How To Trick A Bluedog

I

Illegal Smile

Guest
It is somewhat frustrating but hugely amusing to be a republican on the sidelines watching the Obamacare drama unfold. Republicans have been left out and given the finger for the past year. Fair enough. It's other democrats that are stopping this now.

There is not going to be any reconciliation nuclear option bill. Everyone knows it, it's the 800lb gorilla. It's as if Obama is asking the bluedogs to pull his finger. If the house were to pass the senate bill, that would be that. Obama would sign it and there would be some reason given why the promised "fix" bill was being scrapped. But the dogs know this and they aren't putting on their lemming suits.

If they would just start over and focus on the parts of the healthcare system where there is broad agreement they could pick up lots of republican votes and pass a true bipartisan bill. Then they could go back to their fight to the death if they want, but at least the country might derive a little benefit instead of sitting here and watching Nero fiddle.
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
they're gonna use reconciliation. just like republicans have in the past.

it's not pretty, but it works, and it's FOLLOWING THE RULES.

and just so you get it straight: reconciliation is not the "nuclear option". That refers to Sen. McCain's failed attempt to change the senate rules, so that reconciliation, or passing a bill with a simple majority, would be impossible. Reconciliation is something different, it means getting legislation passed with a simple majority, if the fiscal budget provides space for it. Obama is sly enough to where he included a health care bit in his budget, so reconciliation is an option they have, and will use.

nothing "nuclear" about it.....
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
redivider said:
they're gonna use reconciliation. just like republicans have in the past.

it's not pretty, but it works, and it's FOLLOWING THE RULES.

and just so you get it straight: reconciliation is not the "nuclear option". That refers to Sen. McCain's failed attempt to change the senate rules, so that reconciliation, or passing a bill with a simple majority, would be impossible. Reconciliation is something different, it means getting legislation passed with a simple majority, if the fiscal budget provides space for it. Obama is sly enough to where he included a health care bit in his budget, so reconciliation is an option they have, and will use.

nothing "nuclear" about it.....
Click to expand...
Yes, I realize they have to try their best to keep the threat sounding real. Otherwise the house holdouts would know for sure they will never get their "fix." But I think even you know that boat has already sailed. The nuclear option would create a scorched earth for years. There aren't enough democrats stupid enough to follow Obama over that cliff.
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
they're gonna use reconciliation. just like republicans have in the past.

it's not pretty, but it works, and it's FOLLOWING THE RULES.

and just so you get it straight: reconciliation is not the "nuclear option". That refers to Sen. McCain's failed attempt to change the senate rules, so that reconciliation, or passing a bill with a simple majority, would be impossible. Reconciliation is something different, it means getting legislation passed with a simple majority, if the fiscal budget provides space for it. Obama is sly enough to where he included a health care bit in his budget, so reconciliation is an option they have, and will use.

nothing "nuclear" about it.....
Click to expand...
I thought that the point was that reconciliation had never been used to force a bill of this magnitude through. I thought it had only been used to force smaller, budget oriented bills through. I could be wrong though. :confused:
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
doc111 said:
I thought that the point was that reconciliation had never been used to force a bill of this magnitude through. I thought it had only been used to force smaller, budget oriented bills through. I could be wrong though. :confused:
Click to expand...
nope.

they've used it plenty and plenty of times, to pass substantial legislation.

the "nuclear option" was a term coined not long ago, it refers to an attempt by republican lawmakers to change the senate rules, so that the senate could not use Reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority.

here's a good article:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/gregg-reconciliation-is-the-rule-of-the-senate-video.php

Gregg: Reconciliation Is The Rule Of The Senate


by
Brian Beutler

Republicans are doing everything they can to convince the media and the public that using the budget reconciliation process to finish health care would be a grave crime against democracy.
But reconciliation is part of the Senate rules. And there's perhaps no better person to make that point than Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)--the Senate Republicans' top budget guy--who vociferously defended the use of reconciliation when his party tried to use it in 2005 to allow drilling in Alaska.
"The representation by the Senator from Massachusetts that somehow that this is outside the rules--to proceed within the rules--is a very unique view of the rules," Gregg said on the Senate floor back when he was part of the majority. "We are using the rules of the Senate here, that's what they are senator. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions."
Gregg went on, "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."
​
Unsurprisingly, Gregg feels differently about things these days. Last year he compared the majority-rules vote to "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."
Republicans have also advanced the meme that reconciliation amounts to the "nuclear option"--a term that came to fame when Republicans tried to change the Senate rules regarding the minority's right to obstruct judicial nominations. But the "nuclear option" was a threat to change the rules. As Gregg pointed out very publicly, reconciliation is already part of the rules.



