the legislation being passed at the time. :p

It was never used to take over 1/6th of the economy. Please show me where ANY legislation of this scope was used by ANY President/Congress.

1bad65

03-17-2010, 09:19 AM

No, they don't trust the Senate. Regardless, as far as I know, the changes to the Senate bill contained in the self-executing rule would have to be passed by the Senate. Most likely via reconciliation.

No, it's Obama who holds the cards. See, if the House passed the Senate bill and then the Senate does not change it using reconciliation, Obama could choose to not sign the Senate bill (which will have passed both houses of Congress) into law.

Luk Hop

03-17-2010, 09:20 AM

It’s not "going around" anyone, there is still going to be a full vote. It is satisfying other democrats that don’t want to pass the senate bill, as is, without the changes. By voting for both at the same time they can be sure of what those changes to the senate bill will be instead of passing the senate bill first and hoping that everything works out latter.

I was only using aforementioned wording of an earlier post.

In all actuality, the democrat leadership can't quite get the herd of donkeys to feed out of the same trough.

dimethylsea

03-17-2010, 09:25 AM

Because of crap like this..

If the GOP wants to distort end-of-life counseling benefits as "death panels" then they should use similar language to describe themselves.. "shills for the Death Merchants"!

http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE62G2DO20100317
Insurer targeted HIV patients to drop coverage
10:17am EDT

By Murray Waas

WASHINGTON (Reuters) - In May, 2002, Jerome Mitchell, a 17-year old college freshman from rural South Carolina, learned he had contracted HIV. The news, of course, was devastating, but Mitchell believed that he had one thing going for him: On his own initiative, in anticipation of his first year in college, he had purchased his own health insurance.

Shortly after his diagnosis, however, his insurance company, Fortis, revoked his policy. Mitchell was told that without further treatment his HIV would become full-blown AIDS within a year or two and he would most likely die within two years after that.

So he hired an attorney -- not because he wanted to sue anyone; on the contrary, the shy African-American teenager expected his insurance was canceled by mistake and would be reinstated once he set the company straight.

But Fortis, now known as Assurant Health, ignored his attorney's letters, as they had earlier inquiries from a case worker at a local clinic who was helping him. So Mitchell sued.

In 2004, a jury in Florence County, South Carolina, ordered Assurant Health, part of Assurant Inc, to pay Mitchell $15 million for wrongly revoking his heath insurance policy. In September 2009, the South Carolina Supreme Court upheld the lower court's verdict, although the court reduced the amount to be paid him to $10 million.

By winning the verdict against Fortis, Mitchell not only obtained a measure of justice for himself; he also helped expose wrongdoing on the part of Fortis that could have repercussions for the entire health insurance industry.

Previously undisclosed records from Mitchell's case reveal that Fortis had a company policy of targeting policyholders with HIV. A computer program and algorithm targeted every policyholder recently diagnosed with HIV for an automatic fraud investigation, as the company searched for any pretext to revoke their policy. As was the case with Mitchell, their insurance policies often were canceled on erroneous information, the flimsiest of evidence, or for no good reason at all, according to the court documents and interviews with state and federal investigators......

"REPREHENSIBLE" CONDUCT

Much of the trial record of the Mitchell case is bound by a confidentiality order and not available to the public. But two orders written by the presiding judge, Michael G. Nettles, a state circuit judge for the 12th Judicial District of South Carolina, of Florence County, describe the case in detail. Judge Nettles wrote the orders in response to motions by Assurant that the jury's verdict be set aside or reduced.

In the motions, Nettles not only strongly denied Fortis' claims but condemned the corporation's conduct.

"There was evidence that Fortis' general counsel insisted years ago that members of the rescission committee not record the identity of the persons present and involved in the process of making a decision to rescind a Fortis health insurance policy," Nettles wrote.

Elsewhere in his order, Nettles noted that there were no "minutes of actions, votes, or any business conducted during the rescission committee's meeting."

The South Carolina Supreme Court, in upholding the jury's verdict in the case in a unanimous 5-0 opinion, said that it agreed with the lower court's finding that Fortis destroyed records to hide the corporation's misconduct. Supreme Court Chief Justice Jean Hoefer Toal wrote: "The lack of written rescission policies, the lack of information available regarding appealing rights or procedures, the separate policies for rescission documents" as well as the "omission" of other records regarding the decision to revoke Mitchell's insurance, constituted "evidence that Fortis tried to conceal the actions it took in rescinding his policy."

In affirming the trial verdict and Nettles' order, Toal was as harsh in her criticism of the company as Judge Nettles had been. "We find ample support in the record that Fortis' conduct was reprehensible," she wrote. "Fortis demonstrated an indifference to Mitchell's life and a reckless disregard to his health and safety."

Fortis canceled Mitchell's health insurance based on a single erroneous note from a nurse in his medical records that indicated that he might have been diagnosed prior to his obtaining his insurance policy. When the company's investigators discovered the note, they ceased further review of Mitchell's records for evidence to the contrary, including the records containing the doctor's diagnosis.

Nettles also suggested that Fortis should have realized the date in the note was incorrect: "Not only did Fortis choose to rely on one false and unreliable snippet of information containing an erroneous date to the exclusion of other information which would have revealed that date to be erroneous, Fortis refused to conduct any further investigation even after it was on notice the evidence which aroused its suspicion to be false," the judge noted.

Fortis "gambled" with Mitchell's life, Nettles wrote.

Their motive, according to the judge, was obvious: "The court finds that Fortis wrongfully elevated its concerns for maximizing profits over the rights and interest of its customer." In upholding Nettles' verdict, the South Carolina Supreme Court similarly ruled that "Fortis was motivated to avoid the losses it would undoubtedly incur in supporting Mitchell's costly medical condition."

While declining to comment on specific cases, Assurant said in the statement: "All insurance companies have processes to review claims to ensure their accuracy, completeness and compliance with policy provisions and we evaluate all claims on an individual basis."

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 09:33 AM

But Obama promised the House Democrats if they passed the Senate bill, they would then make changes to it using 'Reconciliation'. Why not do that, unless of course they don't trust Obama?

The Reconciliation process is what will happened in the Senate not the house. They will use the self-extracting rule in the house to pass the senate bill with changes in one vote, before sending it to the the Senate. When it is in the senate they will use the reconciliation to pass the changes the house made. Reconciliation will still happen, but it won't have to come back to the house after reconciliation.

After they vote for it, even with the changes, Obama could still sign the Senate bill into law without the changes. Who they don't trust is the senate to approve the changes they passed. If the senate doesn't they all know that Obama will sign the bill as is.

Please show me where ANY legislation of this scope was used by ANY President/Congress.
Show me where it says they can't pass legislation of this scope.
And social security is 19% of the budget which is 3% more than 1/6.
:p

Reality_Check

03-17-2010, 09:36 AM

No, it's Obama who holds the cards. See, if the House passed the Senate bill and then the Senate does not change it using reconciliation, Obama could choose to not sign the Senate bill (which will have passed both houses of Congress) into law.

The House wants it's version passed. The Senate wants it's version. So, they find things to compromise on, and pass the bills with those changes. That happens all of the time. In order to avoid a filibuster, they use reconciliation in the Senate to pass budgetary changes to the bill (being that it has already passed the Senate). And in order to pass the Senate bill in the House, with revisions, they use a self-executing rule, i.e. they pass the revisions, and deem the Senate bill to have passed. It's fairly straight forward, completely legitimate and Constitutional. You may not like the parliamentary maneuvers, or the bill(s), but it doesn't make them invalid.

1bad65

03-17-2010, 11:39 AM

And social security is 19% of the budget which is 3% more than 1/6.
:p

So the Republicans passed/created Social Security without a House vote? Is that what you are saying? :rolleyes:

1bad65

03-17-2010, 11:40 AM

You may not like the parliamentary maneuvers, or the bill(s), but it doesn't make them invalid.

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

This is a very slippery slope....

David Jamieson

03-17-2010, 11:44 AM

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

This is a very slippery slope....

bring your swimsuit! There's a pool of neo-con tears at the bottom! :D

1bad65

03-17-2010, 11:52 AM

bring your swimsuit! There's a pool of neo-con tears at the bottom! :D

Usually what happens when politicians pass laws against the will of the people 'for their own good' it ends in a different kind of pool.

Drake

03-17-2010, 11:54 AM

Usually what happens when politicians pass laws against the will of the people 'for their own good' it ends in a different kind of pool.

Like the Patriot Act?

1bad65

03-17-2010, 12:11 PM

Like the Patriot Act?

The Patriot Act was supported by a majority of Americans when it was written/passed/signed into law.

People like Ron Paul cautioned against it. I don't recall Obama, Edwards, or Hillary opposing it. Actually, I believe Hillary and Edwards voted 'Yes' on it. I believe Obama was not in the Senate yet. That, or he voted 'Present' again. :rolleyes:

Reality_Check

03-17-2010, 12:30 PM

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

This is a very slippery slope....

It speaks volumes that you don't understand that it is perfectly Constitutional, and that the Republicans used it quite often when they were in the majority. If it's a slippery slope, it's one we've been on for decades.

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 12:31 PM

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

THERE WILL BE A VOTE. There will be a vote. They are just passing the senate bill and the changes with one vote instead of two. Don't listen to the talking heads. :rolleyes:

Drake

03-17-2010, 12:39 PM

The Patriot Act was supported by a majority of Americans when it was written/passed/signed into law.

People like Ron Paul cautioned against it. I don't recall Obama, Edwards, or Hillary opposing it. Actually, I believe Hillary and Edwards voted 'Yes' on it. I believe Obama was not in the Senate yet. That, or he voted 'Present' again. :rolleyes:

Who supported the Patriot Act? Even us in the military were wary of it. And I don't care if democrats voted yes or no on it, because I'm not a democrat. It doesn't make it any less controversial.

MasterKiller

03-17-2010, 12:42 PM

It speaks volumes that in democratic country, laws can be passed without a vote.

This is a very slippery slope....We don't live in a democratic country. We live in a republic.

Lucas

03-17-2010, 12:49 PM

For Rome!!!!!

oh wait wrong one....

SanHeChuan

03-17-2010, 01:33 PM

We have the computer technology to consider a direct democracy. We could skip the representative part, imagine that! :eek:

Luk Hop

03-17-2010, 02:29 PM

We have the computer technology to consider a direct democracy. We could skip the representative part, imagine that! :eek:

I think you just lost your case concerning healthcare if you are advocating direct democracy.

Yes I could imagine that. The polls show that the majority of people are in disfavor of the bill.

However, I would prefer not to place the citizens of this nation under the malicious vulnerability of the Internet.

If it is a right to have healthcare provided to all in this country as is believed by some, then it should be proposed as a constitutional amendment and voted on accordingly.

1bad65

03-18-2010, 07:03 AM

Who supported the Patriot Act? Even us in the military were wary of it. And I don't care if democrats voted yes or no on it, because I'm not a democrat. It doesn't make it any less controversial.

My point was that when it was passed, over 50% of the American people suported it. While this healthcare bill has well under 50% support by the American people.

1bad65

03-18-2010, 07:06 AM

Yes I could imagine that. The polls show that the majority of people are in disfavor of the bill.

Very much so.

If it is a right to have healthcare provided to all in this country as is believed by some, then it should be proposed as a constitutional amendment and voted on accordingly.

Well we need food and shelter to survive as well. Matter of fact, food is a bigger necessity than healthcare. So when do we get 'free' food from the Government? And 'free' shelter?

Really guys, where does it stop?

1bad65

03-18-2010, 07:14 AM

We don't live in a democratic country. We live in a republic.

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

"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 approves, 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."

-Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the US Constitution

I don't see the word 'deem' in there. Do you?

Reality_Check

03-18-2010, 07:41 AM

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

"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 approves, 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."

-Article I, Section VII, Clause II of the US Constitution

I don't see the word 'deem' in there. Do you?

Do you actually read other people's posts?

The Republicans used self-extracting rules quite often when they were in the majority in the House.

http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

So, it's okay when Republicans use self-executing bills? And, golly gee, when self-executing bills were used in the past, they weren't judged to be unconstitutional.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”

And from the Constitution:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

How again would this be unconstitutional?

SanHeChuan

03-18-2010, 07:53 AM

Where laws are supposed to voted on, not 'deemed to have passed'.

What? Now you’re just obstinately re-stating what amounts to propaganda. :eek:

THERE WILL BE A VOTE! :cool:

We have explaned this too you. Again you're railing against an issuse you don't even understand. :rolleyes:

Luk Hop

03-18-2010, 08:11 AM

Very much so.

Well we need food and shelter to survive as well. Matter of fact, food is a bigger necessity than healthcare. So when do we get 'free' food from the Government? And 'free' shelter?

Really guys, where does it stop?

Don't get me wrong. I have no desire for the current healthcare debacle. I personally do not believe that it is a "right". If it is a right, then I also have the right not to partake of it and a growing number of people and states share the same thought as can be seen in the different states preparing and beginning to pass laws threatening legal action against the federal government. Hence the word "debacle".

Approaching healthcare in the manner of a constitutional amendment would provide for greater representation of the people and a much higher degree of scrutiny.

A proposed amendment would require ratification by 2/3 of the House and Senate and then 3/4 of the states must affirm the proposed Amendment. Unless approached by constitutional convention.

MasterKiller

03-18-2010, 09:14 AM

1bad65

03-18-2010, 09:31 AM

I don't really approve of the way it's being passed, but Republicans have basically just decided to stonewall anything Obama does in an attempt to get more votes in the upcoming elections. They don't want a debate because they have no alternatives to debate about. I also don't approve of the idea of Americans being punished for NOT carrying insurance. Seems like a money grab from the lobbyists ala car insurance and mandatory seatbelt and helmet laws.

