Reconciliation On Health Care (or anything else), How Can You Defend It?

[Lonestar_logic]

I'm wondering WHY reconciliation is coming under the microscope now? Where was all of this attention when the GOP rammed through $1TRILLION in tax cuts for the wealthy using this tactic? Do none of you care how hypocritical you look right now?

Speaking of hypocrites.



Democrats led by President Obama are moving forward seeking to ram their version of health care reform through Congress using the reconciliation process that allows them both to stifle Republican filibusters and to gain passage with only 50 Senate votes, plus that of Vice President Joe Biden, who presides over the Senate and votes only in cases of ties.

But instead of calling it "reconciliation," Obama and other Democrats are now calling it "a simply majority." Call it what they will, the fact remains they had a different view of reconciliation when it was a Republican majority using it to pass measures advocated by President George W. Bush.

Here's the case Obama made today for using reconciliation to pass his health care reform:

"Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority."

But here's what then-Senator Obama had to say in 2005 about reforms in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program that he and other Democrats opposed:

“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

President Obama, meet Senator Obama on reconciliation | Washington Examiner

 

[maineman]

What are you babbling about? Read the rules in the Senate that refer to what can and cannot be voted on with a simple majority aka reconciliation.

you are aware, are you not, that senate rules are written on paper and not chiseled in stone? you are aware that the congressional parliamentarian has not stated that the use of reconciliation in this matter is in violation of the senate rules... nor did he when reconciliation was used to pass Bush's enormous deficit raising tax cuts for rich folks.

You are aware that we haven't heard about any changes to the Senate rules regarding the use of reconciliation or what requires a 60 vote majority and what doesn't when you CHANGE A BILL FROM IT'S ORIGINAL FORM THAT WAS PASSED WITH 60 VOTES.
You are also aware of the Medicaid program right?
You are also aware of the definition of promote vs. provide right?

What senate rule specifically states that reconciliation may not be used to pass minor housekeeping issues that fix objections that the house may have with specific and limited portions of an already passed bill?

Go ahead and post the text of that rule so we all can see it.

 

[Claudette]

That is not true cluadette

What the overwhelming majority of americans, including myself, are in favor of is health care reform. However the majority of americans do not favor this specific bill.

Care4All and I disagree on some of the types of reform needed but we both agree reform is needed and this bill isn't good.

I thought thats what I said Plym. "A good majority of Americans are not in favor of this bill". YOur right. This bill isn't good at all.

I, like you and many others, want reform. Not this giant clusterfuck they are trying to shove down our throats.

Fix whats wrong. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

have you read the bill? what "baby" is being thrown out by this measure?

I sure am trying . I'm part way through it but man, talk about tough reading. You??

 

[VaYank5150]

I'm wondering WHY reconciliation is coming under the microscope now? Where was all of this attention when the GOP rammed through $1TRILLION in tax cuts for the wealthy using this tactic? Do none of you care how hypocritical you look right now?

Speaking of hypocrites.



Democrats led by President Obama are moving forward seeking to ram their version of health care reform through Congress using the reconciliation process that allows them both to stifle Republican filibusters and to gain passage with only 50 Senate votes, plus that of Vice President Joe Biden, who presides over the Senate and votes only in cases of ties.

But instead of calling it "reconciliation," Obama and other Democrats are now calling it "a simply majority." Call it what they will, the fact remains they had a different view of reconciliation when it was a Republican majority using it to pass measures advocated by President George W. Bush.

Here's the case Obama made today for using reconciliation to pass his health care reform:

"Reform has already passed the House with a majority. It has already passed the Senate with a supermajority of sixty votes. And now it deserves the same kind of up-or-down vote that was cast on welfare reform, the Children’s Health Insurance Program, COBRA health coverage for the unemployed, and both Bush tax cuts – all of which had to pass Congress with nothing more than a simple majority."

But here's what then-Senator Obama had to say in 2005 about reforms in the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) welfare program that he and other Democrats opposed:

“The TANF program affects millions of American children and families and deserves a full and fair debate. Under the rules, the reconciliation process does not permit that debate. Reconciliation is therefore the wrong place for policy changes and the wrong place for the proposed changes to the TANF program. In short, the reconciliation process appears to have lost its proper meaning. A vehicle designed for deficit reduction and fiscal responsibility has been hijacked to facilitate reckless deficits and unsustainable debt.”

President Obama, meet Senator Obama on reconciliation | Washington Examiner

Obama's rose colored glasses have been cleared by the party of "no". He will not make those same mistakes again. Learn and move on.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Obviously you have never heard of Medicaid/Medicare

I have indeed. Are you admitting that Medicaid and Medicare are examples of the promotion of the general welfare?

That can't be. They already told us we can't read. MediCaid/MediCare could not be examples of PROVIDING general welfar, right?

Yes they are. They are PROMOTING the general welfare of people incapable of providing their own healthcare due to mental incapacity or physical handicaps.....not because they turned down coverage because they feel they don't need it or refuse to get a goddam job and work for a living!

