BREAKING: Dems Go Nuclear on Obamacare

[Thor]

It's time to vote out ANYONE who isn't upholding the Constitution and representing the public. Period.

[RobJohnson]

The Dems will try anything in order to make the President look like a healthcare hero.

The cost of coverage for us that now have it, will go up, so others can also have coverage. If I choose not to insure myself, they will fine me.

[thundley4]

Let's not throw our hands in the air and admit defeat quite so soon.  The bill has not passed and we don't know for sure that moderate democrats will fall in line.  Politicians want job security, and if voting for this bill will jeapordize it, I seriously can not see them voting for this. 
But I've been wrong before....I never thought the bronze statue would become president.

I don't think that they would be considering this method unless they are positive that they have the votes to pass it.

[NHSparky]

No ****ing way...is this even legal??

Legal, yes.  Right?

You decide.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Three things:

1. If they do not get unanimous consent to vote on a bill any ONE senator can demand the ENTIRE bill be read on the senate floor. That means EVERY time the bill is brought to the floor.

2. They can have the senate rules keeper (I for get his actual title) examine EVERY single provision to adjudicate which are budgetary are which are not meaning the gearworks of the bill will be gutted.

3. If, after an additional 2 months of reading and rule scrubbing the public hasn't rioted and the damn thing still passes it automatically sunsets in 5 years.

Bring it.

[Deuce]

Three things:

1. If they do not get unanimous consent to vote on a bill any ONE senator can demand the ENTIRE bill be read on the senate floor. That means EVERY time the bill is brought to the floor.

2. They can have the senate rules keeper (I for get his actual title) examine EVERY single provision to adjudicate which are budgetary are which are not meaning the gearworks of the bill will be gutted.

3. If, after an additional 2 months of reading and rule scrubbing the public hasn't rioted and the damn thing still passes it automatically sunsets in 5 years.

Bring it.

If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?

[Chump]

If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?

I got the impression from the article that if the Means and Ways Committee says it is, then it is.  I'm open to correction, of course.  Sometimes I get to thinking that the legislative process is convoluted, like, on purpose.   

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?

A bluff. They're trying to get the blue dogs and pink RINOs to accept the bill as fiat accompli.

"Well, I may as well support it now instead of being on the wrong side of something that will happen anyway."

Two things lead me to think this strategy is much ado about nothing:

1) regardless of what blue dogs and pink RINOs may do it only takes 1 super-heated conservative to literally shut down all other senate business while they exploit all the parliamentarian procedures I described above.

2) I'm not seeing this story much anyplace else. I think this is the commiecrats ****ing up a wet dream.

[BlueStateSaint]

We won't even get into the multitude of legal questions--Constitutional ones, to be determined by the SCOTUS--that the "reform" entails, that will have to be examined before this becomes law.

[Deuce]

This strikes me as something SCOTUS could strike down on procedural grounds.

God I hate our legislative process. The Senate disproportionately represents low-population states, the House does the same for high-population states. There's a thousand minute rules and procedures that guarantee that the last thing we ever get is a vote on the bill at hand. And our voting system guarantees two parties and two parties only, so if neither party fits your views very well, you're kinda screwed.

[Chump]

This strikes me as something SCOTUS could strike down on procedural grounds.

God I hate our legislative process. The Senate disproportionately represents low-population states, the House does the same for high-population states. There's a thousand minute rules and procedures that guarantee that the last thing we ever get is a vote on the bill at hand. And our voting system guarantees two parties and two parties only, so if neither party fits your views very well, you're kinda screwed.

Agreed.  I'm sick of holding my nose and voting for the less-smelly pile of shit.  We've come to the point that you're throwing your vote away if you vote third-party, thus ensuring that the smelliest piece of shit gets in as the votes split on the other side.  It's garbage.

[Carl]

This strikes me as something SCOTUS could strike down on procedural grounds.

God I hate our legislative process. The Senate disproportionately represents low-population states, the House does the same for high-population states. There's a thousand minute rules and procedures that guarantee that the last thing we ever get is a vote on the bill at hand. And our voting system guarantees two parties and two parties only, so if neither party fits your views very well, you're kinda screwed.

That the Senate is equal by state and the House is population based strikes me as a brilliant move by the founders.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

That the Senate is equal by state and the House is population based strikes me as a brilliant move by the founders.

concur

Otherwise states like Montana and Rhode Island would get steamrollered.

[Deuce]

Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though

Ain't nothin' better.

