Democrat Health Plan Trainwreck vote to begin 1AM Monday

[celtic_crippler]

Yep, and according to what I heard on the news some time ago, we are just as productive per person per year as the Americans. It probably comes from the fact that if you can have more holidays -> less stress -> more relaxed personnel -> more productive personnel.

In total, I have about 40 paid holidays per year.

I don't believe there's anything in the bill about forcing employers to give employees extra days off... though that would be nice; however, I shudder to think of the revenue lost if I were out that much.

 

[Gordon Nore]

Clarification, please.

As I understand it, the bill has passed both the House and Senate. However, these bodies have essentially voted on two different versions of the bill, as they make their changes. Now it goes to a joint committee to reconcile the two. Correct, so far?

Here's the question. After these two bills become one, couldn't you end up with something even more problematic? If the response is negative enough -- as with the illegal immigration bill from a couple of years back -- do you think there's a chance the President won't sign it?

 

[Steve]

Just to be clear, though, this isn't the reform that "liberals" want. This bill is stinky, and many people (myself included) hope that our senators and congressmen kill this bill and start over rather than pass it and make the insurance companies even richer.

Joe Lieberman is a snake.

 

[cdunn]

Clarification, please.

As I understand it, the bill has passed both the House and Senate. However, these bodies have essentially voted on two different versions of the bill, as they make their changes. Now it goes to a joint committee to reconcile the two. Correct, so far?

Here's the question. After these two bills become one, couldn't you end up with something even more problematic? If the response is negative enough -- as with the illegal immigration bill from a couple of years back -- do you think there's a chance the President won't sign it?

IIRC, and I may not, the reconciled bill has to pass through both Houses of the Congress once again, before it gets sent on to the President. It may not even make as far as him.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Clarification, please.

As I understand it, the bill has passed both the House and Senate. However, these bodies have essentially voted on two different versions of the bill, as they make their changes. Now it goes to a joint committee to reconcile the two. Correct, so far?

Here's the question. After these two bills become one, couldn't you end up with something even more problematic? If the response is negative enough -- as with the illegal immigration bill from a couple of years back -- do you think there's a chance the President won't sign it?

Gordon,
First the House passes their version of a bill. It then goes to the Senate where it's further tweaked. If it passes there, it then goes to a committee that blends the 2 into 1, which is then sent back to both branches to vote on.
If both groups vote in favor, it then goes to the President who will rubber stamp it into law.
Unless he vetos it, in which case it gets tossed back down stairs for a revote which must pass it at 3/4th yea to override the veto.

The bill before the Senate is majorly different from the House bill, and if it's chaged too much, theoretically will lose several Senators votes. As we have 100 Senators, it needs 51 Yea votes to pass, 75 to override a Presidential Veto.

Clear?

 

[Gordon Nore]

Gordon,
First the House passes their version of a bill. It then goes to the Senate where it's further tweaked. If it passes there, it then goes to a committee that blends the 2 into 1, which is then sent back to both branches to vote on.
If both groups vote in favor, it then goes to the President who will rubber stamp it into law.
Unless he vetos it, in which case it gets tossed back down stairs for a revote which must pass it at 3/4th yea to override the veto.

The bill before the Senate is majorly different from the House bill, and if it's chaged too much, theoretically will lose several Senators votes. As we have 100 Senators, it needs 51 Yea votes to pass, 75 to override a Presidential Veto.

Clear?

Thanks, Bob. I could not recall how the two bills got to be one again. Do you think there is any chance President Obama might not sign the bill, claiming that Congress mucked it up and it was not what he envisioned?

 

[Bob Hubbard]

nope. He's been strutting around pushed them to pass something so he can use his new pen in front of reporters before Christmas. They could declare Castro a saint on page 3,565 and I'm sure he'd sign it into law.

 

[celtic_crippler]

I think several others are trying to hurry it through because they've been paying attention to various polls and know they probably won't have a job after 2010.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

I think they tried passing it through to bank on Obama's popularity. Little did they know that it would be so unpopular that it had to be re-thought.

They're still trying to bank on what popularity Obama has left. But in this case, they will settle for "less then perfect" because, as we know, once the legislation passes it will never be revoked. Then they can do whatever they want.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Nelson Says More Senators Seeking Special Treatment in Light of Nebraska Deal

 

[zDom]

It WILL be signed into law. Democrats are convinced they are making history.

I agree, kind of. I think they will go down in history as passing one of the worst pieces of crap in U.S. history.

