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

[Wry Catcher]

Currently, there is not a single US citizen that does not have a guaranteed access to healthcare.

You are referring to emergency care. Emergency care does nothing to "promote the general welfare" and you are old enough to know better.

I am not referring to emergency care.
For example.....
If one needs a H1N1 shot, they can get it at no cost

So, who pays for H1N1 research and shots? And, I wonder, what of the person with a persistent cough who doesn't go for a check up/physical because s/he lacks insurance and can't afford to see a doctor? Do you want infectious persons walking, talking and (gasp) kissing the healthy? Going to school with your kids or grandkids?
I really believe the entrie conservative argument is a canard, with appeals to emotion and avarice without due consideration for the consquences.

 

[maineman]

so you'd be OK with a 51 to 50 vote in favor of making abortion illegal again?

Or the same margin reinstating the draft?

Or the same margin tampering with the bill of rights?

After all Mob rule is the essence of a democratic republic right?

abortion illegal? not a legislative issue... but a judical one.

the draft? no problem

the bill of rights? the constitution is quite clear on the procedures for amending the constitution.

legislation before congress? I am perfectly fine with a simple majority... and so is the constitution.

All laws are first a legislative issue

How about making slavery legal again by a 51 vote majority?

And since this so called health care reform bill will be tantamount to calling health care a right, should it not be treated as a Constitutional amendment?

go ahead and make slavery legal when the GOP next comes to power. The supremes will toss it out in a new york minute....same with outlawing abortion. and your opinion as to the special nature of health care is just that... and opinion

 

[maineman]

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.

So Democrat will remain a viable political party when they use reconciliation to pass their agenda...but the Republicans wouldn't.

our agenda? we are using reconciliation to pass health care reform. If you want to use it to pass the plethora of conservative agenda items on which I was commenting, go right ahead. I dare ya.

 

[Skull Pilot]

abortion illegal? not a legislative issue... but a judical one.

the draft? no problem

the bill of rights? the constitution is quite clear on the procedures for amending the constitution.

legislation before congress? I am perfectly fine with a simple majority... and so is the constitution.

All laws are first a legislative issue

How about making slavery legal again by a 51 vote majority?

And since this so called health care reform bill will be tantamount to calling health care a right, should it not be treated as a Constitutional amendment?

go ahead and make slavery legal when the GOP next comes to power. The supremes will toss it out in a new york minute....same with outlawing abortion. and your opinion as to the special nature of health care is just that... and opinion

You're the one saying a 1 vote margin in the Senate is just fine not me.

I am merely opening the proverbial can of worms so you can look inside.

Reconciliation is a bad policy. Period. It flat out flies in the face of the Constitution.

But you are obviously one of the partisan hack idiots here who would be fine with a 1 vote majority as long as it was for something with which you agreed.

 

[Care4all]

I agree with what Obama said during his run for the presidency. He was clearly against reconcilation when the repubs wanted to use this for judicial appointments!!!! Of was he lying when he said that? He said it numerous times in many speeches what happened to change his views? is this an example of a Kerry FLIP FLOP or a LIE!!!!!!!!!!!!!! The true identity of Obama is being revealed. Liar, imposter, fraud!!!

it definitely SHOULD NOT be used on supreme court justice appointment...they have lifetime positions once appointed and have nothing to do with budget or money!

 

[boedicca]

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement.

got a link?

You can't use a search engine?


If that question is decided in the affirmative by three-fifths of the Senators duly chosen and sworn -- except on a measure or motion to amend the Senate rules, in which case the necessary affirmative vote shall be two-thirds of the Senators present and voting -- then said measure, motion, or other matter pending before the Senate, or the unfinished business, shall be the unfinished business to the exclusion of all other business until disposed of.

Standing Rules of the United States Senate, Rule XXII - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement - refer to Rule 22.

U.S. Senate: Art & History Home > Origins & Development > Powers & Procedures > Filibuster and Cloture

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

"Each House may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, expel a Member."

if that were written

"Each House, with the Concurrence of two-thirds, may determine the Rules of its Proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly Behavior, and expel a Member."

I would agree with you, English composition teaches that the prepositional phrase following the "and" refers to only that which follows.

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement - refer to Rule 22.

The writers of the Constitution were wise enough to realize that a simple majority is not the way to govern the people.

Which is why we are a constitutional republic and not a constitutional democracy .

 

[boedicca]

which is why we are a constitutional republic and not a constitutional democracy .

qft!

 

[Care4all]

The Rules of the Senate specify the 2/3 requirement - refer to Rule 22.

The writers of the Constitution were wise enough to realize that a simple majority is not the way to govern the people.

Which is why we are a constitutional republic and not a constitutional democracy .

When I grew up, we were taught in school that we were a Democratic Republic, it was never said in the manner of constitutional Republic.

 

[Care4all]

which is why we are a constitutional republic and not a constitutional democracy .

qft!

Boe....here is what i found on the nuclear option

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to change he rules of the filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare a particular Senate procedure, such as the filibuster, unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators or invoking reconciliation. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003;[1][2] proponents later attempted to rebrand it as the constitutional option.[3][4] Other names have included the ExLax option, the Turnip-truck option, and the Byrd option.[5]

Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, within the rules of the Senate, there is a "point of order" rule that can be utilized to nullify the filibuster, the 60 votes

 

[boedicca]

When I grew up, we were taught in school that we were a Democratic Republic, it was never said in the manner of constitutional Republic.