That's what politics are. They may be the minority Party in Congress, but that doesn't mean they should just STFU and get out of the way. This country is set up to avoid steamrolling bills into law.

If this bill is so good and on the up-and-up, why are Senators being bribed, locked door meetings among one Party (despite Obama's promise of bipartisanship and open Government :rolleyes:), and threats of shenanigans instead of an up-and-down vote? Answer that. ;)

1bad65

03-18-2010, 09:33 AM

Well, I don't see the word "vote" either...;)

It's in there in the entire Clause. :D Here ya go!

"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 approves, 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."

1bad65

03-18-2010, 09:39 AM

Will the American people get their promised 72 hours to review and comment on the proposed legislation that O'bama promised we would get?

I'll bet not.

MasterKiller

03-18-2010, 09:40 AM

That's what politics are. They may be the minority Party in Congress, but that doesn't mean they should just STFU and get out of the way. This country is set up to avoid steamrolling bills into law. Stalling and stonewalling to create "Obama's Waterloo" is just to attempt to pick up more seats and does nothing for the country.

The fact is, Republicans have no alternative ideas.

If this bill is so good and on the up-and-up, why are Senators being bribed, locked door meetings among one Party (despite Obama's promise of bipartisanship and open Government :rolleyes:), and threats of shenanigans instead of an up-and-down vote? Answer that. ;)
Well, to quote you, "That's what politics are."

One could ask why Bush never vetoed any bills while Republicans had control of Congress, but immediatley began veoting when Democrats assumed power. But we all know the answer, don't we?

Reality_Check

03-18-2010, 09:48 AM

Will the American people get their promised 72 hours to review and comment on the proposed legislation that O'bama promised we would get?

I'll bet not.

Seriously? The bill has been out there for a lot longer that 72 hours (since at least 12/24/09, which is when the Senate passed it).

Luk Hop

03-18-2010, 10:36 AM

Seriously? The bill has been out there for a lot longer that 72 hours (since at least 12/24/09, which is when the Senate passed it).

Nancy Pelosi: We Need to Pass Health Care Bill to Find Out What’s In It

http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/

March 9, 2010

1bad65

03-18-2010, 11:05 AM

Stalling and stonewalling to create "Obama's Waterloo" is just to attempt to pick up more seats and does nothing for the country.

Get out of here with those talking points.

They don't want to nationalize 1/6th of the US economy, their constituents oppose it, its unconstitutional, and they don't like the Medicare cuts that are needed for this.

The fact is, Republicans have no alternative ideas.

More talking points. Call them 'the Party of No' next. :rolleyes:

One could ask why Bush never vetoed any bills while Republicans had control of Congress, but immediatley began veoting when Democrats assumed power. But we all know the answer, don't we?

You sure he never vetoed even one? Can you back that up, please?

1bad65

03-18-2010, 11:07 AM

Seriously? The bill has been out there for a lot longer that 72 hours (since at least 12/24/09, which is when the Senate passed it).

Where can I find it? ;)

1bad65

03-18-2010, 11:07 AM

Nancy Pelosi: We Need to Pass Health Care Bill to Find Out What’s In It

http://www.breitbart.tv/nancy-pelosi-we-need-to-pass-health-care-bill-to-find-out-whats-in-it/

March 9, 2010

Thank you! :D

Reality_Check

03-18-2010, 11:12 AM

Where can I find it? ;)

Gee, I don't know. How about here?

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

1bad65

03-18-2010, 11:16 AM

Gee, I don't know. How about here?

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act-as-passed.pdf

Nope. That's not it.

Here is O'bama himself on Weds saying it has not been posted yet:

"President Obama pledged in an interview with Fox News on Wednesday that the final provisions of his health care plan "are going to be posted for many days before this thing passes" to give the public a chance to review it.

As of Thursday afternoon, the final version of the bill had not yet been posted to a congressional Web site and the highly touted Congressional Budget Office cost estimates were still listed only as "preliminary."

That means the 72-hour window Democrats are promising to give the public to review the language has not actually started. Only after the bill is posted to the House Rules Committee Web site does that clock start ticking.

The bill has not yet been released because lawmakers are still tweaking it. "Changes are being made even now," Rep. Eliot Engel, D-N.Y., said."

Source:
http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/03/18/public-awaits-health-care-release-dems-celebrate-cost-estimate/

Reality_Check

03-18-2010, 11:34 AM

1bad65

03-18-2010, 12:05 PM

Well, I see you've given up on the whole "Democrats may pass healthcare without a vote!" thing. Considering how wrong you were (and how easy it was to demonstrate that), I guess it's not surprising that you've decided to change tacks.

Two things.

1) Just last night O'bama did not take the 'passing without voting' option off the table.

2) Notice my original post said "MAY".

SanHeChuan

03-18-2010, 01:16 PM

1) Just last night O'bama did not take the 'passing without voting' option off the table.

No such option exists you are arguing against a conservative phantasm. :rolleyes:

Drake

03-18-2010, 01:35 PM

Two things.

1) Just last night O'bama did not take the 'passing without voting' option off the table.

2) Notice my original post said "MAY".

Why don't you start being a bit more adult by simply saying President Obama, much like how you'd like to see someone write Fmr. President Bush? Hell, even use their last name by itself, but don't try and mock his name. That's childish. I expect that from BD, not you.

1bad65

03-18-2010, 02:03 PM

No such option exists you are arguing against a conservative phantasm. :rolleyes:

Are you serious?!?! :rolleyes:

1bad65

03-18-2010, 02:05 PM

Why don't you start being a bit more adult by simply saying President Obama, much like how you'd like to see someone write Fmr. President Bush? Hell, even use their last name by itself, but don't try and mock his name. That's childish. I expect that from BD, not you.

Hey, yesterday the guy said he was Irish. So I decided to have a bit of fun with his ridiculous pandering. It's pointing out absurdity by being absurd.

I also laughed at Bill Clinton when he referred to himself as "the first black President".

I'll likely stop now anyway. I really wanted to see if anyone would ask about it. ;)

KC Elbows

03-18-2010, 03:18 PM

I thought Toni Morrison called Clinton that.

SnowDog

03-18-2010, 03:37 PM

Hey, yesterday the guy said he was Irish. So I decided to have a bit of fun with his ridiculous pandering. It's pointing out absurdity by being absurd.

I also laughed at Bill Clinton when he referred to himself as "the first black President".

I'll likely stop now anyway. I really wanted to see if anyone would ask about it. ;)

You do realize Obama is 1/2 white right???? And his mom is of Irish decent......that's why he said he was Irish.

SanHeChuan

03-19-2010, 06:32 AM

Are you serious?!?! :rolleyes:

Yes, and we have tried to explain it to you several times already in this thread.

You are crying because you say the senate bill will not be voted on, but will be deemed to have been passed. The FACT is that the senate bill will be voted on in conjunction with the corrections the House wants to make to the senate bill. They will vote for both at the same time using the “Self-Executing” Rule to deem the senate bill passed when they vote on and pass the corrections to the senate bill. Everyone taking the vote knows that a vote for the corrections will equal a vote for the senate bill, and voting in the corrections to the senate bill without passing the senate bill would be a waste of time. There is no trickery here. I don’t see what’s so hard to understand about this. :confused::confused::confused:

Will the American people get their promised 72 hours to review and comment on the proposed legislation that O'bama promised we would get?

I'll bet not.

Legislation revealed: Democratic leaders unveiled the text of the reconciliation act for health care on Thursday. They had earlier promised to put the act up online 72 hours before a vote, meaning the House will take up the act on Sunday at the earliest.

Health Care and Education Affordability Reconciliation Act of 2010 (pdf)

Section-by-section analysis (pdf)

http://edition.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/19/health.care.latest/

1bad65

03-19-2010, 06:34 AM

I thought Toni Morrison called Clinton that.

He agreed with him, and said so right then.

1bad65

03-19-2010, 06:36 AM

You are crying because you say the senate bill will not be voted on, but will be deemed to have been passed.

You typed this with a straight face, right?

You read the part of the Constitution I posted, right? It clearly said VOTE in it. More than once, actually. And it never said the word 'deem' either.

SanHeChuan

03-19-2010, 07:06 AM

You read the part of the Constitution I posted, right? It clearly said VOTE in it. More than once, actually. And it never said the word 'deem' either.

You read the part of my post where I said it WILL be VOTED on right? More than one, actually.

1bad65

03-19-2010, 07:48 AM

You read the part of my post where I said it WILL be VOTED on right? More than one, actually.

Let's try this yet again. :rolleyes:

"Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

1bad65

03-19-2010, 07:49 AM

You read the part of my post where I said it WILL be VOTED on right? More than one, actually.

Yes I did.

And you are saying it "WILL be VOTED on". But what you didn't say was that it will be voted on AFTER it is deemed to have passed. Do you not get this? :confused:

SanHeChuan

03-19-2010, 08:13 AM

Yes I did.

And you are saying it "WILL be VOTED on". But what you didn't say was that it will be voted on AFTER it is deemed to have passed. Do you not get this? :confused:

No I don't get that.

Led by Rep. Louise M. Slaughter, New York Democrat and chairman of the House Rules Committee, the new plan - called the "Slaughter Solution" - is not to pass the Senate version on an up-or-down vote. Rather, it is to have the House "deem" that the legislation was passed and then have members vote directly on a series of "sidecar" amendments to fix the things it does not like.

This would enable House Democrats to avoid going on the record voting for provisions in the Senate bill - the "Cornhusker Kickback," the "Louisiana Purchase," the tax on high-cost so-called "Cadillac" insurance plans - that are reviled by the public or labor-union bosses. If the reconciliation fixes pass, the House can send the Senate bill to President Obama for his signature without ever having had a formal up-or-down vote on the underlying legislation.
http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

I've bolded the problem above. How does the House "deem" the Senate bill passed before a vote on the "sidecar" amendments? It can't. that’s not a correct statement.

In order to "deem" the senate bill passed they need to pass a "self executing" rule first. To pass a self executing rule they have to vote it in. In this case they will vote in the "sidecar" amendements with the "self executing" rule first which will state that if the amendements pass the senate bill is good. "If the full House votes to approve a legislative rule that contains such a provision, the House then deems a second bill as also approved without requiring a separate vote, as long as that second bill is specified in the rule (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Self-executing_rule)."

The Dems rightfully don't want to be on the record as approving the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc, because it won't be in the final version of the bill that will be signed into law.

Also by passing the "sidecar" amendments first they make sure that the president cannot sign the senate version of the bill into law without those corrections, because, "The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law (http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/)."

They are doing a good thing by making sure the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc don't get into the bill. :D

1bad65

03-19-2010, 08:19 AM

No I don't get that.

You're smarter than this. Right?

How can anything pass BEFORE it is voted on?

1bad65

03-19-2010, 08:21 AM

The Dems rightfully don't want to be on the record as approving the "Cornhusker Kickback", etc, because it won't be in the final version of the bill that will be signed into law.

LMFAO!

They got that in there because DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson asked for it, DEMOCRAT Barack Obama agreed to it, and a DEMOCRAT-controlled Senate passed it. With every Senate DEMOCRAT voting for it, btw.

SanHeChuan

03-19-2010, 08:34 AM

How can anything pass BEFORE it is voted on?

Exactly, that's my point. It will be voted on first, so your claim that there won't be a vote is erronous. I'm glad you understand now.

They got that in there because DEMOCRAT Ben Nelson asked for it, DEMOCRAT Barack Obama agreed to it, and a DEMOCRAT-controlled Senate passed it. With every Senate DEMOCRAT voting for it, btw.

Then you can criticize the senate for passing that legislation. The house is taking steps to make sure you cannot extend them the same courtesy.

1bad65

03-19-2010, 12:24 PM

Exactly, that's my point. It will be voted on first, so your claim that there won't be a vote is erronous. I'm glad you understand now.

No, it will not be voted on FIRST. It will be "deemed to have passed" without a vote. Then the amendments will be voted on. The ones that pass will now be included in the bill. Then the bill, with the new amendments, will be voted on. But the bottom line is this: It will have been FIRST "deemed to have passed" before ANY votes are taken.

Then you can criticize the senate for passing that legislation. The house is taking steps to make sure you cannot extend them the same courtesy.

So Obama gets a pass on the Cornhusker Kickback? He did approve it.

Reality_Check

03-19-2010, 12:29 PM

Let's try this yet again. :rolleyes:

"Many Democrats could claim they opposed the Senate bill while allowing it to pass. This would be an unprecedented violation of our democratic norms and procedures, established since the inception of the republic. Article 1, Section 7 of the Constitution stipulates that for any bill to become a law, it must pass both the House of Representatives and the Senate. That is, not be "deemed" to have passed, but actually be voted on with the support of the required majority. The bill must contain the exact same language in both chambers - and in the version signed by the president - to be a legitimate law. This is why the House and Senate have a conference committee to iron out differences of competing versions. This is Civics 101.

The Slaughter Solution is a dagger aimed at the heart of our system of checks and balances. It would enable the Democrats to establish an ominous precedent: The lawmaking process can be rigged to ensure the passage of any legislation without democratic accountability or even a congressional majority. It is the road to a soft tyranny. James Madison must be turning in his grave."

http://washingtontimes.com/news/2010/mar/19/impeach-the-president/

Apparently, you really don't read other people's posts.

Do you actually read other people's posts?

