Page 2 of 14 FirstFirst 123412 ... LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 209

Thread: Democrats may pass healthcare without a vote!

  1. #16
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by SanHeChuan View Post
    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!
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  2. #17
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by SanHeChuan View Post
    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?
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  3. #18
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,653
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    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!
    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.
    - 三和拳

    "Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung

    "You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent

    "There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller

    "If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00

    BLOG
    MYSPACE
    FACEBOOK
    YOUTUBE

  4. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    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.

  5. #20
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by SanHeChuan View Post
    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.
    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.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  6. #21
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    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.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  7. #22
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Here and sometimes there
    Posts
    93
    Quote Originally Posted by SanHeChuan View Post
    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.

  8. #23
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    Murfreesboro, TN
    Posts
    543

    Why is Healthcare Reform neccessary?

    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."
    "The first stage is to get the Gang( hard, solid power). every movement should be done with full power and in hard way, also need to get the twisting and wrapping power, whole body's tendon and bones need to be stretched to get the Gang( hard) power. "
    -Bi Tianzou -

  9. #24
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    1,653
    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.
    Last edited by SanHeChuan; 03-17-2010 at 09:42 AM.
    - 三和拳

    "Civilize the mind but make savage the body" Mao Tse Tsung

    "You're certainly intelligent enough to know how to be a good person without the lead weights of religious dogma." Serpent

    "There is no evidence that the zombie progeny of an incestuous space ghost cares what people do." MasterKiller

    "If there isn't a chance that you're going to lose in a fight, then you're not fighting tough enough competition." ShaolinTiger00

    BLOG
    MYSPACE
    FACEBOOK
    YOUTUBE

  10. #25
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    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.

  11. #26
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by SanHeChuan View Post
    And social security is 19% of the budget which is 3% more than 1/6.
    So the Republicans passed/created Social Security without a House vote? Is that what you are saying?
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  12. #27
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by Reality_Check View Post
    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....
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  13. #28
    Join Date
    Jan 1970
    Location
    Canada!
    Posts
    23,110
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    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!
    Kung Fu is good for you.

  14. #29
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Austin, TX
    Posts
    7,501
    Quote Originally Posted by David Jamieson View Post
    bring your swimsuit! There's a pool of neo-con tears at the bottom!
    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.
    When given the choice between big business and big government, choose big business. Big business never threw millions of people into gas chambers, but big government did.

    "It does not take a majority to prevail, but rather an irate, tireless minority, keen on setting brushfires of freedom in the minds of men" -Samuel Adams

  15. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    Augusta, GA
    Posts
    5,096
    Quote Originally Posted by 1bad65 View Post
    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?
    The weakest of all weak things is a virtue that has not been tested in the fire.
    ~ Mark Twain

    Everyone has a plan until they’ve been hit.
    ~ Joe Lewis

    A warrior may choose pacifism; others are condemned to it.
    ~ Author unknown

    "You don't feel lonely.Because you have a lively monkey"

    "Ninja can HURT the Spartan, but the Spartan can KILL the Ninja"

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •