The repeal bill

The health care repeal bill should...

  • be written live on C-Span

    Votes: 0 0.0%

  • Total voters
    4
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." Matt Santos

No wonder you are so ignorant, you get your history from idiots.

Explain what is incorrect in that quote.
 
"Liberals got women the right to vote. Liberals got African-Americans the right to vote. Liberals created Social Security and lifted millions of elderly people out of poverty. Liberals ended segregation. Liberals passed the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act. Liberals created Medicare. Liberals passed the Clean Air Act, the Clean Water Act. What did Conservatives do? They opposed them on every one of those things...every one! So when you try to hurl that label at my feet, 'Liberal,' as if it were something to be ashamed of, something dirty, something to run away from, it won't work, Senator, because I will pick up that label and I will wear it as a badge of honor." Matt Santos

No wonder you are so ignorant, you get your history from idiots.

Explain what is incorrect in that quote.

How many conservatives were in the Senate in 1990? Since it passed with a vote of 89 - 11 I can pretty much assure you that more than a few conservatives voted for it. Do I really have to go through the rest of the quote point by point to prove how stupid, and incorrect, it is?
 
Did you, or did you not, have a problem with the way the law was enacted?

I'm going to assume you're talking about the items I asked about in this thread. In which case I'd respond that the reform proposals had numerous public hearings in the Senate Finance committee (going back to the previous Congress, in fact), the reform bills were marked up on television in five separate committees, virtually every change received a new CBO score, the bills did offset their own costs, and floor amendments were not forbidden to the minority (which is why their alternate proposal already received a vote prior to passage of the House Democrats' reform bill). To answer your question, I believe those are generally important steps for significant bills to go through.

It's been said that the above was not a transparent process and that 9 months wasn't enough legislative time to consider a weighty issue like health care. Which is why I'm curious as to what people think the process should look like for this bill. This thread seems to have morphed more into a "is it worth voting on this" question but I'm more interested here in the reaction to process issues. What should the process look like to ensure this repeal effort is above reproach?
 
Did you, or did you not, have a problem with the way the law was enacted?

I'm going to assume you're talking about the items I asked about in this thread. In which case I'd respond that the reform proposals had numerous public hearings in the Senate Finance committee (going back to the previous Congress, in fact), the reform bills were marked up on television in five separate committees, virtually every change received a new CBO score, the bills did offset their own costs, and floor amendments were not forbidden to the minority (which is why their alternate proposal already received a vote prior to passage of the House Democrats' reform bill). To answer your question, I believe those are generally important steps for significant bills to go through.

It's been said that the above was not a transparent process and that 9 months wasn't enough legislative time to consider a weighty issue like health care. Which is why I'm curious as to what people think the process should look like for this bill. This thread seems to have morphed more into a "is it worth voting on this" question but I'm more interested here in the reaction to process issues. What should the process look like to ensure this repeal effort is above reproach?

Bills do not carry over from previous Congresses, so any previous debate is irrelevant to the passage of this law. Can you please enumerate all the minority amendments that made it into the final version of the law that was signed. The CBO estimates were all gimmicked by Congress, and the final vote was taken before the CBO was able to fully analyze the law, not to mention the fact that the CBO said that they were double counting cuts that would probably not actually be implemented.

All of this tells me that I was correct in the first place when I pointed out that you are posturing now. You still haven't answered me about the cameras, so I am going to assume that they are not only there, but recording everything.
 
Bills do not carry over from previous Congresses, so any previous debate is irrelevant to the passage of this law.

A public hearing on a policy issue doesn't appear in any law, it's a public discussion of an idea or ideas. Experts are called in to answer questions, members of the public are often allowed to share their perspectives, and so on. That has nothing to do with the expiration of unpassed legislation.

Can you please enumerate all the minority amendments that made it into the final version of the law that was signed.

Offhand, no I can't. But that's not the point. There were minority amendments offered, both during the markups and on the floor. It doesn't really matter if they passed; does anyone expect that Democratic amendments to the repeal bill would pass? The difference is, as it stands now, the leadership doesn't intend to allow any minority amendments to be offered. Had that been the case during the passage of ACA, I imagine all hell would've broken loose.

The CBO estimates were all gimmicked by Congress, and the final vote was taken before the CBO was able to fully analyze the law, not to mention the fact that the CBO said that they were double counting cuts that would probably not actually be implemented.

You shouldn't repeat things you've heard until you've verified for yourself that they're true.

All of this tells me that I was correct in the first place when I pointed out that you are posturing now.