The Republicans used self-extracting rules quite often when they were in the majority in the House.

http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic_id=1412&fuseaction=topics.publications&doc_id=190504&group_id=180829

When Republicans were in the minority, they railed against self-executing rules as being anti-deliberative because they undermined and perverted the work of committees and also prevented the House from having a separate debate and vote on the majority’s preferred changes. From the 95th to 98th Congresses (1977-84), there were only eight self-executing rules making up just 1 percent of the 857 total rules granted. However, in Speaker Tip O’Neill’s (D-Mass.) final term in the 99th Congress, there were 20 self-executing rules (12 percent). In Rep. Jim Wright’s (D-Texas) only full term as Speaker, in the 100th Congress, there were 18 self-executing rules (17 percent). They reached a high point of 30 under Speaker Tom Foley (D-Wash.) during the final Democratic Congress, the 103rd, for 22 percent of all rules.

When Republicans took power in 1995, they soon lost their aversion to self-executing rules and proceeded to set new records under Speaker Newt Gingrich (R-Ga.). There were 38 and 52 self-executing rules in the 104th and 105th Congresses (1995-1998), making up 25 percent and 35 percent of all rules, respectively. Under Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-Ill.) there were 40, 42 and 30 self-executing rules in the 106th, 107th and 108th Congresses (22 percent, 37 percent and 22 percent, respectively). Thus far in the 109th Congress, self-executing rules make up about 16 percent of all rules.

On April 26, the Rules Committee served up the mother of all self-executing rules for the lobby/ethics reform bill. The committee hit the trifecta with not one, not two, but three self-executing provisions in the same special rule. The first trigger was a double whammy: “In lieu of the amendments recommended by the Committees on the Judiciary, Rules, and Government Reform now printed in the bill, the amendment in the nature of a substitute consisting of the text of the Rules Committee Print dated April 21, 2006, modified by the amendment printed in part A of the report of the Committee on Rules accompanying this resolution, shall be considered as adopted in the House and the Committee of the Whole.”

So, it's okay when Republicans use self-executing bills? And, golly gee, when self-executing bills were used in the past, they weren't judged to be unconstitutional.

http://www.rules.house.gov/Archives/98-710.pdf

Definition of “Self-Executing” Rule. One of the newer types is called a “selfexecuting” rule; it embodies a “two-for-one” procedure. This means that when the House adopts a rule it also simultaneously agrees to dispose of a separate matter, which is specified in the rule itself. For instance, self-executing rules may stipulate that a discrete policy proposal is deemed to have passed the House and been incorporated in the bill to be taken up. The effect: neither in the House nor in the Committee of the Whole will lawmakers have an opportunity to amend or to vote separately on the “self-executed” provision. It was automatically agreed to when the House passed the rule. Rules of this sort contain customary, or “boilerplate,” language, such as: “The amendment printed in[section 2 of this resolution or in part 1 of the report of the Committee on Rules
accompanying this resolution] shall be considered as adopted in the House and in the Committee of the Whole.”

And from the Constitution:

http://topics.law.cornell.edu/constitution/articlei

Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings...

How again would this be unconstitutional?

So, I guess all of those bills passed under self-executing rules by the Republican controlled Congresses under Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert were unconstitutional.

Are the 202 bills passed by the Republican controlled Congresses (104th, 105th, 106th, 107th & 108th) under self-executing rules unconstitutional? Yes or no. It's a simple question.

1bad65

03-19-2010, 12:34 PM

So, I guess all of those bills passed under self-executing rules by the Republican controlled Congresses under Newt Gingrich and Denny Hastert were unconstitutional.

Are the 202 bills passed by the Republican controlled Congresses (104th, 105th, 106th, 107th & 108th) under self-executing rules unconstitutional? Yes or no. It's a simple question.

If they were passed the way the Democrats are considering passing socialized medicine, I would say yes, it is not Constitutional. However, I do not recall seeing ANY lawsuits filed by the Democrats over this. If no one asks the Courts to determine if it is legal, they won't make a decision it.

Honestly, I've never heard of this rule before the last few days. I'm against using it at all. But just because someone else does it, does not make it right for you to do it. Didn't we all learn that as children?

Reality_Check

03-19-2010, 12:55 PM

If they were passed the way the Democrats are considering passing socialized medicine, I would say yes, it is not Constitutional. However, I do not recall seeing ANY lawsuits filed by the Democrats over this. If no one asks the Courts to determine if it is legal, they won't make a decision it.

Honestly, I've never heard of this rule before the last few days. I'm against using it at all. But just because someone else does it, does not make it right for you to do it. Didn't we all learn that as children?

This gentleman explains it much better than I can.

http://balkin.blogspot.com/2010/03/is-deem-and-pass-constitutional.html

Despite Judge McConnell's concerns, which are textually well founded, there is a way that "deem and pass" could be done constitutionally. There have to be two separate bills signed by the President: the first one is the original Senate bill, and the second one is the reconciliation bill. The House must pass the Senate bill and it must also pass the reconciliation bill. The House may do this on a single vote if the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill says that by passing the reconciliation bill the House agrees to pass the same text of the same bill that the Senate has passed. That is to say, the language of the special rule that accompanies the reconciliation bill must make the House take political responsibility for passing the same language as the Senate bill. The House must say that the House has consented to accept the text of the Senate bill as its own political act. At that point the President can sign the two bills, and it does not matter that the House has passed both through a special rule. Under Article I, section 5 of the Constitution, the House can determine its own rules for passing legislation. There are plenty of precedents for passing legislation by reference through a special rule.

Here is a court ruling that is applicable:

http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia

Article I of the United States Constitution requires that before proposed legislation may "become[] a Law," U.S. CONST. art. I, § 7, cl. 2, "(1) a bill containing its exact text [must be] approved by a majority of the Members of the House of Representatives; (2) the Senate [must] approve[] precisely the same text; and (3) that text [must be] signed into law by the President," Clinton v. City of New York, 524 U.S. 417, 448, 118 S.Ct. 2091, 141 L.Ed.2d 393 (1998). Public Citizen, a not-for-profit consumer advocacy organization, filed suit in District Court claiming that the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005, Pub.L. No. 109-171, 120 Stat. 4 (2006) ("DRA" or "Act"), is invalid because the bill that was presented to the President did not first pass both chambers of Congress in the exact same form. In particular, Public Citizen contends that the statute's enactment did not comport with the bicameral passage requirement of Article I, Section 7 of the Constitution, because the version of the legislation that was presented to the House contained a clerk's error with respect to one term, so the House and Senate voted on slightly different versions of the bill and the President signed the version passed by the Senate. Public Citizen asserts that it is irrelevant that the Speaker of the House and the President pro tempore of the Senate both signed a version of the proposed legislation identical to the version signed by the President. Nor does it matter, Public Citizen argues, that the congressional leaders' signatures attest that indistinguishable legislative text passed both houses.

The District Court held that Public Citizen's bicameralism claim is foreclosed by the Supreme Court's decision in Marshall Field & Co. v. Clark, 143 U.S. 649, 12 S.Ct. 495, 36 L.Ed. 294 (1892). See Public Citizen v. Clerk, U.S. Dist. Ct. for D.C., 451 F.Supp.2d 109 (D.D.C. 2006). In that case, the Court held that the judiciary must treat the attestations of "the two houses, through their presiding officers" as "conclusive evidence that [a bill] was passed by Congress." Marshall Field, 143 U.S. at 672-73, 12 S.Ct. 495. Under Marshall Field, a bill signed by the leaders of the House and Senate—an attested "enrolled bill"—establishes that Congress passed the text included therein "according to the forms of the Constitution," and it "should be deemed complete and unimpeachable." Id. at 672-73, 12 S.Ct. 495. Recognizing that Marshall Field's "enrolled bill rule" prohibited it from questioning the congressional pedigree of the bill signed by the Speaker and President pro tempore, the District Court dismissed Public Citizen's complaint and denied its motion for summary judgment. Public Citizen, 451 F.Supp.2d 109.

This is the ruling referenced by the above decision.

http://openjurist.org/486/f3d/1342/public-citizen-v-united-states-district-court-for-the-district-of-columbia

In Marshall Field, importers protesting duties levied against them sought to have the Tariff Act of 1890 declared unconstitutional. 143 U.S. at 662-69, 12 S.Ct. 495. According to the importers, even though the Speaker of the House and the President of the Senate had endorsed the bill as having passed the bodies over which they presided, "it [was] shown by the Congressional record of proceedings, reports of committees of each house, reports of committees of conference, and other papers printed by authority of Congress" that part of the bill passed was missing in the version enrolled. Id. at 668-69, 12 S.Ct. 495. The importers argued that the Journal Clause, see U.S. CONST. art. I, § 5, cl. 3 ("Each House shall keep a Journal of its Proceedings, and from time to time publish the same, excepting such Parts as may in their Judgment require Secrecy; and the Yeas and Nays of the Members of either House on any question shall, at the Desire of one fifth of those Present, be entered on the Journal."), enshrines congressional journals—not the enrolled bill—as "the best, if not conclusive, evidence upon the issue as to whether a bill was, in fact, passed by the two houses of Congress." Marshall Field, 143 U.S. at 670, 12 S.Ct. 495.

The Court rejected this interpretation of the bicameral passage requirement, holding that the object of the Journal Clause is to ensure transparency in legislative activities, not to "prescribe the mode in which the fact of the original passage of a bill by the House of Representatives and the Senate shall be authenticated, or preclude Congress from adopting any mode to that end which its wisdom suggests." Id. at 670-71, 12 S.Ct. 495. Recognizing that Congress had long chosen signing of the enrolled bill by the presiding members of both houses as its method of authentication, the Court held that "the judicial department [must] act upon that assurance, and . . . accept, as having passed Congress, all bills authenticated in the manner stated." Id. at 671-72, 12 S.Ct. 495.

In a nutshell, the Courts ruled that if the Speaker of the House and the Senate's Presiding Officer attest that identical bills have passed the House and Senate, the courts must accept that the Constitutional requirements have been satisfied.

SanHeChuan

03-19-2010, 12:56 PM

No, it will not be voted on FIRST. It will be "deemed to have passed" without a vote. Then the amendments will be voted on. The ones that pass will now be included in the bill. Then the bill, with the new amendments, will be voted on. But the bottom line is this: It will have been FIRST "deemed to have passed" before ANY votes are taken.

What is the congressional process by which it will be "deemed"? What are the steps they have to take in order to "deem" it?

So Obama gets a pass on the Cornhusker Kickback? He did approve it.

Did he? He didn't put it in there. He never signed it into law. It wasn't part of the health care bill he put out. Since it's not going to be apart of the actual bill who cares.

1bad65

03-19-2010, 02:01 PM

In a nutshell, the Courts ruled that if the Speaker of the House and the Senate's Presiding Officer attest that identical bills have passed the House and Senate, the courts must accept that the Constitutional requirements have been satisfied.

But identical bills will not have passed both Houses, with a vote. And has this issue went before the Supreme Court yet? I noticed those decisions appeared to have been made in a District court.

Why play these games, unless you don't have the House votes?

1bad65

03-19-2010, 02:04 PM

Did he? He didn't put it in there. He never signed it into law. It wasn't part of the health care bill he put out. Since it's not going to be apart of the actual bill who cares.

He said he would sign it into law. If he wasn't going to sign it, why would he ok putting it in there? Obama was in the closed door meeting where the bribe was made, you know.

Of course he did promise us more transparency in Government. And more bipartisanship too. Lying piece of garbage.

Reality_Check

03-19-2010, 03:57 PM

But identical bills will not have passed both Houses, with a vote. And has this issue went before the Supreme Court yet? I noticed those decisions appeared to have been made in a District court.

Why play these games, unless you don't have the House votes?

But identical bills will have passed both the House and the Senate. The difference is that the House will have passed a second bill at the same time.

The Supreme Court doesn't rule on every single case. Since the District court has made the ruling, it is binding.

SanHeChuan

03-19-2010, 05:57 PM

But identical bills will not have passed both Houses, with a vote.

Yes they will. After the House votes to pass the Senate Bill and the changes with one vote, the senate will still need to vote to pass the changes also.

If all goes to plan, the Senate will quickly vote on the so-called "sidecar bill," the fixes the House wants to see in the version of the bill the Senate originally passed in December. Because Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid has already announced his intention to use his own streamlined tactic called "reconciliation" (see our explanation of what reconciliation is and why it's controversial here), Democrats will only need a 51-vote majority for the fixes.
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ynews/ynews_ts1286

David Jamieson

03-22-2010, 04:35 AM

well it passed.

on a vote.

You're all gonna live!

1bad65

03-22-2010, 07:20 AM

You're all gonna live!

But not as long as we would without rationed healthcare. And we gotta pay for this, and sooner or later the Chinese are not gonna keep giving us loans. :eek:

Man, I can't wait for Novemember.

Drake

03-22-2010, 11:57 AM

I'd like to know which coward yelled "baby killer"

MasterKiller

03-22-2010, 01:09 PM

I'd like to know which coward yelled "baby killer"

What is this about?

Reality_Check

03-22-2010, 01:25 PM

I'd like to know which coward yelled "baby killer"

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/rep-neugebauer-says-he-shouted-baby-killer-during-health-debate/1

"Ending a mystery that has kept the political blogosphere busy all day, Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, acknowledged today that it was he who yelled out "baby killer" during Sunday's historic floor debate on health care."

1bad65

03-22-2010, 01:46 PM

"Ending a mystery that has kept the political blogosphere busy all day, Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, acknowledged today that it was he who yelled out "baby killer" during Sunday's historic floor debate on health care."

Thank God Congressman Neugebauer had the guts to be honest. I believe he is saying he actually said, "It's a baby killer" in reference to the agreement made. But props to the man for being honest.

Reality_Check

03-23-2010, 07:52 AM

Thank God Congressman Neugebauer had the guts to be honest. I believe he is saying he actually said, "It's a baby killer" in reference to the agreement made. But props to the man for being honest.

Honest about what?

