Dems lack votes for Health Care passage with simple majority

[Ugmo]

Tee hee.

Where's the link to prove you aren't completely full of shit Juggernaut? Don't have one? How about some more name-calling to distract from that?

Let me summarize this thread: 30-plus posts from thejuggalo and not one source to back up his bullshit, but instead nothing but bluster and annoying purple font.

You are probably a decent guy when you're not on the Internet, but as soon as you log on, your batshit-crazy streak takes over. Do you start calling people names and stomping your feet like a two-year old when you lose an argument in real life? Probably not. Or at least I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

[thejuggernaut]

[Ugmo]

When you poke the Juggernaut with sticks, he goes "OOGA BOOGA!!!"

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Nice pic. I'm sure it will work as well for you as it did for roxxxtar and Shagg.

[thejuggernaut]

When you poke the Juggernaut with sticks, he goes "OOGA BOOGA!!!"

When you don't give Ugmo a link, he cries like the spineless fool he is.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Republicans and Democrats who oppose Obama's health care plan have accepted bribes and kickbacks to do so. Don't ask for a link or any other proof like a spineless fool, though, or I'll post a picture intended to insult you.









When you can't back it up, shut it up.

[SmokeyRamone]

during his presidency, GW Bush was accused once of referring to the Constitution as "A goddamned piece of paper." Obama hasn't been overheard saying anything along those lines, but considering he has a law degree, and taught Constitutional law for almost 10 years, it seems he'd be aware of some of the questionable parts of the health care bill and the chance that they will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Maybe he does think the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. while expansive, heavy handed government aren't directly addressed in the Bill Of Rights or The Constitution, taxation without representation is, and I'm no law expert, but I'd be willing to bet there's enough just in the mandate alone to spur a legal challenge or two and I can't imagine this hasn't occurred to the President

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

during his presidency, GW Bush was accused once of referring to the Constitution as "A goddamned piece of paper." Obama hasn't been overheard saying anything along those lines, but considering he has a law degree, and taught Constitutional law for almost 10 years, it seems he'd be aware of some of the questionable parts of the health care bill and the chance that they will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Maybe he does think the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. while expansive, heavy handed government aren't directly addressed in the Bill Of Rights or The Constitution, taxation without representation is, and I'm no law expert, but I'd be willing to bet there's enough just in the mandate alone to spur a legal challenge or two and I can't imagine this hasn't occurred to the President

Taxation without representation? Really? The Senate and House of Representatives were dissolved? When did that happen?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Lawsuits/challenges are being prepared as we speak if the house passes the bill without a vote. The mess will continue for years to come if they go that route.

If they overturn the "self-executing rule" on the healthcare bill, there will be over a hundred other laws going down with it. It's been real popular on either side of the aisle.
http://wilsoncenter.org/index.cfm?topic ... _id=180829

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.

In fact, it's how the Republicans gutted the lobbying and ethics bill.

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.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

There will be a vote, a 'two for one' deal.

As the House moves toward a vote on health-care legislation, one possible route to passage involves a procedural measure called a "self-executing rule," or "deem and pass." It would allow House members to pass the Senate's bill by voting not on the measure itself, but rather a "fixes package." Here's a look at the self-executing rule and its role in Congress:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/co ... 04361.html

It's a way for people to vote for it without officially voting for it. In Congress, you can have your cake and eat it too.

[SmokeyRamone]

during his presidency, GW Bush was accused once of referring to the Constitution as "A goddamned piece of paper." Obama hasn't been overheard saying anything along those lines, but considering he has a law degree, and taught Constitutional law for almost 10 years, it seems he'd be aware of some of the questionable parts of the health care bill and the chance that they will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Maybe he does think the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. while expansive, heavy handed government aren't directly addressed in the Bill Of Rights or The Constitution, taxation without representation is, and I'm no law expert, but I'd be willing to bet there's enough just in the mandate alone to spur a legal challenge or two and I can't imagine this hasn't occurred to the President

Taxation without representation? Really? The Senate and House of Representatives were dissolved? When did that happen?

when I said taxation without representation, I was referring to the mandate and the fine levied by the IRS for those who don't purchase health insurance, taxes are supposed to be levied to finance the government and it's various operations, not as punishment. I'm no legal scholar, but I'd be wiling to bet a case could be made for the mandate and ensuing fine as a form of taxation without representation, but my main point is that Obama was legal scholar and former professor of Constitutional law and likely is aware of this, yet going forward anyway

