If Democrats ignore health-care polls, midterms will be costly

[PatekPhilippe]

Opposition to the healthcare bill topped out a month ago and has declined ever since.

Run on that in November

The Democrats failed to pass healthcare in 1993. They already know how that equation comes out.

They didn't lose the Congress based on that one single issue. Try again. History will repeat itself....bye bye.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Opposition to the healthcare bill topped out a month ago and has declined ever since.

just like Obama's and Congresses poll numbers....

Now once this Bill is sent to the trash heap...maybe they can redeem themselves by enacting true healthcare reform without bribery, payoffs and special deals for the unions.

No,

opposition to the healthcare bill topped out a month ago and has declined ever since.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Opposition to the healthcare bill topped out a month ago and has declined ever since.

just like Obama's and Congresses poll numbers....

Now once this Bill is sent to the trash heap...maybe they can redeem themselves by enacting true healthcare reform without bribery, payoffs and special deals for the unions.

No,

opposition to the healthcare bill topped out a month ago and has declined ever since.

Oh my bad...Obama topped out about a year ago and has been declining ever since. Congress has been in the shitter since 2007. Thanks.

 

[NYcarbineer]

Run on that in November

The Democrats failed to pass healthcare in 1993. They already know how that equation comes out.

They didn't lose the Congress based on that one single issue. Try again. History will repeat itself....bye bye.

Oh, so it wasn't a single-issue world then but it is now.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

The Democrats failed to pass healthcare in 1993. They already know how that equation comes out.

They didn't lose the Congress based on that one single issue. Try again. History will repeat itself....bye bye.

Oh, so it wasn't a single-issue world then but it is now.

This is the only thing the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 3 years! What other issues have the Democrats tried to ram down the throats of Americans other than cap and tax?

 

[NYcarbineer]

They didn't lose the Congress based on that one single issue. Try again. History will repeat itself....bye bye.

Oh, so it wasn't a single-issue world then but it is now.

This is the only thing the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 3 years! What other issues have the Democrats tried to ram down the throats of Americans other than cap and tax?

You don't seem to understand how government works.

 

[Zoom-boing]

I'd like to see where in the bill it says that anyway.... I'm thinking it doesn't because I doubt very much that type of thing would hold up anyway.

What I would guess, given that DeMint wouldn't tell the truth if it bit him on the butt, is that the bill says it won't sundown.... which most bills done by reconciliation do.

If the President signs it...it's binding. When was the change made? Is DeMint saying that this rule change required a separate 60 vote majority for a rule change outside of the already passed Senate Bill?

From the article I linked:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill | The Weekly Standard

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

I don't do legalize, translation is appreciated.

 

[NYcarbineer]

They didn't lose the Congress based on that one single issue. Try again. History will repeat itself....bye bye.

Oh, so it wasn't a single-issue world then but it is now.

This is the only thing the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 3 years! What other issues have the Democrats tried to ram down the throats of Americans other than cap and tax?

Oh I forgot, in 1993 the Republicans were siding with Bill Clinton to pass NAFTA, which most Americans opposed.

 

[PatekPhilippe]

Oh, so it wasn't a single-issue world then but it is now.

This is the only thing the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 3 years! What other issues have the Democrats tried to ram down the throats of Americans other than cap and tax?

You don't seem to understand how government works.

You don't seem to understand reality.

 

[The Rabbi]

Oh, so it wasn't a single-issue world then but it is now.

This is the only thing the Democrats have been trying to do for the last 3 years! What other issues have the Democrats tried to ram down the throats of Americans other than cap and tax?

Oh I forgot, in 1993 the Republicans were siding with Bill Clinton to pass NAFTA, which most Americans opposed.

You mean NAFTA that over 100 Democrats in the House supported?
This is relevant, how?

 

[Soggy in NOLA]

Every law can be overturned. Christ, even the U.S. Constitution can be changed given certain provisions. What dumbass thinks that one group of legislators can enact things that CAN NEVER BE REVERSED.

Let's move on kids.

 

[Xenophon]

I'd like to see where in the bill it says that anyway.... I'm thinking it doesn't because I doubt very much that type of thing would hold up anyway.

What I would guess, given that DeMint wouldn't tell the truth if it bit him on the butt, is that the bill says it won't sundown.... which most bills done by reconciliation do.

If the President signs it...it's binding. When was the change made? Is DeMint saying that this rule change required a separate 60 vote majority for a rule change outside of the already passed Senate Bill?

From the article I linked:

Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:

there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection."

and i quote -- "it shall not be in order in the senate or the house of representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report that would repeal or otherwise change this subsection."

this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law.

i'm not even sure that it's constitutional, but if it is, it most certainly is a senate rule. i don't see why the majority party wouldn't put this in every bill. if you like your law, you most certainly would want it to have force for future senates.

i mean, we want to bind future congresses. this goes to the fundamental purpose of senate rules: to prevent a tyrannical majority from trampling the rights of the minority or of future co congresses.

Reid Bill Says Future Congresses Cannot Repeal Parts of Reid Bill | The Weekly Standard

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

I don't do legalize, translation is appreciated.