Drake

03-23-2010, 07:53 AM

Thank God Congressman Neugebauer had the guts to be honest.

And unprofessional.

1bad65

03-23-2010, 08:15 AM

Honest about what?

Abortion is a baby killer. Did you not know this?

1bad65

03-23-2010, 08:15 AM

And unprofessional.

Unprofessional or not, the man spoke the truth.

Reality_Check

03-23-2010, 10:04 AM

Abortion is a baby killer. Did you not know this?

And what in the health care bill has anything to do with providing or funding abortion?

1bad65

03-23-2010, 11:11 AM

And what in the health care bill has anything to do with providing or funding abortion?

I guess you're just like the Congressmen who passed it, you haven't read it. :rolleyes:

sanjuro_ronin

03-23-2010, 11:13 AM

http://content.usatoday.com/communities/onpolitics/post/2010/03/rep-neugebauer-says-he-shouted-baby-killer-during-health-debate/1

"Ending a mystery that has kept the political blogosphere busy all day, Rep. Randy Neugebauer, R-Texas, acknowledged today that it was he who yelled out "baby killer" during Sunday's historic floor debate on health care."

Doesn't Texas support the death penalty and euthanasia?

MasterKiller

03-23-2010, 11:21 AM

Doesn't Texas support the death penalty and euthanasia?

Ah, the dicotomy of Republicans who scream that potential life is too precious to waste, but readily execute and fight against social-support programs to help the suffering of actualized life...

1bad65

03-23-2010, 11:32 AM

Doesn't Texas support the death penalty and euthanasia?

Not euthenasia.

But we are death penalty state. FYI, I myself am anti-death penalty.

1bad65

03-23-2010, 11:33 AM

1bad65

03-23-2010, 11:36 AM

Ah, the dicotomy of Republicans who scream that potential life is too precious to waste, but readily execute and fight against social-support programs to help the suffering of actualized life...

We tend to take that saying "If you can't feed em, don't breed em" pretty seriously.

We take care of our families, and feel our hard-earned money should go to them. Of course that means we are greedy. :rolleyes:

Reality_Check

03-23-2010, 11:39 AM

I guess you're just like the Congressmen who passed it, you haven't read it. :rolleyes:

Well, since you've apparently read it, you can easily point to the section of the bill that permits funding for abortion. The actual text from the bill would be nice.

MasterKiller

03-23-2010, 11:52 AM

We tend to take that saying "If you can't feed em, don't breed em" pretty seriously.

We take care of our families, and feel our hard-earned money should go to them. Of course that means we are greedy. :rolleyes:

Too bad not enough of you adopt uncared-for babies. Imagine the tax savings to the state if every anti-abortion proponent adopted a needy child.

1bad65

03-23-2010, 12:23 PM

Too bad not enough of you adopt uncared-for babies. Imagine the tax savings to the state if every anti-abortion proponent adopted a needy child.

If our taxes were lower, alot more couples could.

Not only do you have the regular costs associated with having a child, on top of that the adoption process is very expensive.

1bad65

03-23-2010, 12:26 PM

Well, since you've apparently read it, you can easily point to the section of the bill that permits funding for abortion. The actual text from the bill would be nice.

I'm not digging through 2700 pages. If my Congressman can't be bothered, why shoud I?

However, it is in there. If it wasn't, Obama wouldn't have had to promise to issue an Executive Order banning Federal funds from paying for abortions. I notice he hasn't issued that Order yet...

1bad65

03-23-2010, 12:28 PM

RC,

Here is some info on the abortion issue in this bill:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/POLITICS/03/22/abortion.health.care.vote/index.html?hpt=Sbin

MasterKiller

03-23-2010, 12:39 PM

If our taxes were lower, alot more couples could.

Not only do you have the regular costs associated with having a child, on top of that the adoption process is very expensive.

A lot of companies, including mine, reimburse at least a portion of adoption expenses. And there are state programs and federal tax credits that assist with costs as well. Some private groups, both religious and nonreligious, offer financial assistance.

At the end of the day, the people shouting about abortion should ask themselves which is more imporant to them--the monetary price of adoption or the moral price of abortion. Like you say, chairty begins in the home. And people who oppose abortion should be the first ones opening their homes to neglected kids.

Reality_Check

03-23-2010, 12:51 PM

I'm not digging through 2700 pages. If my Congressman can't be bothered, why shoud I?

So you can speak knowledgeably on the subject?

http://docs.house.gov/rules/hr4872/111_hr3590_engrossed.pdf

SEC. 1303. SPECIAL RULES.
(a) SPECIAL RULES RELATING TO COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—

(1) VOLUNTARY CHOICE OF COVERAGE OF ABORTION SERVICES.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding any other provision of this title (or any amendment made by this title), and subject to subparagraphs 18 (C) and (D)—

(i) nothing in this title (or any amendment made by this title), shall be construed to require a qualified health plan to provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)

(ii) as part of its essential health benefits for any plan year; and (ii) the issuer of a qualified health plan shall determine whether or not the plan provides coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii) as part of such benefits for the plan year.

(B) ABORTION SERVICES.—

(i) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS PROHIBITED.—The services
described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is not permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(ii) ABORTIONS FOR WHICH PUBLIC FUNDING IS ALLOWED.—The services
described in this clause are abortions for which the expenditure of Federal funds appropriated for the Department of Health and Human Services is permitted, based on the law as in effect as of the date that is 6 months before the beginning of the plan year involved.

(C) PROHIBITION ON FEDERAL FUNDS FOR ABORTION SERVICES IN COMMUNITY HEALTH INSURANCE OPTION.—

(i) DETERMINATION BY SECRETARY.—
The Secretary may not determine, in accordance with subparagraph (A)(ii), that the community health insurance option established under section 1323 shall provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) as part of benefits for the plan year unless the Secretary—

(I) assures compliance with the requirements of paragraph (2);

(II) assures, in accordance with applicable provisions of generally accepted accounting requirements, circulars on funds management of the Office of Management and Budget, and guidance on accounting of the Government Accountability Office, that no Federal funds are used for such coverage; and

(III) notwithstanding section 1323(e)(1)(C) or any other provision of this title, takes all necessary steps to assure that the United States does not bear the insurance risk for a community health insurance option’s coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).

(ii) STATE REQUIREMENT.—If a State requires, in addition to the essential health
benefits required under section 1323(b)(3) (A), coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i) for enrollees of a community health insurance option offered in such State, the State shall assure that no funds flowing through or from the community health insurance option, and no other Federal funds, pay or defray the cost of providing coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i). The United States shall not bear the insurance risk for a State’s required coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).

(iii) EXCEPTIONS.—Nothing in this subparagraph shall apply to coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) by the community health insurance option. Services described in subparagraph (B)(ii) shall be covered to the same extent as such services are covered under title XIX of the Social Security Act.

(D) ASSURED AVAILABILITY OF VARIED COVERAGE THROUGH EXCHANGES.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall assure that with respect to qualified health
plans offered in any Exchange established pursuant to this title—

(I) there is at least one such plan that provides coverage of services described in clauses (i) and (ii) of subparagraph (B); and (II) there is at least one such plan that does not provide coverage of services described in subparagraph (B)(i).

(ii) SPECIAL RULES.—For purposes of clause (i)—

(I) a plan shall be treated as described in clause (i)(II) if the plan does not provide coverage of services described in either subparagraph (B)(i) or (B)(ii); and
(II) if a State has one Exchange covering more than 1 insurance market, the Secretary shall meet the requirements of clause (i) separately with respect to each such market.

(2) PROHIBITION ON THE USE OF FEDERAL FUNDS.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—If a qualified health plan provides coverage of services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i), the issuer of the plan shall not use any amount attributable to any of the following for purposes of paying for such services:

(i) The credit under section 36B of the Internal Revenue Code of 1986 (and the
amount (if any) of the advance payment of the credit under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(ii) Any cost-sharing reduction under section 1402 of the Patient Protection and
Affordable Care Act (and the amount (if any) of the advance payment of the reduction under section 1412 of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act).

(B) SEGREGATION OF FUNDS.—In the case of a plan to which subparagraph (A) applies, the issuer of the plan shall, out of amounts not described in subparagraph (A), segregate an amount equal to the actuarial amounts determined under subparagraph (C) for all enrollees from the amounts described in subparagraph (A).

(C) ACTUARIAL VALUE OF OPTIONAL SERVICE COVERAGE.—

(i) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall estimate the basic per enrollee, per month
cost, determined on an average actuarial basis, for including coverage under a qualified health plan of the services described in paragraph (1)(B)(i).

(ii) CONSIDERATIONS.—In making such estimate, the Secretary—

(I) may take into account the impact on overall costs of the inclusion of such coverage, but may not take into account any cost reduction estimated to result from such services, including prenatal care, delivery, or postnatal care;

(II) shall estimate such costs as if such coverage were included for the entire population covered; and

(III) may not estimate such a cost at less than $1 per enrollee, per month.

(3) PROVIDER CONSCIENCE PROTECTIONS.—No individual health care provider or health care facility may be discriminated against because of a willingness or an unwillingness, if doing so is contrary to the religious or moral beliefs of the provider or facility, to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

(b) APPLICATION OF STATE AND FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—

(1) NO PREEMPTION OF STATE LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to preempt or otherwise have any effect on State laws regarding the prohibition of (or requirement of) coverage, funding, or procedural requirements on abortions, including parental notification or consent for the performance of an abortion on a minor.

(2) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL LAWS REGARDING ABORTION.—

(A) IN GENERAL.—Nothing in this Act shall be construed to have any effect on Federal laws regarding—

(i) conscience protection;

(ii) willingness or refusal to provide abortion; and
(iii) discrimination on the basis of the willingness or refusal to provide, pay for, cover, or refer for abortion or to provide or participate in training to provide abortion.

(3) NO EFFECT ON FEDERAL CIVIL RIGHTS LAW.—Nothing in this subsection shall alter the rights and obligations of employees and employers under title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.

(c) APPLICATION OF EMERGENCY SERVICES LAWS.— Nothing in this Act shall be construed to relieve any health care provider from providing emergency services as required by State or Federal law, including section 1867 of the Social Security Act (popularly known as ‘‘EMTALA’’).

SanHeChuan

03-23-2010, 12:58 PM

As of March 18th 2010

9. The government won't pay for elective abortions. But under the Senate plan, people will be able to buy insurance that covers abortion on the new health insurance exchanges, as long as the insurance company pays for the services with patient premiums, not taxpayer subsidies. Medicaid has an exemption for cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.
PolitiFact (http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/mar/18/top-10-facts-know-about-health-care-reform/)

1bad65

03-23-2010, 02:07 PM

A lot of companies, including mine, reimburse at least a portion of adoption expenses. And there are state programs and federal tax credits that assist with costs as well. Some private groups, both religious and nonreligious, offer financial assistance.

At the end of the day, the people shouting about abortion should ask themselves which is more imporant to them--the monetary price of adoption or the moral price of abortion. Like you say, chairty begins in the home. And people who oppose abortion should be the first ones opening their homes to neglected kids.

Even if you are reimbursed, you have to have the money upfront. And that doesn't help you put food on the table, clothes in the closet, and pay for college. Face it, giving up ~40% of your annual income in taxes has a huge effect on how us WORKING people live our lives.

You seem to be very passionate about this, do you have any adopted children?

1bad65

03-23-2010, 02:08 PM

If what you two guys posted is indeed correct, why did Obama have to promise to issue that Executive Order?

SanHeChuan

03-23-2010, 02:50 PM

If what you two guys posted is indeed correct, why did Obama have to promise to issue that Executive Order?

Political Posturing. Republicans know better than anyone it’s all about image. He is doing it to quail one of the many many many fears republicans foster, in this case, that the healthcare reform will somehow overturn the Hyde Amendment. The anti-abortion Democrats hope the measure will be an effective defense against Republicans and Catholics from calling them baby killers.

In deal with Stupak, White House announces executive order on abortion (http://voices.washingtonpost.com/44/2010/03/white-house-announces-executiv.html)

The text of the pending executive order follows:

Executive Order ensuring enforcement and implementation of abortion restrictions in the patient protection and affordable care act

By the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and the laws of the United States of America, including the "Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act" (approved March **__, 2010), I hereby order as follows:

Section 1. Policy.
Following the recent passage of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act ("the Act"), it is necessary to establish an adequate enforcement mechanism to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), consistent with a longstanding Federal statutory restriction that is commonly known as the Hyde Amendment. The purpose of this Executive Order is to establish a comprehensive, government-wide set of policies and procedures to achieve this goal and to make certain that all relevant actors--Federal officials, state officials (including insurance regulators) and health care providers--are aware of their responsibilities, new and old.

The Act maintains current Hyde Amendment restrictions governing abortion policy and extends those restrictions to the newly-created health insurance exchanges. Under the Act, longstanding Federal laws to protect conscience (such as the Church Amendment, 42 U.S.C. §300a-7, and the Weldon Amendment, Pub. L. No. 111-8, §508(d)(1) (2009)) remain intact and new protections prohibit discrimination against health care facilities and health care providers because of an unwillingness to provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.

Numerous executive agencies have a role in ensuring that these restrictions are enforced, including the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), and the Office of Personnel Management (OPM).

Section 2. Strict Compliance with Prohibitions on Abortion Funding in Health Insurance Exchanges.
The Act specifically prohibits the use of tax credits and cost-sharing reduction payments to pay for abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) in the health insurance exchanges that will be operational in 2014. The Act also imposes strict payment and accounting requirements to ensure that Federal funds are not used for abortion services in exchange plans (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered) and requires state health insurance commissioners to ensure that exchange plan funds are segregated by insurance companies in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, OMB funds management circulars, and accounting guidance provided by the Government Accountability Office.