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

during his presidency, GW Bush was accused once of referring to the Constitution as "A goddamned piece of paper." Obama hasn't been overheard saying anything along those lines, but considering he has a law degree, and taught Constitutional law for almost 10 years, it seems he'd be aware of some of the questionable parts of the health care bill and the chance that they will be overturned by the Supreme Court. Maybe he does think the Constitution is just a goddamn piece of paper. while expansive, heavy handed government aren't directly addressed in the Bill Of Rights or The Constitution, taxation without representation is, and I'm no law expert, but I'd be willing to bet there's enough just in the mandate alone to spur a legal challenge or two and I can't imagine this hasn't occurred to the President

Taxation without representation? Really? The Senate and House of Representatives were dissolved? When did that happen?

when I said taxation without representation, I was referring to the mandate and the fine levied by the IRS for those who don't purchase health insurance, taxes are supposed to be levied to finance the government and it's various operations, not as punishment. I'm no legal scholar, but I'd be wiling to bet a case could be made for the mandate and ensuing fine as a form of taxation without representation, but my main point is that Obama was legal scholar and former professor of Constitutional law and likely is aware of this, yet going forward anyway

My statement still applies. The IRS will merely be carrying out the law, not creating it. Didn't your schools ever offer a civics/government course?

[SmokeyRamone]

and my statement still stands, I'm not saying the IRS would be to blame for carrying out the law, just that someone out there will likely challenge the constitutionality of a mandate and a fine, the IRS comes into play because they'd be collecting it as a tax, the legal challenge would probably work it's way through the courts and hopefully to the Supreme Court who may or may not decide a fine enacted by the government as a tax for not complying with a health care mandate may or may not be constitutional, and again, as a legal scholar and former professor of Constitutional law, it's probable Obama has thought of this too, maybe he just thinks the courts will side with him, I for one, hope they don't

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

and my statement still stands, I'm not saying the IRS would be to blame for carrying out the law, just that someone out there will likely challenge the constitutionality of a mandate and a fine, the IRS comes into play because they'd be collecting it as a tax, the legal challenge would probably work it's way through the courts and hopefully to the Supreme Court who may or may not decide a fine enacted by the government as a tax for not complying with a health care mandate may or may not be constitutional, and again, as a legal scholar and former professor of Constitutional law, it's probable Obama has thought of this too, maybe he just thinks the courts will side with him, I for one, hope they don't

Don't count on it.

It's a way for people to vote for it without officially voting for it. In Congress, you can have your cake and eat it too.

That should go over well.

It's been over since the Great Depression.

[SmokeyRamone]

Don't count on it.

right because absolutely nobody thinks it's a bad idea for government to step in and pass laws requiring people to do business with private companies, that they have every right to tell people how to spend their money, the same government who paid out $54 billion last year in waste and fraudulent medicare and medicaid payment may not be most qualified to dictate the budgets of it's private citizens, apparently everyone things expansive, heavy handed government is the way it should be and that taxation should be used as punishment when the peons don't do as they're told. I'm sure nobody out there will want to take a stand and make some legal challenges to so much government involvement in the private lives of it's citizens

[tin00can]

Then so be it. You shouldn't ram through a bill of this magnitude going against the will of the majority of Americans without a vote when you have the majorities in both houses and the Presidency.

Yeah, because politicians ALWAYS care about the "will of the people" first and foremost. I remember those hazy old days of yesteryear when Bush was a rebel for going against the will of the people, a man blazing his own trail and opinion be damned.

I will agree that it is pathetic that the democrats have so much power and yet they still can't pass what they've declared to be their most important priority.

[SmokeyRamone]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20100318/ap_ ... aul_states

BOISE, Idaho – Idaho is leading the charge in a states-rights push to defeat a proposal in Congress that would require people to buy health insurance, a key piece of reforms being pushed by President Barack Obama.

Republican Gov. C.L. "Butch" Otter used a ceremony Wednesday afternoon to become the first governor to sign into law a measure requiring the state attorney general to sue the federal government over any such insurance mandates.

There's similar legislation pending in 37 other states, a point Otter stressed when asked if the bill he signed can succeed, given constitutional law experts are already saying federal laws would supersede those of states in a U.S. District Court fight.

"The ivory tower folks will tell you, 'No, they're not going anywhere,'" he told reporters. "But I'll tell you what, you get 36 states, that's a critical mass. That's a constitutional mass."