I'm just curious where the rhetoric about ramming bills down throats and such has gone. I felt the passage of the ACA was one of the more transparent legislative processes I've ever seen, as virtually every piece of it was subject to intense public scrutiny every step of the way. But I'm sure others disagree and feel it was very opaque. And they're the ones whose opinions I'm most interested in hearing here: how should the process surrounding the repeal bill be handled? What makes for a transparent, legitimate, irreproachable legislative process?
 
Looks like the repeal-and-replace health care bill has been reduced to a simple (though, curiously, not complete) repeal, which will be voted on next week. I'm curious as to folks' general thoughts on the appropriate Congressional procedure surrounding it, as it seems that's taken very seriously by many people. So how should this be done?
I think the congressional procedure will be pretty simple. After leaving committee, it will be brought to the floor where every Republican House member who promised repeal will speak on behalf of the bill. It will be brought to a vote. Voting will be along party lines and it will pass. The Senate will take up the bill and send it to committee where it will die. During the process we will see hundreds of speeches and statement for and against as each side hopes to gain points with voters. That's the way I see it.

If the healthcare bill gains acceptance with the public as 2014 approaches, this repeal vote may come back to haunt Republicans.
 
this is a huge problem in america

a bill is passed....doesn't matter if it is good or bad....it is passed and if anyone doesn't like it, suck it....imagine if all bills and laws in this country never got overturned....think black people rights

like dems have said, obamacare is just a step towards universal h/c....

i have no problem with u/c or rather an expanded version of m/c that allows those who make under a certain amount of money to have coverage. i do have a problem with how u/c is to be paid for.
 
I don't recall you being worried about the process when Obamacare was going through, ...

Huh? See my join date? June 2010. I wasn't even on this board while the ACA was going through the legislative process so what is there for you to recall?

Anyway, I'm curious what others think, which is why there's a poll. It'll be interesting to see whether this important vote is criticized as being "rushed" or "rammed through" the House if it doesn't get the full public treatment. And the indications thus far are that it will not.

I would, but at the same time it feels pointless. When I think of a workable solution to health care THEN think about who would be responsible for getting to those solutions and see that it would fall to our wonderful congress, I just have to give a cynical snicker and say 'fuck it, like this group of dolts is gona that done."

In my pie in the sky fantasy, repeal the existing bill first and start over. The problem is starting over. I just don't have any faith, really in either party, to come up with logical solutions. This stuff always gets so watered down to favors for this and that and government inefficiency it again becomes pointless. And what sucks is the populace I think all really want the same thing; affordable access to health care. The disagreement is on how. Some think government needs to be more involved (which I can't for the life of me understand, but that's for another time), some people think less. But I think if the politics were put aside one can objectively show how some basic economic principles can be applied to health care to make things better for everyone. I just don't see that band of dolts in DC ever being able to do that.
I find that I do agree with you on most points.

It is quite an accomplishment that any healthcare bill passed. Democrats and Republicans have been trying pass a healthcare bill for nearly a hundred years.

Until we can do something about the way we pay for healthcare, we will not be able to control cost. Fee for service is a disaster. The more services medical providers can delivery the more they make. Neither the patient nor insurance companies are able to control the cost. The only answer is a single payer system which was dropped from the bill in order to get the insurance companies to drop their opposition.

If the law were repealed, we would eventually get a single payer system, however by then the country would probably have 100 million without healthcare coverage and a financial disaster.
 
Its a waste of time. They should be spending this time to deal with issues they can make a difference on. That is what is wrong in Congress, all the grandstanding and not doing any real work. It's a forgeone conclusion that this has no chance of passing so why go through the time, effort and costs to do it. The house has the power of appropriations so use it. And then in 2 years if the American people decide they did something wrong, kick them out and the new Congress can appropriate the money.

But do something constructive for the country. All this bitter fighting is destroying us.

I believe that the vote in Congress is making a statement to the American people. Everyone on the Hill knows it won't pass through the Senate. Vote on it quickly then move on to the important stuff and see what happens in 2012.
For those who say we should just focus on the important stuff like jobs and the economy, well that should have been the focus with the 111th Congress, also. We all know that was not the priority of the last Congress. just sayin'.....

The 111th Congress passed 2 economic stimulus bills worth almost a trillion dollars apiece. How much more focus on the economy were they supposed to do? WHAT exactly were they supposed to do?
 