I hereby direct the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS to develop, within 180 days of the date of this Executive Order, a model set of segregation guidelines for state health insurance commissioners to use when determining whether exchange plans are complying with the Act's segregation requirements, established in Section 1303 of the Act, for enrollees receiving Federal financial assistance. The guidelines shall also offer technical information that states should follow to conduct independent regular audits of insurance companies that participate in the health insurance exchanges. In developing these model guidelines, the Director of OMB and the Secretary of HHS shall consult with executive agencies and offices that have relevant expertise in accounting principles, including, but not limited to, the Department of the Treasury, and with the Government Accountability Office. Upon completion of those model guidelines, the Secretary of HHS should promptly initiate a rulemaking to issue regulations, which will have the force of law, to interpret the Act's segregation requirements, and shall provide guidance to state health insurance commissioners on how to comply with the model guidelines.

Section 3. Community Health Center Program.
The Act establishes a new Community Health Center (CHC) Fund within HHS, which provides additional Federal funds for the community health center program. Existing law prohibits these centers from using federal funds to provide abortion services (except in cases of rape or incest, or when the life of the woman would be endangered), as a result of both the Hyde Amendment and longstanding regulations containing the Hyde language. Under the Act, the Hyde language shall apply to the authorization and appropriations of funds for Community Health Centers under section 10503 and all other relevant provisions. I hereby direct the Secretary of HHS to ensure that program administrators and recipients of Federal funds are aware of and comply with the limitations on abortion services imposed on CHCs by existing law. Such actions should include, but are not limited to, updating Grant Policy Statements that accompany CHC grants and issuing new interpretive rules.

Section 4. General Provisions.
(a) Nothing in this Executive Order shall be construed to impair or otherwise affect: (i) authority granted by law or presidential directive to an agency, or the head thereof; or (ii) functions of the Director of the Office of Management and Budget relating to budgetary, administrative, or legislative proposals.
(b) This Executive Order shall be implemented consistent with applicable law and subject to the availability of appropriations.
(c) This Executive Order is not intended to, and does not, create any right or benefit, substantive or procedural, enforceable at law or in equity against the United States, its departments, agencies, entities, officers, employees or agents, or any other person.

THE WHITE HOUSE

MasterKiller

03-23-2010, 07:48 PM

Even if you are reimbursed, you have to have the money upfront. And that doesn't help you put food on the table, clothes in the closet, and pay for college. Face it, giving up ~40% of your annual income in taxes has a huge effect on how us WORKING people live our lives. Yeah, it has a huge effect. But if someone is adamant about stopping abortion to save lives, I believe the flip side of that solution is to help take care of all the kids that will be walking around. While in a perfect world, everyone who has a kid would take responsibility for it, we both know that there are plenty of deadbeat would-be parents that create more problems than they solve by raising their own kids.

It's not practical for everyone, sure, but if you have the commitment to picket in front of abortion clinics every weekend, petition lawmakers, etc... to fight for the rights of unborn children, you should suck it up and be an active part of the solution for the already born ones also.

And people actually get paid to be foster parents, so that is always an option as well for people that feel so passionately about protecting children's rights.

You seem to be very passionate about this, do you have any adopted children? I have two daughters, and though we are still medically able to have more of our own, we are currently in the beginning stages of the adoption process for another child because we can't see the point of making another baby when there are so many already out there that need a family.

dimethylsea

03-23-2010, 08:33 PM

Child-Free here.

If I was going to breed a replacement I certainly wouldn't do it with an American. Talk about a poorly conceived notion. Literally!

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:13 AM

Political Posturing. Republicans know better than anyone it’s all about image. He is doing it to quail one of the many many many fears republicans foster, in this case, that the healthcare reform will somehow overturn the Hyde Amendment. The anti-abortion Democrats hope the measure will be an effective defense against Republicans and Catholics from calling them baby killers.

You're dead wrong. Obama worked it out with Bart Stupak, a DEMOCRAT, behind closed doors. Stupak wanted it not because of the Republicans or the Catholics, he wanted it in there to help with his re-election effort in Novemember. The Republicans did not get to voice their fears, the policy meetings were all closed-door DEMOCRAT-only meetings.

FYI, Obama skipped signing the Executive Order yesterday....

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:14 AM

If I was going to breed a replacement I certainly wouldn't do it with an American. Talk about a poorly conceived notion. Literally!

Just go to Cuba and leave our great country alone. If you don't like Cuba, try North Korea.

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 07:16 AM

FYI, Obama skipped signing the Executive Order yesterday....

He's going to sign it today.

SanHeChuan

03-24-2010, 07:19 AM

YStupak wanted it not because of the Republicans or the Catholics, he wanted it in there to help with his re-election effort in Novemember.

Exactly, and who would be challenging his re-election? Republicans and Anti-abortion activits (Catholics).

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:21 AM

Thanks for being a bit more civil. I appreciate it.

Yeah, it has a huge effect. But if someone is adamant about stopping abortion to save lives, I believe the flip side of that solution is to help take care of all the kids that will be walking around. While in a perfect world, everyone who has a kid would take responsibility for it, we both know that there are plenty of deadbeat would-be parents that create more problems than they solve by raising their own kids.

It's not practical for everyone, sure, but if you have the commitment to picket in front of abortion clinics every weekend, petition lawmakers, etc... to fight for the rights of unborn children, you should suck it up and be an active part of the solution for the already born ones also.

Alot of this makes sense. However, you must admit as the counrty is now, we do not encourage responsibility, we actually do the opposite. If you keep having kids you cannot afford, the Government checks get bigger and bigger. Please tell me you don't agree with this.

I'm sure alot of pro-lifers do adopt. I personally know one family that is very pro-life and they have an adopted child. But as we agree on, many times costs are prohibitive. While they may devote time to oppose abortion, that doesn't mean they all have the money to adopt.

And people actually get paid to be foster parents, so that is always an option as well for people that feel so passionately about protecting children's rights.

Foster parenting is a bit different from adoption. But yes, foster parents do get some reimbursement.

I have two daughters, and though we are still medically able to have more of our own, we are currently in the beginning stages of the adoption process for another child because we can't see the point of making another baby when there are so many already out there that need a family.

Good luck. That really is an admirable thing to do. :)

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:24 AM

Exactly, and who would be challenging his re-election? Republicans and Anti-abortion activits (Catholics).

Don't forget Independants. They oppose this socialized medicine bill big time. Independants are why the Republicans have won 3 statewide elections since Obama's inauguration, while the Democrats have won zero.

Independants swept Obama in, and they are deserting the Democrats big time.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:28 AM

As for Catholocism and politics, don't assume the Catholics (both rank-and-file and the Church leadership) are anti-Democrat. Pelosi and the Kennedys still get to receive Communion, despite some saying they should not. The Church still allows them to my knowledge. And they also tend to annul Kennedy marriages as well...

Heck, pro-abortion Ted Kennedy held his seat for decades, and his constituents were a high percentage of Catholics. Common sense says Catholics should never vote Democrat, but in the real world it is a very different story. Why it's like that is a different story, but I'll say I have absolutely zero respect for that Church.

SanHeChuan

03-24-2010, 07:31 AM

Alot of this makes sense. However, you must admit as the counrty is now, we do not encourage responsibility, we actually do the opposite. If you keep having kids you cannot afford, the Government checks get bigger and bigger. Please tell me you don't agree with this.

Honest question. Do you have a solution for this problem? How do you limit the number of children a person can responsibly have? I can't imagine that you'd advocate either abortion or sterilization. And it's still cheaper to pay the parents to care for their children, than to have the state take 100% responsibility and care for them. So even if we stopped funding to assist them that wouldn't necessarily stop irresponsible people from having children, and could increase the cost to the state if they have them, can't care for them, and then give them to the state.

:confused:

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 07:42 AM

I'm sure alot of pro-lifers do adopt. I personally know one family that is very pro-life and they have an adopted child. Everyone knows 1 couple that has adopted. But as the member of a religious community that supports pro-life advocacy, you should know a lot more people that adopt, imo.

If adoption is cost-prohibitive for middle-class working couples, just think how cost-prohibitive it is for a 16 year-old low-income girl to have a baby. Adoption can greatly help elimainate the financial and social burden of unplanned babies brought to term.

But as we agree on, many times costs are prohibitive. While they may devote time to oppose abortion, that doesn't mean they all have the money to adopt. In America, time is money. If you have all the spare time to picket for a cause you feel adamant about, then you have time to make extra money, imo. 20 hours a week on a picket line is the equivalent of a part-time job that could be used to affect realworld change in some kid's life.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:45 AM

Honest question. Do you have a solution for this problem? How do you limit the number of children a person can responsibly have? I can't imagine that you'd advocate either abortion or sterilization. And it's still cheaper to pay the parents to care for their children, than to have the state take 100% responsibility and care for them. So even if we stopped funding to assist them that wouldn't necessarily stop irresponsible people from having children, and could increase the cost to the state if they have them, can't care for them, and then give them to the state.

:confused:

It's easy. If you are on any form of Government assistance and you have more kids, you don't get more money. You already made one huge mistake and we are helping you out. But if you keep making mistakes, why does society owe it to you to keep fixing your mistakes? Why reward bad decisions?

Look at the flipside...If you make more money every year, you have to pay more money every year. But if you keep getting further in the hole every year due to your own actions, you actually get more money every year. That is a recipe for disaster. Do you not agree?

And I'm not calling a child a mistake, I'm calling having/getting something you can't afford a mistake.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:51 AM

Everyone knows 1 couple that has adopted. But as the member of a religious community that supports pro-life advocacy, you should know a lot more people that adopt, imo.

I'm a Christian, but not a member of a church. Honestly, I'm not very fond of organized religion.

If adoption is cost-prohibitive for middle-class working couples, just think how cost-prohibitive it is for a 16 year-old low-income girl to have a baby. Adoption can greatly help elimainate the financial and social burden of unplanned babies brought to term.

Then the 16 year old should not have gotten pregnant. It's not rocket science. And of course if it was rape or incest, the situation is different.

In America, time is money. If you have all the spare time to picket for a cause you feel adamant about, then you have time to make extra money, imo. 20 hours a week on a picket line is the equivalent of a part-time job that could be used to affect realworld change in some kid's life.

Now, now. Please don't do this. People do have free time. And lets be honest, I'm sure if anyone is spending 20 hours on a picket line. We have a few Planned Parenthood offices, and at least one abortion doctor here in Austin. I've lived here for 36 years now. One day I saw two people protesting at the doctor's office, and that's it. This one adult video/peeproom place that closed a few years ago had more protesters then the abortion clinics.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 07:53 AM

MK, I'll be curious how long the adoption process takes. I say this because they say there is a list of children needing homes, yet the process is supposed to take a good bit of time.

SanHeChuan

03-24-2010, 08:00 AM

It's easy. If you are on any form of Government assistance and you have more kids, you don't get more money. You already made one huge mistake and we are helping you out. But if you keep making mistakes, why does society owe it to you to keep fixing your mistakes? Why reward bad decisions?

It's not that easy, because the state could still have to step in. If you have more kids than you can afford, the state would have to take them away from you because of Child negligence laws.

I think you’re mainly looking at it from the perspective of, how do we stop people from gaming the system, which doesn’t address the whole range of concerns.

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 08:02 AM

MK, I'll be curious how long the adoption process takes. I say this because they say there is a list of children needing homes, yet the process is supposed to take a good bit of time.

Yeah, it's already taken quite a bit of time. We applied 12 weeks ago and have only had paperwork and phone interviews so far. I understand the need to be sure kids will be taken care of, but the process does seem a bit slow.

My wife's aunt and uncle were actually denied state adoption because they asked for a caucasian baby, which I guess is an automatic rejection trigger. You are supposed to be willing to take any presumably healthy baby, regardless of race.

I know others that have gone through private adoptions that took a relatively short amount of time, though. Once the mom and parents agree on the terms, a lawyer draws up the paperwork and that's that.

sanjuro_ronin

03-24-2010, 08:05 AM

My wife's aunt and uncle were actually denied state adoption because they asked for a caucasian baby, which I guess is an automatic rejection trigger. You are supposed to be willing to take any presumably healthy baby, regardless of race.

That makes no sense whatsoever.

dimethylsea

03-24-2010, 08:51 AM

Just go to Cuba and leave our great country alone. If you don't like Cuba, try North Korea.

This is your simplistic notion of the world shining through. Read up on "Five Flags" theory :D.

Cuba can be a very good spot for real estate investment (there are alot of tricky bits to it though) but you have to run the investments through a offshore entity because (conservative) influences in government have an embargo against them.
I.e. as an American we believe in free-trade unless you want to deal with or visit socialists.. then it's a crime!

Nah.. I'm with Rush on this one.. Costa Rica is a better choice. Five flags dude.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 09:25 AM

It's not that easy, because the state could still have to step in. If you have more kids than you can afford, the state would have to take them away from you because of Child negligence laws.

I think you’re mainly looking at it from the perspective of, how do we stop people from gaming the system, which doesn’t address the whole range of concerns.

But do agree with me that the surrent system of rewarding mistakes is not good?

1bad65

03-24-2010, 09:27 AM

Yeah, it's already taken quite a bit of time. We applied 12 weeks ago and have only had paperwork and phone interviews so far. I understand the need to be sure kids will be taken care of, but the process does seem a bit slow.

My wife's aunt and uncle were actually denied state adoption because they asked for a caucasian baby, which I guess is an automatic rejection trigger. You are supposed to be willing to take any presumably healthy baby, regardless of race.