:leaf::leaf::leaf:
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
redivider said:
nope.

they've used it plenty and plenty of times, to pass substantial legislation.

the "nuclear option" was a term coined not long ago, it refers to an attempt by republican lawmakers to change the senate rules, so that the senate could not use Reconciliation, which requires only a simple majority.

here's a good article:

http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/02/gregg-reconciliation-is-the-rule-of-the-senate-video.php

Gregg: Reconciliation Is The Rule Of The Senate


by
Brian Beutler

Republicans are doing everything they can to convince the media and the public that using the budget reconciliation process to finish health care would be a grave crime against democracy.
But reconciliation is part of the Senate rules. And there's perhaps no better person to make that point than Sen. Judd Gregg (R-NH)--the Senate Republicans' top budget guy--who vociferously defended the use of reconciliation when his party tried to use it in 2005 to allow drilling in Alaska.
"The representation by the Senator from Massachusetts that somehow that this is outside the rules--to proceed within the rules--is a very unique view of the rules," Gregg said on the Senate floor back when he was part of the majority. "We are using the rules of the Senate here, that's what they are senator. Reconciliation is a rule of the Senate set up under the Budget Act. It has been used before for purposes exactly like this on numerous occasions."
Gregg went on, "Is there something wrong with majority rules? I don't think so."

Unsurprisingly, Gregg feels differently about things these days. Last year he compared the majority-rules vote to "running over the minority, putting them in cement and throwing them in the Chicago River."
Republicans have also advanced the meme that reconciliation amounts to the "nuclear option"--a term that came to fame when Republicans tried to change the Senate rules regarding the minority's right to obstruct judicial nominations. But the "nuclear option" was a threat to change the rules. As Gregg pointed out very publicly, reconciliation is already part of the rules.



:leaf::leaf::leaf:
Click to expand...
As substantial as healthcare reform? Really? I guess there has to be a first time for everything.

I don't question whether it's a legitimate senate rule, but whether it's a good political move for either party since it seems a vast majority of their constituents seem to be opposed to the bill (at least in its current form). I love the idea of insurance companies not being able to deny people coverage. I think forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions sounds wonderful. The bottom line is somebody has to pay for this somehow. It's either gonna come in the form of increased taxes or increased premiums. But Obama says there will be a cap on premium hikes with the current bill so where is the money gonna come from? Anybody? :confused:
 
R

redivider

Well-Known Member
Did Republicans use reconciliation for significantly bipartisan bills?


Among the odder arguments Republicans are making against the reconciliation process is that the process should only be used for bipartisan bills, and since they refuse to vote for health-care reform, Democrats can't give their package of fixes an up-or-down vote.
But reconciliation hasn't been limited to bipartisan bills. Here's the recent record: The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47. The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33. The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote. The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention. The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44. This is as you'd expect: If bills had overwhelming bipartisan majorities, they wouldn't need to go through reconciliation.
As it happens, Republicans controlled the Senate during each and every one of these bills. And they got less votes than Democrats will likely get for the health-care fixes. It's also worth reminding people that it's harder for Democrats to get Republican votes because voters elected a lot more Democrats in the past two elections. Republicans had a number of moderate Democrats who could be brought into a 58-vote majority, and Democrats don't have as many moderate Republicans who can do the same.
Click to expand...
By Ezra Klein

The Washington Post. March 3, 2010; 2:15 PM ET

there you go.
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
redivider said:


By Ezra Klein

The Washington Post. March 3, 2010; 2:15 PM ET

there you go.
Click to expand...
The common thread here seems to be budget bills as I think I mentioned. Who do tax cuts benefit? Who do they hurt? I think the idea of healthcare reform is great...............how are we gonna pay for it? I don't think this has been adequately addressed. And forgive me for not believing the govt. estimates. They have a long history of downplaying the numbers. :fire:

Isn't a balanced budget a good thing as well? I personally think we need to stop living beyond our means. It will come back to bite us. We just don't know when it's going to come or how bad the bite is going to hurt. :peace:
 
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
Reconciliation is not going to happen. Forget it, it is off the table. Everyone on the inside knows this. The house votes they are trying to sway (or buy or coerce) have grave doubts about A) whether once the senate bill is passed they would even attempt the fix, and B) even if they attempted it they can get the 50 +1, AND is it really worth the political fallout if they do?

I have a friend who is chief of staff for a democrat congressman. He says they don't have 200 votes yet and they need 216. The Massa thing hurts, even if he resigns the story is toxic. Just another example of the Lousiana Purchase and Cornhusker kickback mentality.

The next 10 days will be fun to watch. Once again, democrats circle the wagons and shoot in. Think about it - if they can't trust each other why should we?
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
FlyLikeAnEagle said:
Bush's tax cuts for the rich equal the same amount of money as the health care bill.
Click to expand...
Forgive me if I don't trust that assertion.:roll: Nobody really even knows what all is in the bill. Unless you have a crystal ball, amazing psychic powers, insider knowledge, or a degree in economics I don't know how you can even make that statement. :?
 
converseking

converseking

Well-Known Member
doc111 said:
As substantial as healthcare reform? Really? I guess there has to be a first time for everything.

I don't question whether it's a legitimate senate rule, but whether it's a good political move for either party since it seems a vast majority of their constituents seem to be opposed to the bill (at least in its current form). I love the idea of insurance companies not being able to deny people coverage. I think forcing insurance companies to take people with pre-existing conditions sounds wonderful. The bottom line is somebody has to pay for this somehow. It's either gonna come in the form of increased taxes or increased premiums. But Obama says there will be a cap on premium hikes with the current bill so where is the money gonna come from? Anybody? :confused:
Click to expand...
all of us and they dam well know it and are just cool w/ bs'n the whole dam country bt im all 4 healtcare for all so its sorta a catch 22 4 me
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
converseking said:
all of us and they dam well know it and are just cool w/ bs'n the whole dam country bt im all 4 healtcare for all so its sorta a catch 22 4 me
Click to expand...
I'm not as concerned about the financial burden as I am about the ramifications on our freedom. Govt. has been getting too big for a long time now and we haven't gotten more liberties. In fact it's quite the opposite: the larger govt. becomes the more it intrudes on our lives. It's already too much so as people who have a direct interest in seeing less intrusion it puzzles me why we would want govt. getting into healthcare. I don't want to see people going broke because they get sick or injured. I don't want to see people dying in the streets because they can't afford care (even though we don't really see this now). I think it's more important to get the economy back on track. Where do the administration's priorities lie? :leaf:
 
BigTitLvr

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
IS, you're on a crusade to change opinion of the uninformed on this website, and who knows how many others.

There will definitely be a bill passed. Most probably thru reconciliation. Obama and Pelosi will look like asses if they don't get it done and the 'powers that be' cannot afford that. They like to make the dems look like pussies but they aren't going to alienate the entire base by giving up on this after months of BS hype. This sham bill is the bare minimum of changes which will benefit PAYING CUSTOMERS of the insurance companies but mostly it will benefit the Insurance companies who are about to get millions of more PAYING CUSTOMERS.

With all these PAYING CUSTOMERS why do you and other uninformed people keep saying: "how are we going to pay for it?". If you already buy insurance-there's no change! And if someone poor gets help from the government- good! They are forcing us to accept this BS bill, then they have to accept the overall responsibility.

The simple solution is to STOP PAYING TRILLIONS OF DOLLARS OUT TO WAR CONTRACTORS and we afford goddamn near any and every social program EVER proposed. -Not that we would want to; but we could.

