Slaughter solution

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Great example! 50 pts. for you! 🙂

I was listening to Lavine tonight and he said that if they try this he will be waiting. As soon as they try it he will file law suits in what should be a very entertaining legal battle.

Originally posted by whodey
You would have agreed with this last June but not now? You sound like Democrat Congressmen who favor Obamacare one minute and then oppose it the next or vice versa in only a matter of months or days!! With such uncertainty and confusion, why are we in such a hurry? Is it because Medicare and Medicaid are going belly up? If so, how is this bill going to be ...[text shortened]... ushing to pass a bigger and better plan of what has already been deemed a failure by both sides?

Do you actually believe the BS you type?

It's news to me that Medicare and Medicaid have been "deemed failures by both sides". Both sides of what? The aisle at the last Tea Party?

Originally posted by whodey
I was listening to Lavine tonight and he said that if they try this he will be waiting. As soon as they try it he will file law suits in what should be a very entertaining legal battle.

What a brilliant political move that would be. It will be about as successful as a lawsuit trying to declare filibusters unconstitutional and it will enhance the public's opinion of Republicans as unrepentant obstructionists (Republicans in Congress have far lower approval ratings than Obama and a bit lower approval ratings than the Democrats).

Originally posted by whodey
And then after they say the corruption in the legislation they passed and were appalled, the people of MA voted in Senator Brown to try and reverse course.

And the present reconciliation bill will remove the objectionable provisions that favored specific States. So I guess Scotty will have to vote for it (just like he voted for the jobs bill, which must have drove you even crazier than you were).

Originally posted by whodey
You would have agreed with this last June but not now? You sound like Democrat Congressmen who favor Obamacare one minute and then oppose it the next or vice versa in only a matter of months or days!! With such uncertainty and confusion, why are we in such a hurry? Is it because Medicare and Medicaid are going belly up? If so, how is this bill going to be ...[text shortened]... ushing to pass a bigger and better plan of what has already been deemed a failure by both sides?

How can you look at the current healthcare reform debate and claim that anyone is in a hurry? Snails move faster than this. Back in June, when the discussion about the healthcare bill had just begun, there was reason to argue that we needed more time to discuss the issue.

Since then, there have been committee meetings, floor debates, tea party protests, coffee party events, petitions, town hall meetings, letters to the editor, daily news coverage, daily updates by your talkshow host of choice, in-depth analyses by various experts, blogs galore, countless threads on RHP, speeches by Obama, a healthcare summit, an infinity of commercials, and more. How much more time do we need?

Do you, personally, really want to sit through three or four more months of this? Do you think there's anything that could possibly change your own position (or anyone else's position) on this? Is there anything you, yourself, have not yet done to make your own voice heard on this subject?

Originally posted by Hugh Glass
when it comes to getting something done right, can there be a time frame?
All I want to know, is:
1. cost, not a guestimate, a true cost
2. exactly what/when each phase of this plan starts. What I see is most does not happen for 4 years.Is that a truth?
3. exactly how it is paid for, not some figured pulled from the thin air, of how this plan will tri ...[text shortened]... n said that he presented his plan, but it was not chosen,,, when he comes home I'll call him.

On Feb 26, Politifact.com posted these articles providing the sort of information you're interested in. (USArmyParatrooper posted these a couple weeks ago)

Dem's plan -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/

GOP's plan -- http://www.politifact.com/truth-o-meter/article/2010/feb/26/gop-health-care-reform-simple-explanation-updated/

Originally posted by whodey
I was listening to Lavine tonight and he said that if they try this he will be waiting. As soon as they try it he will file law suits in what should be a very entertaining legal battle.

Very entertaining indeed when the Republican Minority Leader has conceded the procedure is consistent with House rules:

Hoyer's Republican counterpart, Rep. Eric Cantor, acknowledged that such a process is permissible under House rules. Under the procedure, a Senate-passed health bill would be "deemed" to have passed if House members voted in favor of a rule governing a separate bill with amendments to it.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/35909723/ns/politics-health_care_reform/


Thinking about it, the whole hysterical objection is contrived and ridiculous. If a bill or rule has language in it which says something to the effect of: "Upon passage of this bill [or rule], Senate Bill X is deemed to be passed" that is a vote to pass SB X.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Very entertaining indeed when the Republican Minority Leader has conceded the procedure is consistent with House rules:

Hoyer's Republican counterpart, Rep. Eric Cantor, acknowledged that such a process is permissible under House rules. Under the procedure, a Senate-passed health bill would be "deemed" to have passed if House members voted in favor of ...[text shortened]... of this bill [or rule], Senate Bill X is deemed to be passed" that is a vote to pass SB X.

Except, to my understanding it is unconstitutional.

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

"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 approve 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..."

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Except, to my understanding it is unconstitutional.

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

"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 approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objec ...[text shortened]... g for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively..." [/b]

Apparently so long as a Republican or Republicans say it is Constitutinoal there is no need to question it. I'm just gland that people like Lavine are out there to stand up to these statists in both parties. Being a Constitutional lawyer and from what I have heard from him, I think he has the ability to run intellectual laps around these elected officials.

Originally posted by no1marauder
Do you actually believe the BS you type?

It's news to me that Medicare and Medicaid have been "deemed failures by both sides". Both sides of what? The aisle at the last Tea Party?

Actaully it came from Obama as he was trying to sell Obamacare. He was saying that Medicare/Medicaid will go belly up in about 10 years if nothing is done. I can provide the link if you wish.

In fact, he said there is a 3000% chance of this happening. 😛

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Except, to my understanding it is unconstitutional.

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

"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 approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objec ...[text shortened]... g for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively..." [/b]

If even Eric Kantor, who seems to have a problem with everything the Dems do, doesn't have a problem with the procedure, then it really must be a minor issue. The procedure has been used in the past, and so far the Supreme Court has yet to object.

But the Dems should drop it anyway because it serves them no purpose. If the intent is to somehow "hide" their vote on the bill, it's NOT going to work. The opposition candidate will make it clear they they indeed DID vote on the bill, and any explanation that "all I did was vote on a rule" will just make them look silly.

The main problem is that its one of those arcane rules that Congress has created for itself that no one but legal junkies really understands. I would definitely support a major effort by Congress to eliminate or at least simplify as many of these rules as possible.

Originally posted by utherpendragon
Except, to my understanding it is unconstitutional.

U.S Constitution, Article I, Section VII, Clause II.

"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 approve he shall sign it, but if not he shall return it, with his Objec ...[text shortened]... g for and against the Bill shall be entered on the Journal of each House respectively..." [/b]

Your understanding, as in so many cases, is sadly deficient. I repeat:

If a bill or rule has language in it which says something to the effect of: "Upon passage of this bill [or rule], Senate Bill X is deemed to be passed" that is a vote to pass SB X.

Since this procedure is conceded to be a valid rule of the House by both parties, you might want to read Article I, Section 5 rather than some right wing blog: Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings

Originally posted by Melanerpes
If even Eric Kantor, who seems to have a problem with everything the Dems do, doesn't have a problem with the procedure, then it really must be a minor issue. The procedure has been used in the past, and so far the Supreme Court has yet to object.

But the Dems should drop it anyway because it serves them no purpose. If the intent is to somehow "hide" t ...[text shortened]... r effort by Congress to eliminate or at least simplify as many of these rules as possible.

Since the rule is valid and has been used by both parties in the past, if it gets them a few wavering votes that they need they should use it. I agree in principle with you, but not everybody in Congress is 100% rational. The nut jobbers are going to come up with some reason to file a suit (they're still claiming the income tax is unconstitutional or Obama was born in Kenya) anyway.