And soon our healthcare will move this slow. :eek:

Why wanting a child of your own race is bad is a mystery to me. Let's be honest, it's something kids tease other kids over. And bullying is the worst problem in our schools, according to those running them.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 09:27 AM

Nah.. I'm with Rush on this one.. Costa Rica is a better choice. Five flags dude.

Rush never said he was moving to Costa Rica.

Drake

03-24-2010, 09:33 AM

1bad65

03-24-2010, 09:47 AM

A good reference for socialized, western society is Germany. There are tradeoffs for socialism, and the big one is how the taxes have slowed growth in the country. Germans pay a ridiculous amount of taxes, but they also have a lot of benefits. I'm not saying it's good or bad, but it does run contrary to traditional American beliefs, which is concerned with individual achievement and not a controlled growth.

Exactly. There is a reason we have the best economy in the world. It's because we have always rewarded success. Now we have a President determined to end that practice. And with China nipping at our heels, and passing more pro-business laws while we pass anti-business laws, the future is quite uncertain.

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 09:54 AM

Exactly. There is a reason we have the best economy in the world. It's because we have always rewarded success. Now we have a President determined to end that practice. And with China nipping at our heels, and passing more pro-business laws while we pass anti-business laws, the future is quite uncertain.

And yet with the best economy, we have the highest healthcare costs (by far) and 32nd best healthcare system.

So, where is the disconnect?

dimethylsea

03-24-2010, 10:44 AM

Rush never said he was moving to Costa Rica.

""I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

That's what he said. I don't see it happening though. I think it would hurt his career to broadcast from Costa Rica. Maybe he could call it "Rush Exiled Radio!" or something eh?

1bad65

03-24-2010, 11:08 AM

And yet with the best economy, we have the highest healthcare costs (by far) and 32nd best healthcare system.

So, where is the disconnect?

Ok, I know you have statistics to back that up. I can't deny that.

However, as I've stated before, we have a big issue they do not have. About 66% of our population is overweight or obese. I'll wager that not one of the 31 countries with 'better' healthcare systems have rates anywhere near that. And any doctor will tell you weight is a huge factor in overall health.

As to the cost, with the cost comes the benefits. Most of the best drugs are invented/developed here, and the best medical schools are here. People from all over the world come here for treatment when they need the world's greatest care. Which country did those famous Siamese twins come to? Which country did the 'Elephant man of China' come to for medical care?

Source on obesety rates:
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2007/wang_adult_obesity.html

1bad65

03-24-2010, 11:10 AM

""I don't know. I'll just tell you this, if this passes and it's five years from now and all that stuff gets implemented -- I am leaving the country. I'll go to Costa Rica."

That's what he said. I don't see it happening though. I think it would hurt his career to broadcast from Costa Rica. Maybe he could call it "Rush Exiled Radio!" or something eh?

Please provide the audio of that, or a transcript from his website. I listened the day he mentioned Costa Rica, and that quote does not ring a bell. We've been over made up Rush quotes before, and I was right. So please back that assertion up please. ;)

1bad65

03-24-2010, 11:13 AM

Hey Dime,

Here is audio proof. It looks like this:

Here is Democrat John Dingell saying healthcare eventually will be used to "control the people". :eek:

http://www.breitbart.tv/shocking-audio-rep-dingell-says-obamacare-will-eventually-control-the-people

FYI, Dingell is the most senior Democrat member of the House.

dimethylsea

03-24-2010, 11:22 AM

Please provide the audio of that, or a transcript from his website. I listened the day he mentioned Costa Rica, and that quote does not ring a bell. We've been over made up Rush quotes before, and I was right. So please back that assertion up please. ;)

http://mediamatters.org/mmtv/201003080033

I just listened to the whole clip again. He did say it. I don't take Rush seriously.. he's a big liar and an entertainer.. but it's funny. Costa Rica is great.. the socialized medicine there.. legal prostitution etc..

Very Conservative place!

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 11:26 AM

Ok, I know you have statistics to back that up. I can't deny that.

However, as I've stated before, we have a big issue they do not have. About 66% of our population is overweight or obese. I'll wager that not one of the 31 countries with 'better' healthcare systems have rates anywhere near that. And any doctor will tell you weight is a huge factor in overall health.

Source on obesety rates:
http://www.jhsph.edu/publichealthnews/press_releases/2007/wang_adult_obesity.html

Ok, so obesity rates in America are high, but I don't think that factor alone puts us so far behind the curve. It also doesn't explain why we have such a high infant mortality rate.

As to the cost, with the cost comes the benefits. Most of the best drugs are invented/developed here, and the best medical schools are here. People from all over the world come here for treatment when they need the world's greatest care. Which country did those famous Siamese twins come to? Which country did the 'Elephant man of China' come to for medical care? And yet, we aren't allowed to legally order the exact same drugs from Canada or Mexico, with a prescription, at the greatly reduced rates that are charged in those countries, and from which drug companies still make profits.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 12:36 PM

I just listened to the whole clip again. He did say it. I don't take Rush seriously.. he's a big liar and an entertainer.. but it's funny. Costa Rica is great.. the socialized medicine there.. legal prostitution etc..

You must have missed the question. You only quoted the answer. He was answering a question about where he would go for his own healthcare, not where he was going to live. Just as Canadians come here for healthcare, Rush tentatively plans on going to Costa Rica for healthcare. This may be news to you, but this is how a free market works.

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 12:39 PM

Just as Canadians come here for healthcare, Rush tentatively plans on going to Costa Rica for healthcare. This may be news to you, but this is how a free market works.

Unless you are buying drugs!

sanjuro_ronin

03-24-2010, 12:41 PM

We also have Americans coming up here for health care, some at Princess Margaret, one of the bets Cancer Hospitals in the world and some to Sick Children's Hospital. to name just two.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 12:42 PM

Ok, so obesity rates in America are high, but I don't think that factor alone puts us so far behind the curve. It also doesn't explain why we have such a high infant mortality rate.

Well I do say its a huge factor. Any doctor will tell you the two worst things you can do healthwise are smoke cigarettes and be overweight.

And yet, we aren't allowed to legally order the exact same drugs from Canada or Mexico, with a prescription, at the greatly reduced rates that are charged in those countries, and from which drug companies still make profits.

So our elected officials have passed laws that are bad policy? No way! I for one am stunned at this news.

Honestly MK, if you take politics out of it, you will see this bill is an accident waiting to happen. It's just a question of when the *** hits the fan, and how bad it is going to be.

You heard Dingell say this will be used one day to "control the people". And you yourself just showed how overreaching laws hurt consumers and the sick. Yet you honestly think MORE laws are gonna fix the problems we have now?

1bad65

03-24-2010, 12:43 PM

Unless you are buying drugs!

Do what???

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 12:51 PM

Do what???

The free market system is not in effect when purchasing drugs. We are forced to pay much higher prices here than anywhere else in the world for the same products.

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 12:54 PM

Yet you honestly think MORE laws are gonna fix the problems we have now?

If the alternative is to keep letting costs skyrocket like they have in the last 30 years while quality of care goes down, I don't think it's a hard decision at all. Something has to be done. Republicans had plenty of time to fix it, but never attempted it. So, here we are.

I might add, Bush is the one who put the nix on importing drugs from Canada.

dimethylsea

03-24-2010, 01:25 PM

You must have missed the question. You only quoted the answer. He was answering a question about where he would go for his own healthcare, not where he was going to live. Just as Canadians come here for healthcare, Rush tentatively plans on going to Costa Rica for healthcare. This may be news to you, but this is how a free market works.

Costa Rica has socialized medicine. Given Rush's predilections for viagra and sex tourism I doubt he'd go to Costa Rica for the "Free market medicine".

More likely to be for the cheap easy poon and the wonderful weather (and I don't blame him a bit for wanting either!).

1bad65

03-24-2010, 02:08 PM

The free market system is not in effect when purchasing drugs. We are forced to pay much higher prices here than anywhere else in the world for the same products.

I agree 100%. And what is the reason why we don't have a free market system in effect when purchasing drugs?

1bad65

03-24-2010, 02:15 PM

If the alternative is to keep letting costs skyrocket like they have in the last 30 years while quality of care goes down, I don't think it's a hard decision at all. Something has to be done. Republicans had plenty of time to fix it, but never attempted it. So, here we are.

I might add, Bush is the one who put the nix on importing drugs from Canada.

But MK, I don't agree that the quality of care is going down. People come here for treatment. You don't see them going to France, or Cuba or any of those 31 other countries that have 'better' healthcare than we do, do you? Hell, even Castro flew in a Spanish doctor to do his stomach surgery, and I'll bet your list says Cuba has 'better' healthcare than we do.

IMO, the single biggest thing we could have done to keep costs down is tort reform. Ask any doctor what their malpractice insurance costs are if you don't believe me. And those doctors and hospitals have to recoup those costs somewhere, and they do it through higher costs.

Of course the Democrats get millions per year from trial lawyers. And despite Republicans openly asking it be put in at the healthcare summit, and Obama's promise for bi-partisanship and Republican ideas, it was not put in this bill.

1bad65

03-24-2010, 02:18 PM

Costa Rica has socialized medicine. Given Rush's predilections for viagra and sex tourism I doubt he'd go to Costa Rica for the "Free market medicine".

If they do, he mentioned New Zealand today. ;) The point is that people like him will go to where the healthcare is the best. If Obama is right and this plan works, Rush wont have to leave. But if it fails, we will no longer have the best system in the world, and those who can afford it will go to where the best care is. Again, it's the free market at work.

What's this about sex tourism and Rush? Are you resorting to slander now in the debate? :rolleyes:

Drake

03-24-2010, 02:23 PM

If they do, he mentioned New Zealand today. ;) The point is that people like him will go to where the healthcare is the best. If Obama is right and this plan works, Rush wont have to leave. But if it fails, we will no longer have the best system in the world, and those who can afford it will go to where the best care is. Again, it's the free market at work.

What's this about sex tourism and Rush? Are you resorting to slander now in the debate? :rolleyes:

Our health care system is NOT the best in the world.

dimethylsea

03-24-2010, 03:52 PM

What's this about sex tourism and Rush? Are you resorting to slander now in the debate? :rolleyes:

It's not slander. Rush is single and goes where it's legal to pay for sex. I applaud him for doing so!

As far as the truth of it.. dude.. he got stopped at the airport customs with a bottle of Viagra (sans the script) coming back from the DOMINICAN REPUBLIC.

What the heck would anyone be doing with Viagra in D.R.? Gee... I dunno.. um.. playing hide the weasel?

Rush is single. I'm not slandering him. I'm glad he's down there having fun where it is legal and relatively safe.

dimethylsea

03-24-2010, 03:53 PM

http://www.dieselsweeties.com/hstrips/0/2/5/0/02506.png

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 07:54 PM

But MK, I don't agree that the quality of care is going down. People come here for treatment. You don't see them going to France, or Cuba or any of those 31 other countries that have 'better' healthcare than we do, do you? Hell, even Castro flew in a Spanish doctor to do his stomach surgery, and I'll bet your list says Cuba has 'better' healthcare than we do.

IMO, the single biggest thing we could have done to keep costs down is tort reform. Ask any doctor what their malpractice insurance costs are if you don't believe me. And those doctors and hospitals have to recoup those costs somewhere, and they do it through higher costs.

My father in law is a private physician. He has two main complaints: A) drugs are way too expensive and B) insurance companies intentionally make it difficult to collect money owed to him.

His malpractice insurance is high though, something like $20,000/year. He's just a general practitioner, so surgeons and specialists do pay much more. But, he makes $400,000/ year or so, so that 20 Gs doesn't keep up him up at night. And you can bet those surgeons and specialists are bringing in even more than that.

Of course the Democrats get millions per year from trial lawyers. And despite Republicans openly asking it be put in at the healthcare summit, and Obama's promise for bi-partisanship and Republican ideas, it was not put in this bill. It's hard to be bipartisan when the other party openly admits their goal is to squash the bill before it was even written.

One of the suggested Republican amendments was to make it illegal for rapists to buy Viagra. Are you f@cking kidding me???

MasterKiller

03-24-2010, 08:04 PM

I agree 100%. And what is the reason why we don't have a free market system in effect when purchasing drugs?

Because drug companies claim they need to make their money somewhere, so it must be here because we can afford it, even though they spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D, and still clearly make a profit in all those other countries they sell drugs to.

There are 4 drug lobbyists in Washington for every 1 member of Congress.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 07:08 AM

It's not slander. Rush is single and goes where it's legal to pay for sex. I applaud him for doing so!

So by your logic anyone who goes to Nevada or Amsterdam has ulterior sexual motives. :rolleyes:

Quit being foolish and slanderous. It has no business in a serious discussion.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 07:10 AM

Our health care system is NOT the best in the world.

Well you are covered by the VA, so you don't have the best healthcare in the world. Americans not forced to use the VA do have the best healthcare in the world. Well, they do for the moment, we will see what the future brings.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 07:14 AM

And you can bet those surgeons and specialists are bringing in even more than that.

And you can bet they are paying ALOT more than a general practicioner.

It's hard to be bipartisan when the other party openly admits their goal is to squash the bill before it was even written.

One of the suggested Republican amendments was to make it illegal for rapists to buy Viagra. Are you f@cking kidding me???

You are debating me. Is your goal not to defeat my arguments? Of course they wanted to defeat it, it's something they disagree with. When Republicans try and pass tax cuts, do you not think the Democrats want to squash that bill?

What's wrong with barring convicted sex offenders from getting Government money to pay for Viagra? :confused:

1bad65

03-25-2010, 07:18 AM

Because drug companies claim they need to make their money somewhere, so it must be here because we can afford it, even though they spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D, and still clearly make a profit in all those other countries they sell drugs to.

There are 4 drug lobbyists in Washington for every 1 member of Congress.