My experience was different - we were taught "federal constitutional republic".

 

[California Girl]

The writers of the Constitution were wise enough to realize that a simple majority is not the way to govern the people.

Which is why we are a constitutional republic and not a constitutional democracy .

When I grew up, we were taught in school that we were a Democratic Republic, it was never said in the manner of constitutional Republic.

Key phrase in your post "We were".

 

[boedicca]

Boe....here is what i found on the nuclear option

In U.S. politics, the nuclear option is an attempt by a majority of the United States Senate to change he rules of the filibuster by invoking a point of order to essentially declare a particular Senate procedure, such as the filibuster, unconstitutional which can be decided by a simple majority, rather than seeking formal cloture with a supermajority of 60 senators or invoking reconciliation. Although it is not provided for in the formal rules of the Senate, the procedure is the subject of a 1957 parliamentary opinion and has been used on several occasions since. Senator Trent Lott (Republican of Mississippi) first called the option "nuclear" in March 2003;[1][2] proponents later attempted to rebrand it as the constitutional option.[3][4] Other names have included the ExLax option, the Turnip-truck option, and the Byrd option.[5]

Nuclear option - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

So, within the rules of the Senate, there is a "point of order" rule that can be utilized to nullify the filibuster, the 60 votes

Thanks - looks to me like they've made things sufficiently complicated to justify whatever stance they wish to make, checks and balances be damned.

It's not comforting.

 

[Care4all]

Which is why we are a constitutional republic and not a constitutional democracy .

When I grew up, we were taught in school that we were a Democratic Republic, it was never said in the manner of constitutional Republic.

Key phrase in your post "We were".

What is a Constitutional republic?

I know what a Democratic republic is, and it is NOT a republic, as in the Republic of Congo, but the term constitutional republic tells me nothing???

what if our constitution said 10 people, who are not voted on democratically, will run the republic?

 

[California Girl]

At the risk of repeating myself, and just because I would really like at least one of the liberals with some integrity on here to answer me this. What changed Obama's view from his stance in 2007 when he said, specifically regarding health care.... that to use the 50 + 1 vote on healthcare was something that he absolutely would not do. In fact he said that if anyone had to use 50 + 1 (or reconciliation if you will, or the nuke option, or a 'straight up and down' vote I believe is the phrase of the day)... if a President had to use 50 + 1 then he had lost the ability to govern. He further said that the President who used this may have airforce one and the perks, but he certainly wasn't the President. So, if this was so abhorrent to him in 2007, why is it ok now?

Please no waffle about Bush or the GOP having used it previously. Basic math confirms that two wrongs do not equal one right.

 

[California Girl]

Even Byrd, the DEM who designed it, disagrees with using it on healthcare.

 

[boedicca]

At the risk of repeating myself, and just because I would really like at least one of the liberals with some integrity on here to answer me this. What changed Obama's view from his stance in 2007 when he said, specifically regarding health care.... that to use the 50 + 1 vote on healthcare was something that he absolutely would not do. In fact he said that if anyone had to use 50 + 1 (or reconciliation if you will, or the nuke option, or a 'straight up and down' vote I believe is the phrase of the day)... if a President had to use 50 + 1 then he had lost the ability to govern. He further said that the President who used this may have airforce one and the perks, but he certainly wasn't the President. So, if this was so abhorrent to him in 2007, why is it ok now?

Please no waffle about Bush or the GOP having used it previously. Basic math confirms that two wrongs do not equal one right.

To be glib:

It's OKAY now because "He Won" and the Dems "Have Obama Now".

Obama said so.

 

[boedicca]

What is a Constitutional republic?

I know what a Democratic republic is, and it is NOT a republic, as in the Republic of Congo, but the term constitutional republic tells me nothing???

what if our constitution said 10 people, who are not voted on democratically, will run the republic?

Originally, we didn't have popular vote for Senators and Representatives, they were appointed by state governments.

Wiki has a pretty good definition of Constitutional Republic, the germane points being a codified Constitution which limits government power - with separation thereof.

A constitutional republic is a state where the head of state and other officials are elected as representatives of the people, and must govern according to existing constitutional law that limits the government's power over citizens.

In a constitutional republic, executive, legislative, and judicial powers are separated into distinct branches and the will of the majority of the population is tempered by protections for individual rights so that no individual or group has absolute power.

The fact that a constitution exists that limits the government's power makes the state constitutional. That the head(s) of state and other officials are chosen by election, rather than inheriting their positions, and that their decisions are subject to judicial review makes a state republican.

Constitutional republic - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Care4all]

At the risk of repeating myself, and just because I would really like at least one of the liberals with some integrity on here to answer me this. What changed Obama's view from his stance in 2007 when he said, specifically regarding health care.... that to use the 50 + 1 vote on healthcare was something that he absolutely would not do. In fact he said that if anyone had to use 50 + 1 (or reconciliation if you will, or the nuke option, or a 'straight up and down' vote I believe is the phrase of the day)... if a President had to use 50 + 1 then he had lost the ability to govern. He further said that the President who used this may have airforce one and the perks, but he certainly wasn't the President. So, if this was so abhorrent to him in 2007, why is it ok now?

Please no waffle about Bush or the GOP having used it previously. Basic math confirms that two wrongs do not equal one right.

I would need to see what he actually said before i could comment one way or the other...do you have a link to the comment or was it posted in an earlier link that i missed Cali?