GOP Healthcare Blunder

[Foxfyre]

btw - if you don't know what's in the proposal and what is left to be negotiated and what funding mechanisms have been included - you just haven't been paying attention.

Again I am major impressed that YOU know when extremely few, if any, Senators or Congressmen have read it, none will attempt to explain any details in it, and at least some are honest enough to admit that nobody without a battery of lawyers to interpret it will be able to understand it. For the life of me I can't understand how anybody who loves America and loves freedom is comfortable with allowing government bureaucrats have free rein to interpret and manipulate an enormous piece of legislation like this that no reputable economist or legal scholar can endorse.

 

[amrchaos]

"Parts" is not a complete bill.

Thanks for your concession that there is in fact no bill.

I guess this is more a question of syntax.

When you say the "final Bill", are you asking what is the final Health care package is?

Or are you making reference to each individual bill that makes up the final Health Care package?

If it is the fomer, no one knows what that is until after all the bills have been voted on.

If you are referring to the latter, then yes, each individual bill is pretty much decided, except in the cases where new bills are introduced and not considered. The new bills, unless they are a compromise and agreed upon before hand, are most likely to be voted down.

I guess this is a matter of spin and bullshit.

There is in fact no bill.

Spin is an attempt to focus an audience on only one perspective that favors a position.

If we take in several perspectives, then there is no such thing as a final bill except in cases if there is only one bill, with language intact and no add-ons during the process of passing the bill, is presented.


Then if we consider the fact that language can be changed , and ammendments to the bill can be introduced in the process, then there is never a final bill until after a bill is voted on.


Thus Congress never considers a final Bill until after the process of voting a Bill into(or not into) law has been settled.


When we consider this perspective, there is not a problem in the fact that there exist no Final Bill regarding Heatlh care Reform/UHC or whatever you wish to call it.

That is, of course, we wish to follow this perspective to some form of formative understanding.

 

[Misty]

Do you want the government to give you free healthcare?
Do you want the government to buy you a home?
Do you want the government to take complete care and the feeding of you?

You can have it all. Join the miltary

 

[nodoginnafight]

btw - if you don't know what's in the proposal and what is left to be negotiated and what funding mechanisms have been included - you just haven't been paying attention.

Again I am major impressed that YOU know when extremely few, if any, Senators or Congressmen have read it, none will attempt to explain any details in it, and at least some are honest enough to admit that nobody without a battery of lawyers to interpret it will be able to understand it. For the life of me I can't understand how anybody who loves America and loves freedom is comfortable with allowing government bureaucrats have free rein to interpret and manipulate an enormous piece of legislation like this that no reputable economist or legal scholar can endorse.

Not impressive at all - most senators and representatives have probably read a plethora of drafts, amendments and proposals that they have participated in including or rejecting. And they've talked a lot about all of them throughout the process.

Just because YOU may not have been paying attention, don't assume that NOBODY has. It's equally absurd to claim that "no reputable" economists nor legal scholars have endorsed the bill. Perhaps you just choose to withdraw YOUR opinion of what is reputable based on their agreement with you???? And you admit that you don't know anything about the bill - so why should your opinion of it be given any weight whatsoever.

If you know nothing about the bill (as you have stated) then what do you base your criticism upon? What some talking head TOLD you to think?

There are parts of this bill that I'm not happy about - but I'm not gonna try to pretend it's some big secret. I KNOW what I don't like that is on the table.

 

[Claudette]

In order to believe the spin presented in the article, one would have to believe that the President and/or the Democrats in Congress give a tinkers dam about anybody other than themselves, their own interests, their own power, and their own personal wealth. I have no such belief.

If they did give a damn about really improving things and/or making things better for others, they would have subjected themselves to the legislation they are attempting to push onto the rest of us. And they would have done it above board, honorably, and in the full light because they were proud of it. They wouldn't be dodging and weaving and spinning and delaying implementation until after the next elections.

They truly do believe we are all ignorant, gullible, manageable kool-ade drinkers or else we have too short memories to blame them when the worst of this becomes obvious to all. I think I resent that about this more than anything else.

Couldnt' agree more. The fact that the first thing they did was to exempt themselves from the primo healthcare plan told me all I need to know about it.

They do think we are all stupid and gullible. Hate to disappoint the assholes.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Text of H.R.3962 as Placed on Calendar Senate: Affordable Health Care for America Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

btw - if folks really are interested in seeing what was introduced. Of course amendments and changes have been proposed so it you want the exact final proposal - you're going to HAVE to pay attention and keep up.

 

[Claudette]

The GOP's big health care 'blunder' - THE WEEK

"The GOP messed up big-time: This healthcare bill is a "staggering achievement" by the Democrats — but "it never would have happened if the Republican Party had played its cards right," says Jonathan Chait at The New Republic. From the start Dems were "desperate" for a bipartisan bill. "A few GOP defectors could have lured a chunk of Democrats to sign something far more limited than what President Obama is going to
sign." "

Yes. Staggering, thats the word for it.