Its a waste of time. They should be spending this time to deal with issues they can make a difference on. That is what is wrong in Congress, all the grandstanding and not doing any real work. It's a forgeone conclusion that this has no chance of passing so why go through the time, effort and costs to do it. The house has the power of appropriations so use it. And then in 2 years if the American people decide they did something wrong, kick them out and the new Congress can appropriate the money.

But do something constructive for the country. All this bitter fighting is destroying us.

I believe that the vote in Congress is making a statement to the American people. Everyone on the Hill knows it won't pass through the Senate. Vote on it quickly then move on to the important stuff and see what happens in 2012.
For those who say we should just focus on the important stuff like jobs and the economy, well that should have been the focus with the 111th Congress, also. We all know that was not the priority of the last Congress. just sayin'.....

The 111th Congress passed 2 economic stimulus bills worth almost a trillion dollars apiece. How much more focus on the economy were they supposed to do? WHAT exactly were they supposed to do?

Not put their boots on the necks of the job creation class, that's what.

Both stimulus bills were abject failures.
 
I believe that the vote in Congress is making a statement to the American people. Everyone on the Hill knows it won't pass through the Senate. Vote on it quickly then move on to the important stuff and see what happens in 2012.
For those who say we should just focus on the important stuff like jobs and the economy, well that should have been the focus with the 111th Congress, also. We all know that was not the priority of the last Congress. just sayin'.....

The 111th Congress passed 2 economic stimulus bills worth almost a trillion dollars apiece. How much more focus on the economy were they supposed to do? WHAT exactly were they supposed to do?

Not put their boots on the necks of the job creation class, that's what.

Both stimulus bills were abject failures.

There are approximately 1.1 trillion dollars worth of tax cuts in the stimulus bills. Are you admitting that tax cuts are not stimulative? lol
 
I believe that the vote in Congress is making a statement to the American people. Everyone on the Hill knows it won't pass through the Senate. Vote on it quickly then move on to the important stuff and see what happens in 2012.
For those who say we should just focus on the important stuff like jobs and the economy, well that should have been the focus with the 111th Congress, also. We all know that was not the priority of the last Congress. just sayin'.....

The 111th Congress passed 2 economic stimulus bills worth almost a trillion dollars apiece. How much more focus on the economy were they supposed to do? WHAT exactly were they supposed to do?

Not put their boots on the necks of the job creation class, that's what.

Both stimulus bills were abject failures.

Doy I dunno, but what the Democrats did was wrong. WRONG I tell ya!
 
I believe that the vote in Congress is making a statement to the American people. Everyone on the Hill knows it won't pass through the Senate. Vote on it quickly then move on to the important stuff and see what happens in 2012.
For those who say we should just focus on the important stuff like jobs and the economy, well that should have been the focus with the 111th Congress, also. We all know that was not the priority of the last Congress. just sayin'.....

The 111th Congress passed 2 economic stimulus bills worth almost a trillion dollars apiece. How much more focus on the economy were they supposed to do? WHAT exactly were they supposed to do?

Not put their boots on the necks of the job creation class, that's what.

Both stimulus bills were abject failures.
Tax increases on the wealthy has not destroyed job creation in the pass and it won't in future.
 
Offhand, no I can't. But that's not the point. There were minority amendments offered, both during the markups and on the floor. It doesn't really matter if they passed; does anyone expect that Democratic amendments to the repeal bill would pass? The difference is, as it stands now, the leadership doesn't intend to allow any minority amendments to be offered. Had that been the case during the passage of ACA, I imagine all hell would've broken loose.

That is the point. The minority was shut out of the debate, and unable to offer amendments that were voted on at all. No Republican amendments made it out of any committee. If you have no problem with the first, which you obviously do not, than you should have no objection to whatever the Republicans do with this bill.

You shouldn't repeat things you've heard until you've verified for yourself that they're true.

Refute what I said then. Prove that the CBO estimates were not gimmicked, that there is no double counting, and that the CBO did not revise its estimate upward after the law was passed and signed. Should be pretty easy if you are right.

I'm just curious where the rhetoric about ramming bills down throats and such has gone. I felt the passage of the ACA was one of the more transparent legislative processes I've ever seen, as virtually every piece of it was subject to intense public scrutiny every step of the way. But I'm sure others disagree and feel it was very opaque. And they're the ones whose opinions I'm most interested in hearing here: how should the process surrounding the repeal bill be handled? What makes for a transparent, legitimate, irreproachable legislative process?

I am talking about your attitude now, and you are demonstrating quite conclusively that you are a partisan hack. I don't need to point to the past when you are demonstrating it in the present.
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top