If Congress would leave them alone, they wouldn't need the lobbyists!

Who cares what they spend on advertising. Their R&D still creates more new drugs than the Cubans, North Koreans, and the Chinese put together! If a new drug comes out, you have to let people know it exists. And they have to recoup the money fairly fast. The law gives them a certain amount of time before generics can hit the market. Once that happens, the original company will see it's profits from their invention decline rapidly after that. Competition always lowers prices.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 07:21 AM

Of course they wanted to defeat it, it's something they disagree with. When Republicans try and pass tax cuts, do you not think the Democrats want to squash that bill?

Both sides spend way too much effort trying to win political battles instead of actually trying to get something done. I don't disagree with that.

What's wrong with barring convicted sex offenders from getting Government money to pay for Viagra? :confused:

No, the amendment made it illegal for them to purchase it at all, not just with insured money. One of 100 silly amendments proposed to stall the up or down vote.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 07:32 AM

If Congress would leave them alone, they wouldn't need the lobbyists! They are left alone because of all those lobbyists! Nothing in this Health bill affects drug makers AT ALL. In fact, a provision was REMOVED that allowed Medicare to renegotiate drug prices.

Who cares what they spend on advertising. Their R&D still creates more new drugs than the Cubans, North Koreans, and the Chinese put together! The fact that they spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D negates the argument that they MUST charge excessive fees in America to recoup costs for R&D. Cut out the Superbowl TV commercials (aimed at consumers that should not diagnose their own ailments and have no power to purchase the drugs anyway without a doctor's approval) and you can lower the price of my mom's medication, I guarantee it.

If a new drug comes out, you have to let people know it exists. And they have to recoup the money fairly fast. The law gives them a certain amount of time before generics can hit the market. Once that happens, the original company will see it's profits from their invention decline rapidly after that. Competition always lowers prices. People do not need to know new drugs exist. Doctors do. Why advertise depression medication in People magazine, then??? Basically, it entices people to diagnose themselves (Yeah, my legs do seem restless!!), and seek a doctor to validate that diagnoses, who will then write a prescription for that drug.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 08:09 AM

http://news.yahoo.com/s/dailybeast/20100325/ts_dailybeast/7294_whyaresomanymomsdying

Over the past decade, the U.S. maternal mortality rate has nearly doubled, with about 500 women dying of pregnancy-related complications each year. That’s a tiny percentage of the 4 million American women who give birth annually. But what’s shocking is that among industrialized countries, the U.S. ranks an abysmal 41st on the World Health Organization’s list of maternal death rates, behind South Korea and Bosnia—yet we spend more money on maternity care than any other nation.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 08:46 AM

Both sides spend way too much effort trying to win political battles instead of actually trying to get something done. I don't disagree with that.

Agreed. But MK, this is one of the things that scares the hell out of me with this bill. Just a week or so before the vote, Nancy Pelosi actually said 'We need to pass it to see whats in it'. Is that not terrifying?

No, the amendment made it illegal for them to purchase it at all, not just with insured money. One of 100 silly amendments proposed to stall the up or down vote.

So what's wrong with that? We have legal precedents for denying convicted criminals certain things. Felons cannot own guns, you can lose your drivers license over DWIs and/or traffic offenses, certain cities/couties take your car for street racing. What's wrong with completely barring convicted sex offenders Viagra?

1bad65

03-25-2010, 08:50 AM

They are left alone because of all those lobbyists! Nothing in this Health bill affects drug makers AT ALL. In fact, a provision was REMOVED that allowed Medicare to renegotiate drug prices.

If you think drug makers are left alone, you are sadly mistaken. Look at the Federal intervention just in the developmental stages alone!

The fact that they spend twice as much on advertising as they do on R&D negates the argument that they MUST charge excessive fees in America to recoup costs for R&D. Cut out the Superbowl TV commercials (aimed at consumers that should not diagnose their own ailments and have no power to purchase the drugs anyway without a doctor's approval) and you can lower the price of my mom's medication, I guarantee it.

People do not need to know new drugs exist. Doctors do. Why advertise depression medication in People magazine, then??? Basically, it entices people to diagnose themselves (Yeah, my legs do seem restless!!), and seek a doctor to validate that diagnoses, who will then write a prescription for that drug.

But MK, who cares how they spend their money? If they screw it up, let them go bankrupt. Obviously what they are doing works on the two biggest issues: 1) they make money, they are profitable. 2) they develop more new drugs than any other country. Success on two major fronts. Why penalize that? :confused:

As to perscription abuse, it's not the pharmacutical or the insurance companies responsibility. That's the doctor's responsibility.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 08:52 AM

My father in law is a private physician. He has two main complaints: A) drugs are way too expensive and B) insurance companies intentionally make it difficult to collect money owed to him.

Agreed. My wife has experience in this as well.

But let me ask you this question: It is hard to get the insurance companies to pay up, and they are making money. How hard do you think it will be to get the Government to pay up considering they are losing money?

SanHeChuan

03-25-2010, 09:25 AM

But do agree with me that the surrent system of rewarding mistakes is not good?

Yes and No. While I admit that some people do game the system by having more kids to get more money, but I don't think it's that common of a phenomenon. If anyone can provide Statistics?

I don’t think there is a problem, in the sense that until there is a solution, there is no problem. Your solution of not giving additional assistance after having so many kids, (how many kids?) is not a good one either politically or financially.

From a financial standpoint, any money you save would have to be invested back into child protective services and related agencies, and then some, to identify, collect, and care for children who cannot be supported by their parents. You can add legal fees to that too.

From a political standpoint you are basically providing a government mandate on how many children someone is allowed to have. Unflattering comparisons to Maoists and Chinas one child law come to mind. Not to mention being discriminatory against cultures that encourage having large families, Catholics for example.

In June 2006, 17 percent of women 15 to 44 years old had one child, 22 percent had two, 11 percent had three, 4 percent had four, and 2 percent had five or more children. Hispanic mothers were more likely to have had one or more children (62 percent) compared with Black-alone women (59 percent) or White alone, non-Hispanic and Asian-alone women (about 52 percent each).
http://www.census.gov/prod/2008pubs/p20-558.pdf

That would put approximately 1 million women with 4 or more kids. Only 200 to 500 thousand is on welfare in a given year, and they don’t all have 4 or more kids. Of the 200 to 500 thousand people on welfare in a year only 20 percent are on it for 5 or more years so that’s 50 thousand people. Most common people found on welfare are single mothers with one kid and statistically a white woman is more common. Also the birth rate among welfare recipients is lower than the national average. So how many people on welfare have 4 or more kids? :confused:
http://hcom.csumb.edu/welfare/resources/myths_facts.html

SanHeChuan

03-25-2010, 09:31 AM

But MK, who cares how they spend their money? If they screw it up, let them go bankrupt. Obviously what they are doing works on the two biggest issues: 1) they make money, they are profitable. 2) they develop more new drugs than any other country. Success on two major fronts. Why penalize that? :confused:

The idea is not to punish them, but NOT reward them for spending more. They have an unfair advantage in the United States, charging more here for their drugs than anywhere else. Why? You say because they spend so much researching the drug. MK's counter argument is that they aren't spends that much on research as most of their budget goes to advertising. So are they charging us more for the cost of research or the cost of advertising? They obviously still make a profit in other countries why do they really need to charge so much here?

1bad65

03-25-2010, 09:36 AM

Man San, you're a socialist all right.

Yes and No. While I admit that some people do game the system by having more kids to get more money, but I don't think it's that common of a phenomenon. If anyone can provide Statistics?

I provided statistics on this issue, but I was called a racist.

I don’t think there is a problem, in the sense that until there is a solution, there is no problem. Your solution of not giving additional assistance after having so many kids, (how many kids?) is not a good one either politically or financially.

Of course there is a problem. We are rewarding bad decisions/failure, while punishing good decisions/sucess. This cannot be sustained.

From a political standpoint you are basically providing a government mandate on how many children someone is allowed to have. Unflattering comparisons to Maoists and Chinas one child law come to mind. Not to mention being discriminatory against cultures that encourage having large families, Catholics for example.

How the hell is this a mandate? Are you insane? If you can afford 25 kids, I have no problem with you having 25 kids. But if the taxpayers/workers have to pay for it, I have a huge problem with that.

I can't afford a new Shelby GT500 at the moment, but if the Government sent me large checks for everyone I had, I'd be able to have a whole fleet of them.

As to your stats, I'm against able-bodied people getting a dime of welfare money. Get a friggin job. I have one. And at the rate my taxes are going to go up to pay for this massive entitlement spending, soon I'll likely have two.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 09:39 AM

The idea is not to punish them, but NOT reward them for spending more. They have an unfair advantage in the United States, charging more here for their drugs than anywhere else. Why? You say because they spend so much researching the drug. MK's counter argument is that they aren't spends that much on research as most of their budget goes to advertising. So are they charging us more for the cost of research or the cost of advertising? They obviously still make a profit in other countries why do they really need to charge so much here?

Can you show how the drugs are cheaper "anywhere else"? And I mean the exact same drug. Same company, same drug. Not generics or drugs made by another company.

Back that up please.

And again, what business is it of yours or the Government's how they spend their money? They are selling a legal product, and not needing a Gov't bailout to survive. Well, not yet.

SanHeChuan

03-25-2010, 09:44 AM

And again, what business is it of yours or the Government's how they spend their money? They are selling a legal product, and not needing a Gov't bailout to survive. Well, not yet.

Because it's the government at the behest of the drug companies that say we can't shop around for a better price. That's why we care. They can charge whatever they want if we can get some free-er market competition up in this piece.

SanHeChuan

03-25-2010, 09:56 AM

How the hell is this a mandate? Are you insane? If you can afford 25 kids, I have no problem with you having 25 kids. But if the taxpayers/workers have to pay for it, I have a huge problem with that.

It's not about what it really is. It's about what the political opposition can make it seem like. Misrepresentation of facts the republicans go to move of late. :p

As to your stats, I'm against able-bodied people getting a dime of welfare money. Get a friggin job. I have one. And at the rate my taxes are going to go up to pay for this massive entitlement spending, soon I'll likely have two.

Most of the people on welfare also have jobs.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 10:18 AM

Because it's the government at the behest of the drug companies that say we can't shop around for a better price. That's why we care. They can charge whatever they want if we can get some free-er market competition up in this piece.

Are you speaking about the issue where they can't sell policies across state lines?

1bad65

03-25-2010, 10:22 AM

It's not about what it really is. It's about what the political opposition can make it seem like. Misrepresentation of facts the republicans go to move of late. :p

Get off it. The Democrats have accused Republicans of wanting to starve children and force old people to eat dog food.

Most of the people on welfare also have jobs.

But even if true, they don't have good enough jobs to support their lifestyle. That's my problem. They should have to cut back, like I do when I have to. Instead, they just get bigger checks as they make their financial situation worse. And the taxpayers have to pay more. Can you not see this is a recipe for failure?

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 10:51 AM

Can you show how the drugs are cheaper "anywhere else"? And I mean the exact same drug. Same company, same drug. Not generics or drugs made by another company.

Back that up please.

Prices for brand-name prescription drugs are 35 to 55 percent lower in other industrialized countries than in the United States. The central reason for these price differentials is that Canada and most European countries (13 of the 15 countries in Western Europe) directly regulate the prices of prescription drugs. High U.S. prices are said to be necessary to cover the costs of research and development for new and better drugs, given the price levels in Europe and Canada. Americans are increasingly asking why they should subsidize the development of new drugs that are also used by Canadians and Europeans.

The Bush administration has resisted attempts by U.S. consumers to purchase drugs from other nations. Administration officials cite concerns about health and safety as justification for this reluctance to permit importation. Mark McClellan, the former commissioner of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), observed that "there is no evidence that unapproved imported drugs are becoming safer or more reliable" and noted that "we are concerned with any measures that increase the flow of these unapproved drugs."

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/351/14/1375

Americans are either being gouged, or we are subsidizing the drugs for the rest of the world. Either way, it's wrong!

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 11:05 AM

Are you speaking about the issue where they can't sell policies across state lines?

He's talking about the government preventing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and Mexico because the FDA has "fears of quality concerns," even though those drugs are manufactured in the U.S. and then sent to Canada and Mexico in the first place.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 11:09 AM

But MK, who cares how they spend their money? If they screw it up, let them go bankrupt. Obviously what they are doing works on the two biggest issues: 1) they make money, they are profitable. 2) they develop more new drugs than any other country. Success on two major fronts. Why penalize that? :confused: Drug prices are the same at every pharmacy. Where is my ability to choose when the prices are set, and my only alternative is to wait 10 years for the generic to become available.

As to perscription abuse, it's not the pharmacutical or the insurance companies responsibility. That's the doctor's responsibility. No one is talking about prescription abuse. What I'm talking about is that drug companies spend millions advertising to an audience that has no ability to decide to purchase those products.

Why is that?

dimethylsea

03-25-2010, 11:38 AM

So by your logic anyone who goes to Nevada or Amsterdam has ulterior sexual motives. :rolleyes:

Quit being foolish and slanderous. It has no business in a serious discussion.

If a person goes to Nevada and comes back with a stack of poker chips in his pocket.. chances are he went to gamble.

If a American man goes to the Dominican Republic and comes back with a half-full bottle of viagra in his luggage chances are he was being a sex tourist.

This is not foolish or slanderous. It's just logical. I wasn't slamming rush for enjoying the sex trade in D.R.... quite the contrary. Good on him!

I suspect Rush is in the Charlie Sheen category.. he has enough money he doesn't have to pay women for sex.. but purchasing it abroad means the women can't easily sink their hooks in.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 11:59 AM

Americans are either being gouged, or we are subsidizing the drugs for the rest of the world. Either way, it's wrong!