You people really need to wake the fuck up and realize that it's NOT the job of government to take up the slack of you able-bodied freeloaders!!!!!

 

[VaYank5150]

I have indeed. Are you admitting that Medicaid and Medicare are examples of the promotion of the general welfare?

That can't be. They already told us we can't read. MediCaid/MediCare could not be examples of PROVIDING general welfar, right?

Yes they are. They are PROMOTING the general welfare of people incapable of providing their own healthcare due to mental incapacity or physical handicaps.....not because they turned down coverage because they feel they don't need it or refuse to get a goddam job and work for a living!

You people really need to wake the fuck up and realize that it's NOT the job of government to take up the slack of you able-bodied freeloaders!!!!!

So ALL of the Tea Baggers and GOP supporters carrying signs stating "Hands off my MediCare" are able bodied freeloaders now?

 

[maineman]

I have indeed. Are you admitting that Medicaid and Medicare are examples of the promotion of the general welfare?

That can't be. They already told us we can't read. MediCaid/MediCare could not be examples of PROVIDING general welfar, right?

Yes they are. They are PROMOTING the general welfare of people incapable of providing their own healthcare due to mental incapacity or physical handicaps.....not because they turned down coverage because they feel they don't need it or refuse to get a goddam job and work for a living!

You people really need to wake the fuck up and realize that it's NOT the job of government to take up the slack of you able-bodied freeloaders!!!!!

so...you get to arbitrarily decide that medicare and medicaid are acceptable examples of PROMOTING general welfare, but expanding coverage to more americans, restricting insurance companies from capping claims or denying coverage for preexisting conditions is somehow NOT promoting the general welfare? Have I got that right?

 

[maineman]

I thought thats what I said Plym. "A good majority of Americans are not in favor of this bill". YOur right. This bill isn't good at all.

I, like you and many others, want reform. Not this giant clusterfuck they are trying to shove down our throats.

Fix whats wrong. Don't throw the baby out with the bathwater.

have you read the bill? what "baby" is being thrown out by this measure?

I sure am trying . I'm part way through it but man, talk about tough reading. You??

I read a synopsis provided by my congresswoman's office. Any luck on describing what "baby" is being thrown out with the bathwater by this bill?

 

[PatekPhilippe]

That can't be. They already told us we can't read. MediCaid/MediCare could not be examples of PROVIDING general welfar, right?

Yes they are. They are PROMOTING the general welfare of people incapable of providing their own healthcare due to mental incapacity or physical handicaps.....not because they turned down coverage because they feel they don't need it or refuse to get a goddam job and work for a living!

You people really need to wake the fuck up and realize that it's NOT the job of government to take up the slack of you able-bodied freeloaders!!!!!

so...you get to arbitrarily decide that medicare and medicaid are acceptable examples of PROMOTING general welfare, but expanding coverage to more americans, restricting insurance companies from capping claims or denying coverage for preexisting conditions is somehow NOT promoting the general welfare? Have I got that right?

No...you got that wrong as usual...
When you have people who are incapable of taking care of their own healthcare due to them having disabilities it's the responsibility of the government to take care of their needs. Got that?
When you have people who ARE capable of taking care of themselves and yet refuse to buy health insurance...FUCK THEM!!! It's not my job to provide for your health care needs because you're too fucking lazy to work for them. You got that?
Not one Republican says there shouldn't be some sort of health care reform. What they are saying is the current bills in front of the Congress are NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO FIX IT!!!! You got that?

 

[Missourian]

wanna bet? I'll bet you $20K that the USA will not do a single one of those things in 2012.

When the Republicans win Congress (probably 100 seat pick up in 2010) and the Presidency in 2012, you will have to reconcile yourself to this.

so... in other words, you're too chicken to bet? I understand. As my grandfather used to say, all hat and no cattle.

Why wouldn't Republicans pass all those things by reconciliation?

 

[maineman]

Yes they are. They are PROMOTING the general welfare of people incapable of providing their own healthcare due to mental incapacity or physical handicaps.....not because they turned down coverage because they feel they don't need it or refuse to get a goddam job and work for a living!

You people really need to wake the fuck up and realize that it's NOT the job of government to take up the slack of you able-bodied freeloaders!!!!!

so...you get to arbitrarily decide that medicare and medicaid are acceptable examples of PROMOTING general welfare, but expanding coverage to more americans, restricting insurance companies from capping claims or denying coverage for preexisting conditions is somehow NOT promoting the general welfare? Have I got that right?

No...you got that wrong as usual...
When you have people who are incapable of taking care of their own healthcare due to them having disabilities it's the responsibility of the government to take care of their needs. Got that?
When you have people who ARE capable of taking care of themselves and yet refuse to buy health insurance...FUCK THEM!!! It's not my job to provide for your health care needs because you're too fucking lazy to work for them. You got that?
Not one Republican says there shouldn't be some sort of health care reform. What they are saying is the current bills in front of the Congress are NOT THE RIGHT WAY TO FIX IT!!!! You got that?

that is your opinion. I disagree. you got THAT???? good.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Well Yank, I'm always willing to read and consider the argument of others, do you think any of those dancing to the Henny Penny Polka would be willilng to take a break and actually explain what the founders meant by "provide the general welfare"; I'm always willing to listen to rational argument, sans emotion.