A bill will pass- get used to it. The scam fuckers running Health Insurance companies can NOT be allowed to continue INSTITUTIONALIZED MURDER.
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
I

Illegal Smile

Guest
BigTitLvr said:
IS, you're on a crusade to change opinion of the uninformed on this website, and who knows how many others.
Click to expand...
Right. I'm on a crusade for the what? 10-15 potheads who regularly post here? This isn't the democrats vs me or the democrats vs the republicans - this is the democrats vs America, and America is winning.
 
BigTitLvr

BigTitLvr

Well-Known Member
Illegal Smile said:
Right. I'm on a crusade for the what? 10-15 potheads who regularly post here? This isn't the democrats vs me or the democrats vs the republicans - this is the democrats vs America, and America is winning.
Click to expand...
^^^That's what I mean. Who are you trying to convince? The couple of people reading this?

Democrats vs America? The majority of Americans voted democrat- remember? Democrats in America are pissed at Obama precisely because he's not being a democrat; not passing the so called 'democrat' legislation he was voted into office to pass.

Social means 'for the good of all'. The majority of Americans wanted a change from the government that protected and served the wealthy elite only. So they voted in a black, social worker to help out the VAST MAJORITY of Americans and he proved that ALL politicians allowed to be president are still just puppets- black or white.

Every comment you post really is democrat vs. YOU. And you really are confused. Because unless you really are one of those super-wealthy elite; you and your family, and your friends all stand to benefit from the changes to our government Obama 'pretended' to support. :peace:
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
Really? You may not 'really see it now' only because you are not looking hard enough. But Harvard researchers looked into it already and.... http://harvardscience.harvard.edu/medicine-health/articles/new-study-finds-45000-deaths-annually-linked-lack-health-coverage
Click to expand...
I don't even know how you would go about figuring cause of death to be "no insurance", but o.k.:roll:

I was a firefighter/paramedic for a major metropolitan fire dept. for over 15 years. I took thousands of uninsured people to the hospital over the years and never once saw any of them turned away due to inability to pay. In fact I had a close friend get very sick. He has no coverage. Not only was he admitted by a private hospital, he was kept in there for 10 days, given 2 surgeries and released. They proceeded to cut what he owed by over 60%! I wouldn't be so naive to make a blanket statement like "it never happens" because I'm sure it does, but I think it's pretty rare. BTW more people die of the flu than the 40 some thousand who harvard says died because they didn't have insurance. :peace:

BigTitLvr said:
^^^That's what I mean. Who are you trying to convince? The couple of people reading this?

Democrats vs America? The majority of Americans voted democrat- remember? Democrats in America are pissed at Obama precisely because he's not being a democrat; not passing the so called 'democrat' legislation he was voted into office to pass.

Social means 'for the good of all'. The majority of Americans wanted a change from the government that protected and served the wealthy elite only. So they voted in a black, social worker to help out the VAST MAJORITY of Americans and he proved that ALL politicians allowed to be president are still just puppets- black or white.

Every comment you post really is democrat vs. YOU. And you really are confused. Because unless you really are one of those super-wealthy elite; you and your family, and your friends all stand to benefit from the changes to our government Obama 'pretended' to support. :peace:
Click to expand...
The majority of America has no idea what the hell they want or who will give it to them. We won't really benefit from Obamacare. We will get one step closer to total control. Wake up people! History has shown us what happens when governments get too much control. Gas chamber anyone? bongsmilie
 
dukeofbaja

dukeofbaja

New Member
doc111 said:
I don't even know how you would go about figuring cause of death to be "no insurance", but o.k.:roll:

Perhaps read the details of the study then and form a critique or refutation. The numbers used to be lower, around 18,000 annually, but nonetheless those are your fellow citizens dying because of lack of insurance. As they said in the study: “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

I was a firefighter/paramedic for a major metropolitan fire dept. for over 15 years. I took thousands of uninsured people to the hospital over the years and never once saw any of them turned away due to inability to pay.

OK, so they don't die. But then they join the hundreds of thousands of Americans that go bankrupt due to medical bills. It doesn't help me or you if our neighbor goes bankrupt and their home is foreclosed upon due to medical debt. The notion of this happening in any other rich, capitalist democracy is absurd and scandalous.