It's the second one, and I agree it's wrong.

But lets say we start setting price controls here as well. You have to agree that then the drug companies cannot survive. What will happen then?

1bad65

03-25-2010, 12:02 PM

He's talking about the government preventing the importation of cheaper drugs from Canada and Mexico because the FDA has "fears of quality concerns," even though those drugs are manufactured in the U.S. and then sent to Canada and Mexico in the first place.

So why not fix this issue first? It makes sense, but instead they forced a horrible bill down our throats that we cannot afford, and does not address that issue. It's idiocracy in action.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 12:05 PM

Drug prices are the same at every pharmacy. Where is my ability to choose when the prices are set, and my only alternative is to wait 10 years for the generic to become available.

So how is Government setting prices going to be any better?

No one is talking about prescription abuse. What I'm talking about is that drug companies spend millions advertising to an audience that has no ability to decide to purchase those products.

Why is that?

I'm not sure what you mean here.

1bad65

03-25-2010, 12:06 PM

1bad65

03-25-2010, 12:12 PM

If a person goes to Nevada and comes back with a stack of poker chips in his pocket.. chances are he went to gamble.

If a American man goes to the Dominican Republic and comes back with a half-full bottle of viagra in his luggage chances are he was being a sex tourist.

Just stop. I never said anything about gambling. I stayed on topic, prostitution. It's legal in certain counties in Nevada and legal in Amsterdam. Does that mean if someone goes there they were partaking in that?

So what if he has Viagra? Does that mean he is having sex? Maybe he likes doing it himself. Maybe he did have a ton of sex. Can you prove he paid for it? FYI, sex tourism is a felony now. Was he charged with that?

Stop making unfounded, slanderous allegations. Be an adult like me and MK are doing.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 12:12 PM

I'm not sure what you mean here.

Your doctor either prescribes medicine or he doesn't. If he does, you might have the option for a generic, but otherwise, you have no choice as to which prescriptions you can buy.

So, if you can't just walk into a store to buy Plavix, what is the point of drug companies spending millions to advertise Plavix on TV and in magazines?

1bad65

03-25-2010, 12:16 PM

Your doctor either prescribes medicine or he doesn't. If he does, you might have the option for a generic, but otherwise, you have no choice as to which prescriptions you can buy.

So, if you can't just walk into a store to buy Plavix, what is the point of drug companies spending millions to advertise Plavix on TV and in magazines?

Ok, I see your point/question now.

You see an add that claims to alleviate symptoms you have. You can then ask your doctor if it is right for you. Notice how they always say on the adds to consult your doctor. It makes perfect sense.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 12:19 PM

MK, please answer this one.

But let me ask you this question: It is hard to get the insurance companies to pay up, and they are making money. How hard do you think it will be to get the Government to pay up considering they are losing money?

I'm not being a jerk, I just want to see what your thoughts on this are.

It's something to worry about. But because the government doesn't have to answer to shareholders, they won't have resort to a lot of the blatant obfuscation of benefits that private companies use to increase profits and bonuses.

Insurance companies pay people to deny as many claims as possible. They get bonuses and raises based on their rate of denials.

sanjuro_ronin

03-25-2010, 12:23 PM

We used to have a government regulatory arm for pressure vessels and pressure iping, the MCCR.
It got changed to a private crown corporation, non-profit, a few years ago, the TSSA.
In that time the service is worse, the inspectors less trained and the amount the charge has doubled.
They are still regulated by government ( have to follow the CSA rules) but the manegment and other issues are private.
It was better as government.
And I hate government !

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 12:29 PM

Ok, I see your point/question now.

You see an add that claims to alleviate symptoms you have. You can then ask your doctor if it is right for you. Notice how they always say on the adds to consult your doctor. It makes perfect sense.

Well, you have to consult a doctor to get a prescription, which is the only way for them to make a sale.

Do you think doctors honestly want their patients coming in and asking for specific medications based on TV commercials?

Parents get FURIOUS with my father-in-law when he refuses to prescribe antibiotics for most viral infections. He won't do it because he knows they don't work. But the parents just go find a doctor that will.

You tell someone they don't have restless leg syndrome when they think they do, and they'll just find a doctor that agrees with them.

MasterKiller

03-25-2010, 12:31 PM

So why not fix this issue first? It makes sense, but instead they forced a horrible bill down our throats that we cannot afford, and does not address that issue. It's idiocracy in action.

Well, I think they would, except those 4 lobbyists for every 1 congressman/woman seem to find ways to keep it from happening.

SanHeChuan

03-25-2010, 12:33 PM

Man San, you're a socialist all right.

You think the United States of America is socialist? The U.S. has many social programs that I support. That makes me a socialist? I believe in a regulated capitalism as opposed to free market capitalism, but capitalism none the less.

I also don't think everything should be run for profit. Some things should be done because we have to not because we want to make money. Prisons are an institution that I don’t think should be run by private corporations, and they aren't, does that make them socialist institutions? I wouldn't mind expanding some of our social institution either though, cough healthcare cough.

I am in the military so I guess I really am a socialist. ;)

SnowDog

03-25-2010, 12:55 PM

We are being gouged.

The myth that they need to charge high prices in order to support their research budget has been shot full of holes for yrs.
They claim it's for R&D, yet they spend 2-3x that on advertising and executive compensation.

Here is an article from MIT, that is actually about allowing generics for life saving drugs to be made available before the 10yr patent mark, the whole thing is interesting, but I'm pasting the part that talks about Drug company R&D finances.

http://tech.mit.edu/V123/N41/shef_colum.41c.html

Pharmaceutical companies dramatically overprice life-saving drugs and justify doing so by citing research and development costs. This argument, constantly used by these companies and also by Mr. Nesmith in his column, has been repeatedly debunked. And yet, it is made over and over again.

Drugs are expensive, say the pharmaceutical companies, because of the years of research and failed trials that go into making a successful drug. However, they neglect to mention that up to 50% of the research and development cost in the world is incurred by the public sector. Tremendous amounts of drug research is funded by university funding and government grants.

But when putting a figure to the R&D costs, pharmaceutical companies include these public sector costs as if they were their own. This inflates the stated expenditure associated with R&D per drug for a company and provides an artificial justification for extremely high prices. To burst another drug company bubble, I should include that these companies spend more on marketing and administration than on R&D. It basically goes without saying that the pharmaceutical industry has been one of the most profitable industries in the nation for several years straight.

SnowDog

03-25-2010, 01:06 PM

Oh, and I had to laugh when I read that you said Rush changed from saying he would go to Costa Rica for medical care and go to New Zealand instead.

Since both countries have SOCIALIZED MEDICINE, in fact New Zealand's is almost identical to the UK. So he is essentially saying he is going to go to a socialist country to get free healthcare, but is agaisnt the US partialy socializing our medicine (and yes this bill only partialy socializes our medicine as the Ins companies are still in the loop, and we still have to pay premiums) ........yeah his comments make sense to me :rolleyes:

dimethylsea

03-25-2010, 02:49 PM

Just stop. I never said anything about gambling. I stayed on topic, prostitution. It's legal in certain counties in Nevada and legal in Amsterdam. Does that mean if someone goes there they were partaking in that?

So what if he has Viagra? Does that mean he is having sex? Maybe he likes doing it himself. Maybe he did have a ton of sex. Can you prove he paid for it? FYI, sex tourism is a felony now. Was he charged with that?

Stop making unfounded, slanderous allegations. Be an adult like me and MK are doing.

NEWSFLASH.. Prostitution is LEGAL in Costa Rica and some parts of the Dominican Republic.

Sex tourism is NOT a felony. If I take a plane trip to Costa Rica or Amsterdam where prostitution is legal.. then I'm being a sex tourist. For that matter if I just hope a plane to someplace where a caucasian with lots of cash to play is popular with the gender of interest.. HELLO THAT'S BEING A SEX TOURIST.

Sex tourism is ONLY a felony if you are a pedophile / having sex with minors or dealing in something that's illegal (like say human trafficking, sex slavery or something really obnoxious against local laws).

Somebody like Rush (with his money I mean) probably wouldn't even need to make D.R. chicks a strictly commercial proposition. Just spoil his "temporary GFs" or whatever. My friends have had *no problem* finding good friendly company (often in multiples) who are down for fun and don't throw lots of monogamy and emotional commitment crap down. And they have nothing like the play money Rush has.

Stop being a prude. Sex tourism is not a felony and it's not slander. He's not married. He's rich. He likes to travel to the sex tourism spots.. It's not rocket science.

"The federal government has begun to prosecute people with a new type of sex crime they call "sex tourism." The new federal legislation makes it a criminal act for a U.S. citizen to go overseas and to engage in sex with a minor in a foreign country—even if it is not illegal in the foreign country.."

David Jamieson

03-26-2010, 05:56 AM

hmmmn.

Apparently there was a vote about it. It passed WITH a vote.
Ergo, this thread is now Moot.

:p

1bad65

03-26-2010, 08:02 AM

Prisons are an institution that I don’t think should be run by private corporations, and they aren't, does that make them socialist institutions?

Actually there are private sector run/owned prisons in this country.

1bad65

03-26-2010, 08:05 AM

Oh, and I had to laugh when I read that you said Rush changed from saying he would go to Costa Rica for medical care and go to New Zealand instead.

Rush took the next few days off to research various countries healthcare systems. Unlike Obama and the House Democrats, he researches things before he makes decisions.

1bad65

03-26-2010, 08:16 AM

NEWSFLASH.. Prostitution is LEGAL in Costa Rica and some parts of the Dominican Republic.

So is everyone who vacations there is looking to pick up hookers? Get real.

It just shows how far into the gutter you liberals go in a political debate. Argue on the issues, not on unsubstantiated bs about people's personal lives. And Rush is not even an elected official.

They just caught Charles Rangel cheating on his taxes over a house he owns in the Dominaican Republic. He admitted he did it. Where is your outrage about that? Instead you harp on a guy because of where he vacations. You don't see me saying Rangel must be doing this or doing that because he owns a house in the DR. Stop being a partisan hack and discuss/debate the issues like an adult.

One more slanderous post on Rush (or anyone else), and you're on ignore. We have debated for months, and I always answer you like an adult. I don't drag the debate into the gutter, and I expect the same courtesy from you.

MasterKiller

03-26-2010, 08:22 AM

Actually there are private sector run/owned prisons in this country.

I live about 3 miles from one. There is a sign in front of my neighborhood that says "Hitchhikers might be escaping inmates!":D

SnowDog

03-26-2010, 10:10 AM

Rush took the next few days off to research various countries healthcare systems. Unlike Obama and the House Democrats, he researches things before he makes decisions.

Yet he is apposed to socialized medicine and researching only countries WITH socialized medicine?????

Oh yeah, because all other progressive countries on the planet already have socialized medicine.

SnowDog

03-26-2010, 10:12 AM

[QUOTE=dimethylsea;1001884]NEWSFLASH.. Prostitution is LEGAL in Costa Rica and some parts of the Dominican Republic.

Ironically it's also legal in New Zealand.......maybe this is what he is checking out instead of healthcare.

dimethylsea

03-26-2010, 11:26 AM

One more slanderous post on Rush (or anyone else), and you're on ignore. We have debated for months, and I always answer you like an adult. I don't drag the debate into the gutter, and I expect the same courtesy from you.

Go ahead and hit the ignore switch.

I heard from a friend of a friend that Rush was outside the country when David Carradine died and rumor has it he was beating off to the noose show when the whole thing went sour and David croaked in the Bangkok hotel room.

How's that for slander you prude!

dimethylsea

03-26-2010, 11:27 AM

Actually there are private sector run/owned prisons in this country.

And the thought of private companies possessing the force of law to kidnap and cage citizens is enough to make me chew nails.

HANG THEM. HANG THEM NOW!

1bad65

04-05-2010, 07:17 AM

And the thought of private companies possessing the force of law to kidnap and cage citizens is enough to make me chew nails.

:rolleyes: They still have to be convicted by a jury of their peers (or plead guilty) before being sent to any prison.

SanHeChuan

04-05-2010, 09:16 AM

Actually there are private sector run/owned prisons in this country.

I thought there were, I didn't fact check good enough on that statement. Shame.

1bad65

04-05-2010, 10:48 AM

I thought there were, I didn't fact check good enough on that statement. Shame.

It happens. At least you have the stones to admit when you are mistaken. I refuse to debate with people who cannot admit this. While we disagree alot, you have shown an admirable quality in my eyes.

David Jamieson

04-05-2010, 01:09 PM

It happens. At least you have the stones to admit when you are mistaken. I refuse to debate with people who cannot admit this. While we disagree alot, you have shown an admirable quality in my eyes.

You need to check your ego a bit if you think that your approval of someone is worth anything here on a forum where you get bagged on a lot for your neo-con ditto head position on pretty much every topic and to add to the fact that the only topics you are interested in are those where you defend the GOP or ridicule the dems and the potus, which makes you a hack and a shill for someone.

But if you aren't getting money for your contrived protestations, then I would have to say that you are short sighted there as well, because you must realize by now that such talk never produces persuasion, it always produces bad feelings and ill will towards each other because of the inability for any political conversation to ever come to any sort of understanding.

hence voting and hence the transformation of democracy into a dictatorship of the majority which is exactly what it is in almost every form by which it is practiced by every country that calls itself a democracy.

political discussion is not discussion at all. It is argument at best and a useless quarrel in most other forms. It is the same with religion.

If you want to have a pleasant political discussion that will get anywhere, then you all have to be of the same leanings and the Q&A will be around cabinet type decisions or Caucus meeting Q&A. All else is just divisive and unproductive. :p

If you don't believe me, re read your response to this if you leave one. :D