That is all irrelivent.

No congress can make something permanent, no matter what 'langauge' is included or rules changes or what have you.

Its UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

Putting that in their garuntees it will be struck down by USSC.

 

[uscitizen]

Where does the constitution say that makiing a permanent law is forbidden?

 

[Terry]

It will take 60 votes to overturn any law from what I understand or the SCoTUS to deem it unconstitutional.

 

[rightwinger]

If the Republicans want to run on repealing Healthcare Reform then GO FOR IT

Let the voters decide if they want to give it back

 

[MaggieMae]

Dems did what they always do ... overplay their hand, in-fight, and roundly fuck up a cup of coffee.

Reps did what they always do ... live in hyperbole, do anything they can to the cloud the debate, demonize, and pretend they are willing to compromise.

The end result is we all get screwed.

Hear hear. Soon the health care issue will be back to normal. Business as usual for a time.

But to the OP, if Obama and the Democrats just dropped the whole thing, it could be just as bad. They would be seen as caving under pressure from Republicans AND lose a lot of their base who trusted Obama to do health care as his biggest campaign promise. He simply can't renege on that promise entirely. He has only one political option and that's to let it go to an up or down vote, and if it is voted down (which I expect it will be), he would have saved face by doing all he could. Even if that happens, the whole thing could be resurrected in a fresh form because the issue itself won't be going bye bye this time. Too many people within even the high end of the middle class are being squeezed by health costs.

 

[MaggieMae]

You gotta do what ya gotta do

When the Republicans were in control, they had an agenda and passed that agenda regardless of the consequences. They paid the consequences but passed their agenda. Even today, they vote NO on every bill and say the hell with the consequences.

Democrats are just a bunch of pussies

I have to agree by now. Remember the Part D drug bill that literally got rammed down throats in the wee hours of the morning AFTER the gavel had fallen and a "new" vote taken? Thank Tom DeLay for that one. The Dems caved, and we got an UNFUNDED multi-billion dollar mandate just so the GOP could "bank on" future votes from seniors.

Ironically, seniors love the program but still won't vote for Republicans when push comes to shove. My only concern with the drug bill is that there was never even an attempt to pay for it somehow.

 

[MaggieMae]

If they keep trying to pass ObamaCare the numbers can only increase from there. It's possible they lose 100+ House seats and every Senate seat

EVERY Senate seat??

Reconciliation NOW!

And then we'd have a Republican majority who will immediately begin their payback strategy. The framers of the Constitution must do several rolls every day.

 

[MaggieMae]

"This isn't 1994; it's 2010."

Democrats know they're going to take a midterm hit. I think they even understand that "comprehensive healthcare" is a loser either way they go. What they haven't figured out.... is that Barack Obama is no Bill Clinton.

They think they'll come back in 2012. They won't.

Bill Clinton had his success by working with a Republican Congress. He's smarter than Barack. More pragmatic. We didn't call him "Slick Willie" for nothing. Bill knew how to 'live to fight another day'. Bill had nearly 12 years of executive experience of compromising with a legislative body.

Barry, on the other hand, has no compromise or bipartisanship in him. He's got no experience to draw on. He's a hopeless ideologue who has made extravagant promises to his base and is so emotionally insecure that he doesn't understand that it's the MIDDLE he needs to be worrying about.

Both these men are narcissistic in their tendencies, but Bill had self-confidence which reflected in his actions. Both are partisan, but Bill understood that executive leadership doesn't lend itself to uncompromising partisan policy, that in order to get a win, he had to let the other guy win too.

This is NOT 1994.. and these House Democrats who are sacrificing themselves for "The Cause", are going to have done it for NOTHING.

Of course you forget that Barack Obama has no Newt Gingrich to work with either. Find me one Republican who isn't afraid to compromise. Lindsey Graham comes closest, yet he's immediately labeled a RHINO and thus has to worry about his own chances of reelection. When it's this bad, there IS no compromise, period. Obama recognizes that.

 

[MaggieMae]

You gotta do what ya gotta do

When the Republicans were in control, they had an agenda and passed that agenda regardless of the consequences. They paid the consequences but passed their agenda. Even today, they vote NO on every bill and say the hell with the consequences.

Democrats are just a bunch of pussies

Well RW. The Dems didn't need or want anything from the Reps. In fact. They basically shut them out of the process. They had a SUPERMAJORITY. They didn't need any help at all to pass this clusterfuck of a bill.

They didn't get it done because they were to busy being bought off by their own party to vote yes. Even with that they still couldn't pass it with their SUPERMAJORITY.

I don't know about being pussies but they sure are the party of ineptitude..

See to me all of that goes to the fact that the Democrats (Obama in particular) WERE wanting to compromise. Otherwise, as you say, they would have just passed the bill. The fact that it's dragged on for a year, with bipartisan committee battles to get where it is, is proof positive that Republicans have had all sorts of input (111 amendments included, as I recall). The fact that it wasn't designed 100% to suit their preferences is tough shit. The dems weren't about to go that far.