I hope I'm wrong. God help me, I hope I'm wrong.

This "health care reform" better be as good for the American people as Democrats are saying it is or the likely outcome is Dems will be fumbling their ball into the hands of the Republicans.

I just figure I'm screwed for a few years when this passes. Word is I will be forced to purchase insurance I can't possibly afford or face a fine I can't possibly pay.

Can't go to my dad (a physician) for any financial help as he (and thousand of other doctors) will probably retire as a result.

Wonder who the lawyers are going to sue then.

History in the making, indeed.

 

[Andy Moynihan]

A sad thing it is for any patriot to come to the stone cold realization that he will likely live to see his country die before he does.

 

[CoryKS]

Can't go to my dad (a physician) for any financial help as he (and thousand of other doctors) will probably retire as a result.

Wonder who the lawyers are going to sue then.

Maybe the Dems will issue a stop-loss? After all, health care is a right, all other individual rights being secondary.

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Welcome home facism...

 

[Sukerkin]

I am most assuredly not going to come steaming into this discourse with liberal minded, Socialist, broadsides blazing but could one of our fine American members lay out for me why what is, to me, an entirely laudible endeavour, seen as such a doom-laden change?

I mean such a question in the least provocative way imaginable - I simply do not understand ?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

I am most assuredly not going to come steaming into this discourse with liberal minded, Socialist, broadsides blazing but could one of our fine American members lay out for me why what is, to me, an entirely laudible endeavour, seen as such a doom-laden change?

I mean such a question in the least provocative way imaginable - I simply do not understand ?

Here's the situation through my eyes anyway:

What you have here is a Federal power grab disguised as health care reform. No one is against "health care reform" in and of itself, just against *THIS* specific bill because it is a terrible, and arguably illegal, bill, because Congress is arrogating to themselves a power not granted by the Constitution, that being to force the entire American people to purchase any good or service of any kind. That is what Communist states do, not Republics.

The simple fact that, as someone stated earlier, no one who wants the bill passed has even READ, and REFUSES to read, the 3000 plus page bill ought to be a serious red flag for any citizen no matter their party.

When called on the UnConstitutionality, and possible (*cough*) illegality of such a change, those pushing for it did not even answer the question, just expressed disbelief and anger that we poor peasants would dare even question them. They have forgotten who they work for.

This, quite understandably, puts many of us to question how much longer our Republic will last if they can get away with such a precedent.

Hope that helps.

 

[Sukerkin]

Cheers, Andy. That puts it in terms I can understand most clearly.

You chaps know your own political environment far better than I can (altho distance does lend perspective often times), so I shall not disagree that a national health service, when used as a wedge for something less laudible, is a bad thing.

Is there not a way that 'The People' (TM) can obtain an American NHS without the unwanted baggage of unconstitutional change?

 

[5-0 Kenpo]

Cheers, Andy. That puts it in terms I can understand most clearly.

You chaps know your own political environment far better than I can (altho distance does lend perspective often times), so I shall not disagree that a national health service, when used as a wedge for something less laudible, is a bad thing.

Is there not a way that 'The People' (TM) can obtain an American NHS without the unwanted baggage of unconstitutional change?

Well, they are arguing that it is Constitutional, though I severly disagree.

What would essentially be required is a Constitutional Amendment. They won't do that because the process usually takes years, and they want to shove it down our throats while they still have the political capital to do so.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

NO one in America is without access to health care. Walk into any hospital, and you can obtain treatment. What this bill seeks to do is FORCE everyone in the US to BUY a service, in this case health insurance. It doesn't give it to you, it forces you to buy it or be punished. Our problem, the high cost of care is not being addressed. This is in my opinion on par with people complaining about the high cost of suit coats, and being forced to shop at Walmart or face jail. Not a perfect comparison but it's similar.

Under our constitution, anything not specified as the responsibility of the Federal government is left to the individual states to handle. The Constitution doesn't specify health care as a Federal responsibility. Those pushing for this bill are ignoring that, refusing to read the bill, engaging in unethical actions (buying votes) to push this through, despite 65% of the population not wanting what they are pushing on us.
Theres alot more, but that's the crux of it, plus Andy's excellent description.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Well, they are arguing that it is Constitutional, though I severly disagree.

What would essentially be required is a Constitutional Amendment. They won't do that because the process usually takes years, and they want to shove it down our throats while they still have the political capital to do so.

Bingo.