 

[rightwinger]

"In the end, when the history of the health care debate is written, I don’t think any of the choices that G.O.P. lawmakers made this year will loom particularly large. The choices that they made, or didn’t make, across the last fifteen years are what made all the difference. Between the defeat of Clintoncare and the election of Barack Obama, the Republicans had plenty of chances to take ownership of the health care issue and pass a significant reform along more free-market, cost-effective lines. They didn’t. The system deteriorated on their watch instead. And now they’re suffering the consequences."

 

[Oddball]

Text of H.R.3962 as Placed on Calendar Senate: Affordable Health Care for America Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

btw - if folks really are interested in seeing what was introduced. Of course amendments and changes have been proposed so it you want the exact final proposal - you're going to HAVE to pay attention and keep up.

That's the bill form the HoR, puddinhead....The tip-off was the "H.R." in the title.

Why not just admit that the Senate in fact has no bill upon which to vote?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Placed on "SENATE CALENDAR."







Pause allowed for dude to remove foot from mouth.

Haven't you been following the progression of the bill?

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then post a link to the complete bill, asshelmet.

Oh yeah....There ain't one.

Text of H.R.3962 as Placed on Calendar Senate: Affordable Health Care for America Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

oooopsie daisy

 

[Oddball]

Translation:

There

Is

No

Senate

Bill

 

[nodoginnafight]

Then post a link to the complete bill, asshelmet.

Oh yeah....There ain't one.

Text of H.R.3962 as Placed on Calendar Senate: Affordable Health Care for America Act - U.S. Congress - OpenCongress

oooopsie daisy

how embarassing for you.

 

[nodoginnafight]

"IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES—111th Cong., 1st Sess.
H. R. 3590"

http://i.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2009/images/11/18/hcbill.pdf


how very emabarassing for you

 

[MarcATL]

In order to believe the spin presented in the article, one would have to believe that the President and/or the Democrats in Congress give a tinkers dam about anybody other than themselves, their own interests, their own power, and their own personal wealth. I have no such belief.

If they did give a damn about really improving things and/or making things better for others, they would have subjected themselves to the legislation they are attempting to push onto the rest of us. And they would have done it above board, honorably, and in the full light because they were proud of it. They wouldn't be dodging and weaving and spinning and delaying implementation until after the next elections.

They truly do believe we are all ignorant, gullible, manageable kool-ade drinkers or else we have too short memories to blame them when the worst of this becomes obvious to all. I think I resent that about this more than anything else.

This is nothing but pure, unadulterated, partisan hogwash.

The minute one starts an argument like "well the other side doesn't care about anyone other than themselves" its guaranteed BS.

 

[nodoginnafight]

Last note (I hope) on the issue. The reason the Senate bill carries a H.R. Title:

"The Constitution is clear about revenue legislation but does not directly address appropriations, or spending, measures. Extending the House's right to originate to the spending category has been a matter of long dispute between the House and the Senate. The Senate has repeatedly asserted its right to originate spending legislation, adopted resolutions to that end, even called for commissions to study the dispute. However, the House has a different perspective. House precedents have defined "revenue measures" to include general appropriations bills, claiming that at the time the Constitution was adopted, "raising revenue" meant "raising money and appropriating the same."

So, whenever the Senate does initiate appropriations legislation, the House practice is to return it to the Senate with a blue piece of paper attached citing a constitutional infringement of House prerogatives. The practice of returning such bills and amendments to the Senate without action is known as "blue-slipping."

Without House action, Senate-initiated spending legislation cannot make it into law. So in practice, the Senate rarely attempts to initiate such bills anymore, and if it does, the House is diligent about returning them. Regardless of one's opinion of the correct interpretation of the Constitutional provision, the House refusal to consider such Senate legislation settles the matter in practice."

C-SPAN's Capitol Questions

Hopefully, now that we've now dispensed with some of the radical right's noise that they have embarassed themselves with (ironically in an attempt to divert attention AWAY from the embarassment they anticipate upon the passage of a health care bill) we can resume the pertinent conversation.

 

[Oddball]

Nine pages?!?!?!????

PPPPFFFFFTTTT!

Do you even look at your links?

 

[nodoginnafight]

enjoy your civics lesson dude?

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

Actually, it's 2074 pages. Did you only count the ones with pretty pictures for you to color?

 

[Oddball]

Flunk your mathematics lesson?

Nine pages out of upwards of 2,000 is not a complete bill.

 

[nodoginnafight]

enjoy your civics lesson dude?

http://democrats.senate.gov/reform/patient-protection-affordable-care-act.pdf

actually, it's 2074 pages. Did you only count the ones with pretty pictures for you to color?

lol