The state measures working their ways through statehouses from Missouri to South Carolina reflect a growing frustration with President Obama's health care overhaul, especially in Republican-dominated regions.

The Democratic president's proposal would cover some 30 million uninsured people, end insurance practices such as denying coverage to those with pre-existing conditions, require almost all Americans to get coverage by law, and try to slow the cost of medical care nationwide.

Democratic leaders hope to vote on it this weekend.

With Washington closing in on a deal in the monthslong battle over health care overhaul, Republican state lawmakers are stepping up opposition.

Last week, Virginia legislators passed a measure similar to Idaho's new law, but Otter was the first state chief executive to sign such a bill, according to the American Legislative Exchange Council, which created model legislation for Idaho and other states. The Washington, D.C.,-based nonprofit group promotes limited government.

"Congress is planning to force an unconstitutional mandate on the states," said Christie Herrera, the group's health task force director.

Still, David Freeman Engstrom, a constitutional law expert at Stanford University Law School, said all these measures face significant legal hurdles. Freeman said there is the question of whether a state has standing to bring the lawsuit, or if that role is better served by an individual who could show they were harmed by the mandate to buy health insurance.

Idaho's law faces an even bigger challenge, he said, by setting up a direct conflict with the supremacy clause in the U.S. Constitution.

"That language is clear that federal law is supreme over state law," said Freeman. "So it really doesn't matter what a state legislature says on this."

Otter already warned U.S. House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid in December that Idaho was considering litigation.

He signed the bill during his first public ceremony of the 2010 Legislature.

"What the Idaho Health Freedom Act says is that the citizens of our state won't be subject to another federal mandate or turn over another part of their life to government control," Otter said.

Minority Democrats who make up less than a quarter of the Idaho Legislature who opposed the bill called any lawsuits over health care reform frivolous.

Senate Minority Leader Kate Kelly, D-Boise, also complained about the bill's possible price tag. Those who drafted the new law say enforcement may require an additional Idaho deputy attorney general with an annual salary of $100,000 a year.

Kelly said that was irresponsible when Idaho is grappling with a $200 million budget hole.

"For Democrats in the Legislature, our priority is jobs," she said. "We'd rather Gov. Otter was holding a signing ceremony for (a jobs package) meant to put Idaho residents back to work."

At the White House, spokesman Reid Cherlin declined to comment Wednesday night.

[Ugmo]

ram through

You watch a lot of Fox News, don't you?

[Ugmo]

In a physician survey conducted December 2009 by The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm, 24.7% of physicians stated that they would "retire early" if a public option is implemented, and an additional 21.0% of respondents stated that they would quit practicing medicine, even though they are nowhere near retirement. This brings the amount of physicians who would leave medicine to a total of 45.7%.

Is this number greater than or equal to the number of people who said they'd move to Canada if Bush was reelected?

[KneelandBobDylan]

Taken from the New England Journal of Medicine:

http://www.themedicusfirm.com/pages/med ... lth-reform

In a physician survey conducted December 2009 by The Medicus Firm, a national physician search firm, 24.7% of physicians stated that they would "retire early" if a public option is implemented, and an additional 21.0% of respondents stated that they would quit practicing medicine, even though they are nowhere near retirement. This brings the amount of physicians who would leave medicine to a total of 45.7%.

Over 50% of physicians who responded predict that a health reform would cause the quality of medical care to deteriorate in America. When asked how health reform could affect the quality of medical care, 40.7% stated it would "decline or worsen somewhat," while another 14.4% stated that the quality of medical care would "decline or worsen dramatically". If a public option is implemented as part of health reform, 64.1% of physicians predict that the quality of medical care in general will decline.

Well, well, well. The New England Journal of Medicine says they never produced a health care survey.

For example, on Fox & Friends, co-host Brian Kilmeade said: "The New England Journal of Medicine has published a report and did a survey, and they said the impact of reform on primary care physicians, 46 percent, they say, feel reform will force them out or make them want to leave medicine."

This is false.

Media Matters for America contacted the New England Journal of Medicine, which confirmed it neither conducted nor published the "survey."

NEJM spokesperson Jennifer Zeis told Media Matters that the study had "nothing to do with the New England Journal of Medicine's original research." She also made clear that the study "was not published by the New England Journal of Medicine," and said that "we are taking steps to clarify the source of the survey."

The "report" that right-wing media are citing actually appeared in Recruiting Physicians Today, which is an employment newsletter produced by "the publishers of the New England Journal of Medicine." According to Zeis, that report actually "was written by the Medicus Firm," the medical recruitment firm that conducted the "survey."