In fact I had a close friend get very sick. He has no coverage. Not only was he admitted by a private hospital, he was kept in there for 10 days, given 2 surgeries and released. They proceeded to cut what he owed by over 60%! I wouldn't be so naive to make a blanket statement like "it never happens" because I'm sure it does, but I think it's pretty rare. BTW more people die of the flu than the 40 some thousand who harvard says died because they didn't have insurance. :peace:

I bet less people would die from flu if they didn't have to worry about not making rent next month because they had to make an emergency room visit or hospital visit.

The majority of America has no idea what the hell they want or who will give it to them. We won't really benefit from Obamacare. We will get one step closer to total control. Wake up people! History has shown us what happens when governments get too much control. Gas chamber anyone? bongsmilie[

History has shown us what happens when wealthy, captalist democracies like ours let our government intervene in a private health insurance system: costs go down,coverage goes up. This you can not deny. Sure, you could say 'But this is America, we are different from those other countries'. But then I could point out the many ways our healthcare system already mimics that of those other countries. Unless of course you have no inurance. Then you might as well be living in a 4th world country /QUOTE]
Click to expand...
 
doc111

doc111

Well-Known Member
dukeofbaja said:
doc111 said:
I don't even know how you would go about figuring cause of death to be "no insurance", but o.k.:roll:

Perhaps read the details of the study then and form a critique or refutation. The numbers used to be lower, around 18,000 annually, but nonetheless those are your fellow citizens dying because of lack of insurance. As they said in the study: “We doctors have many new ways to prevent deaths from hypertension, diabetes, and heart disease — but only if patients can get into our offices and afford their medications.”

I was a firefighter/paramedic for a major metropolitan fire dept. for over 15 years. I took thousands of uninsured people to the hospital over the years and never once saw any of them turned away due to inability to pay.

OK, so they don't die. But then they join the hundreds of thousands of Americans that go bankrupt due to medical bills. It doesn't help me or you if our neighbor goes bankrupt and their home is foreclosed upon due to medical debt. The notion of this happening in any other rich, capitalist democracy is absurd and scandalous.

In fact I had a close friend get very sick. He has no coverage. Not only was he admitted by a private hospital, he was kept in there for 10 days, given 2 surgeries and released. They proceeded to cut what he owed by over 60%! I wouldn't be so naive to make a blanket statement like "it never happens" because I'm sure it does, but I think it's pretty rare. BTW more people die of the flu than the 40 some thousand who harvard says died because they didn't have insurance. :peace:

I bet less people would die from flu if they didn't have to worry about not making rent next month because they had to make an emergency room visit or hospital visit.

The majority of America has no idea what the hell they want or who will give it to them. We won't really benefit from Obamacare. We will get one step closer to total control. Wake up people! History has shown us what happens when governments get too much control. Gas chamber anyone? bongsmilie[

History has shown us what happens when wealthy, captalist democracies like ours let our government intervene in a private health insurance system: costs go down,coverage goes up. This you can not deny. Sure, you could say 'But this is America, we are different from those other countries'. But then I could point out the many ways our healthcare system already mimics that of those other countries. Unless of course you have no inurance. Then you might as well be living in a 4th world country /QUOTE]
Click to expand...
This is Anerica. We aren't about spreading the wealth. America is supposed to be a country where anyone can make it. That used to be more true than it is today. I'm not saying we don't have problems. Far from it. Govt. takeover will not solve the problem. The quality of healthcare may suffer. I can't think of one instance where the govt. has taken something over and has done significantly better than the private sector. And what about freedom? Nobody seems to be worried about giving something as large as healthcare to the govt. That shocks me, especially because of the company I'm in. You can't have it both ways. Either we are a free country or we are a socialist one. Once you give healthcare to the govt. they will have all of your info. But privacy laws will protect us right? Doubtful. Look at how hypocritical the govt. is. There is this whole "Do as we say not as we do" mentality. I honestly don't have the answers. I'm not that smart but I feel like Obamacare is the next step to total control. Maybe I'm wrong but the trend we are in says otherwise. :eyesmoke:
Click to expand...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top