No explanation needed its right there in the language.

PROVIDE for the common defense
PROMOTE the general welfare

They differentiated rigth there. One must be provided, the other must be encouraged (promote is not the same as provide)

are you suggesting that providing some baseline level of marginal support is NOT promoting general welfare? Are you suggesting that some small degree of provision is precluded by language from the various tactics that might be employed to promote such welfare?

Re-read what you type. you said PROVIDING...the constitution says promoting .

I am indeed implying that the government was not given the power to actually provide for the general welfare due to the language. If the language read Provide for the general defence, provide for the general welfare you would be right. However it does not say that.

 

[maineman]

When the Republicans win Congress (probably 100 seat pick up in 2010) and the Presidency in 2012, you will have to reconcile yourself to this.

so... in other words, you're too chicken to bet? I understand. As my grandfather used to say, all hat and no cattle.

Why wouldn't Republicans pass all those things by reconciliation?

I dunno...maybe because they want to remain a viable political party? just a guess.

but if you want a piece of that bet, just say so.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Reconciliation On Health Care (or anything else), How Can You Defend It?

Easy.

Just say "Mom, the other kid did it too!" over and over. No matter that it totally belies the "change" mantra. That went out the window long ago.

Sadly MM I have seen this used as a justification across the board in other threads. We all know Bush admin sucked so why would we point to it to back up Obama admin's bad behavior?

 

[maineman]

No explanation needed its right there in the language.

PROVIDE for the common defense
PROMOTE the general welfare

They differentiated rigth there. One must be provided, the other must be encouraged (promote is not the same as provide)

are you suggesting that providing some baseline level of marginal support is NOT promoting general welfare? Are you suggesting that some small degree of provision is precluded by language from the various tactics that might be employed to promote such welfare?

Re-read what you type. you said PROVIDING...the constitution says promoting .

I am indeed implying that the government was not given the power to actually provide for the general welfare due to the language. If the language read Provide for the general defence, provide for the general welfare you would be right. However it does not say that.

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Why do you refuse to see that changes to the Bill other than budgetary items require a 60 vote majority?

show me that requirement in the constitution.

Good luck with this one. Now, the spin and name calling will begin.

Once again people are getting off on tangents that dont relate to what I'm saying. You need a 3/5ths vote to END DEBATE in the senate. They can't just go for reconciliation in an effort to shut down the debate, that is not how the rules are set up. I provided a link from projectvotesmart.com which explains very clearly what the senate rules are.

The current senate/admin pushing for this is as wrong as the last one when they wanted to do it against the rules.

The only time you can ignore the 3/5's rule to end debate, under the rules of reconciliation, is with a budget item. This is a new piece of legislation that creates a new beurocracy. When they have to vote on the budget that includes any health care bill that might get passed THEN they can use reconciliation.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

are you suggesting that providing some baseline level of marginal support is NOT promoting general welfare? Are you suggesting that some small degree of provision is precluded by language from the various tactics that might be employed to promote such welfare?

Re-read what you type. you said PROVIDING...the constitution says promoting .

I am indeed implying that the government was not given the power to actually provide for the general welfare due to the language. If the language read Provide for the general defence, provide for the general welfare you would be right. However it does not say that.

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

if we "provide a bit of it for those folks who need some help" then we are providing the general welfare, not promoting it.

 

[VaYank5150]

Re-read what you type. you said PROVIDING...the constitution says promoting .

I am indeed implying that the government was not given the power to actually provide for the general welfare due to the language. If the language read Provide for the general defence, provide for the general welfare you would be right. However it does not say that.

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

if we "provide a bit of it for those folks who need some help" then we are providing the general welfare, not promoting it.

So, you agree that MediCaid/MediCare is unConstituional?

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

if we "provide a bit of it for those folks who need some help" then we are providing the general welfare, not promoting it.

So, you agree that MediCaid/MediCare is unConstituional?

Yes in addition to welfare and social security.

Also our progressive tax system is unconstitutional.

 

[maineman]

Re-read what you type. you said PROVIDING...the constitution says promoting .

I am indeed implying that the government was not given the power to actually provide for the general welfare due to the language. If the language read Provide for the general defence, provide for the general welfare you would be right. However it does not say that.

one of the ways of promoting the GENERAL welfare is by providing a bit of it for those folks who need some help. sorry.

if we "provide a bit of it for those folks who need some help" then we are providing the general welfare, not promoting it.

I disagree. If, for example, I PROVIDE free condoms to AIDS infected prostitutes and encourage them to have their johns use them, I a PROMOTING the GENERAL welfare of society as a whole. got it? good.