[tin00can]

I remember those hazy old days of yesteryear when Bush was a rebel for going against the will of the people, a man blazing his own trail and opinion be damned.

What major piece of game changing legislation did the former administration ram through wihout a vote that the vast majority of Americans were this adamant against?

Where did I say he did that? I was alluding to how he stuck to his guns about WMD in Iraq and the whole justification for the invasion. And for the record, here's a snapshot of public opinion on the health care reform:

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls ... -1130.html

7% more people are against the bill than in favor of it, but 10% are still undecided. You know, those swing voters. I wouldn't exactly call that a "vast majority", but perhaps I choose my words too carefully.

Man, you like to read a lot into things that aren't really there, don't ya?

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

It's been over since the Great Depression.

You ain't seen nothin yet.

Yes. We'll be seeing a lot of nothing.

[MasterOfMeatPuppets]

Yes. We'll be seeing a lot of nothing.

Sort of like how we saw nothing last summer...

It's what Republicans do best... besides sell out.

[tin00can]

I was alluding to how he stuck to his guns about WMD in Iraq and the whole justification for the invasion.

Except for that the majority of Americans did not consider the invasion was a mistake. Unlike the current health reform bill.

There's that word "majority" again. And, you're chopping up my posts to quote them. Why don't you ever use an entire post in your quotes? Hmm, who used to do that to me all the time? What was that girl's name?

Anyway, back on topic: here's a graph of public opinion on the Iraq war:



http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-wa ... nniversary

Now, what does that remind you of, pertaining to current events?

[thejuggernaut]

I was alluding to how he stuck to his guns about WMD in Iraq and the whole justification for the invasion.

Except for that the majority of Americans did not consider the invasion was a mistake. Unlike the current health reform bill.

There's that word "majority" again. And, you're chopping up my posts to quote them. Why don't you ever use an entire post in your quotes? Hmm, who used to do that to me all the time? What was that girl's name?

Anyway, back on topic: here's a graph of public opinion on the Iraq war:



http://pewresearch.org/pubs/770/iraq-wa ... nniversary

Now, what does that remind you of, pertaining to current events?

Obama's approval rating ?

[tin00can]

^^^^^^

Which proves my point.

God, I feel retarded when I post like you. But hey, on the plus side, at least I didn't take a snippet of your post and quote it, so I still have that going for me.

[Ugmo]

If this thing passes, I really really really want to see the Republicans spend the summer campaigning on repealing it. Holy shit that would be epic. 30 million uninsured people who finally would be able to afford insurance, and the Republicans are going to campaign on taking it away from them again? And many of them children presumably. I can't wait to see the commercials the Democrats run against Republicans threatening to "take health insurance away from children."

Please please please make this happen Republicans. That would be the mother of all backfires.

[SmokeyRamone]

is there a guarantee in the bill that the cost of health insurance is going to go down?

[Ugmo]

is there a guarantee in the bill that the cost of health insurance is going to go down?

I don't know that there's a "guarantee" in there, but it's pretty much guaranteed premiums will continue to rise without the bill.

I also looked briefly for analysis of premium costs for the reconciliation but haven't found anything yet. Here is what the CBO said about the Senate bill passed before Christmas though:

The CBO reported that, for most people, premiums would stay about the same, or slightly decrease. This was especially true for people who get their insurance through work. (Health policy wonks call these the large group and small group markets.) People who have to go out and buy insurance on their own (the individual market) would see rates increase by 10 to 13 percent. But more than half of those people -- 57 percent, in fact -- would be eligible for subsidies to help them pay for the insurance. People who get subsidies would see their premiums drop by more than half, according to the CBO. So most people would see their premiums stay the same or potentially drop.

http://politifact.com/truth-o-meter/sta ... iums-and-/


I doubt that is substantially different under reconciliation.

[SmokeyRamone]

interesting, I wonder where the money for the subsidies is going to come from, and if it will be enough, and how exactly people qualify for them and how are they doled out, it seems likely that there are going to be a number of people who fall through the cracks (we are talking about the government after all) and won't be able to afford health insurance, but still not qualify for a subsidy, and are going to find themselves not only without health care, but being fined by the IRS for it, and god help anyone who doesn't pay a fine to the IRS, more fines, more penalties, possible jail time.

I can see this thing turning even uglier than it is right now, hell 37 states are already considering challenging the constitutionally of a mandate