[Carl]

Yes, that compromise was quite clever. It still contributes to the mess, though

I don`t see it as a mess but a terrific check and balance.
What I agree with you on as a mess is the overall process that has developed that is extra constitutional.
Committees and stuffing unrelated amendments (both parties) on to bills is one peeve I have.

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

I don`t see it as a mess but a terrific check and balance.
What I agree with you on as a mess is the overall process that has developed that is extra constitutional.
Committees and stuffing unrelated amendments (both parties) on to bills is one peeve I have.

The United States inherited its basic parliamentary procedures from the British Parliament during the colonial era. New England town meetings and colonial legislatures followed these traditional methods of operating, as did the Continental Congress, the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, the Constitutional Convention, and the U.S. Congress. In 1801 President Thomas Jefferson published the first volume of parliamentary procedure in the United States, known as Jefferson's manual, which is still part of the House rules.

The House and Senate adopt their own rules and set precedents by their actions. Parliamentarians on the staff of both houses compile and study these rules and precedents in order to advise the presiding officers on how to keep the floor proceedings moving fairly and properly.

To casual visitors in the galleries, the procedures on the House and Senate floor may seem excessively formal. But the parliamentary procedure that they are witnessing evolved over 200 years of legislative activity to enable the Senate and House to function in ways that are reasonably fair and efficient. The procedures prevent presiding officers from ruling arbitrarily, and they ensure that both sides have an opportunity to be heard and to offer their own bills and amendments. Although their emotions often rise over the immediate issues before them, members of Congress have adopted parliamentary procedures that enable them to operate in a rational and orderly manner.

http://www.answers.com/topic/parliamentary-procedure-1

[Traveshamockery]

A bluff. They're trying to get the blue dogs and pink RINOs to accept the bill as fiat accompli.

"Well, I may as well support it now instead of being on the wrong side of something that will happen anyway."

Two things lead me to think this strategy is much ado about nothing:

1) regardless of what blue dogs and pink RINOs may do it only takes 1 super-heated conservative to literally shut down all other senate business while they exploit all the parliamentarian procedures I described above.

2) I'm not seeing this story much anyplace else. I think this is the commiecrats ******* up a wet dream.

THANK YOU MR. BUNNY.  

I went to bed last night upset because it seems like everything is so out of control and they can just cram this down our throats even knowing that the majority of the American people don't want health care reform in this way.  I had heard there were all sorts of procedures the republicans could hit them with to slow it down and delay it but the democrats all seem to be celebrating and talking tough about how they will push this through this year.  

Thank you for listing some of the procedures and maneuvers the republicans can use.  

[SSG Snuggle Bunny]

Thank you for listing some of the procedures and maneuvers the republicans can use.  

I throw bombs where I can.

    

[BlueStateSaint]

I throw bombs where I can.

    

Okay, 'fess up . . . laser-guidance or GPS-guidance? 

[debk]

If that is the case, why would anyone even bring up reconciliation? Other than the medicaid extension, the funding provisions, and maybe-if-you-stretch the subsidies for low-income households is there anything in the bill that can be possibly construed as budgetary?

Obama wants this passed any way that he can.

If it gets passed...no matter how it's done....Obama will be able to say I passed a health care bill giving medical care to every person in America!!!!

Think of all the votes that phrase will buy.....doesn't matter that it won't take effect until 2013 ...after Obama manages to get reelected in 2012.

Doesn't even matter if it gets shuts down after Obama is reelected....the goal is to get him reelected.....and all of his Band of Merry Idiots get to stay in office too.

What this will do is not screw us over so quickly in the health care area....what it will do is screw us over for the 2010 and 2012 elections.

Especially if all those millions of illegals get granted citizenship in the meantime.

Think about it.

Health care for everyone gets passed.

Then the illegals are all granted amnesty and become US citizens....who get to vote for president!

Who they gonna vote for?

Their saviour....Obama....



 



please excuse me while I go 

[YupItsMe]

What scares me is that under "conventional wisdom" the Congress considering a "Public Option" Health Care Bill, or any other "Health Care Bill" that is supported by only 35% of the voters (and in the face of vocal and well funded opposition)is considered to be "Political Suicide"...

But these Democratic Dimwits are more than willing to go "full steam ahead" and F**k the voters and pass this legislation..in effect committing "Political Suicide" .... like they aren't afraid of the November 2010 Elections.

What do the Democrats know that we don't know... perhaps a plan to screw with the 2010 Elections?

   How about giving 20 million illegal aliens the right to vote Democrat.   

[debk]

   How about giving 20 million illegal aliens the right to vote Democrat.   

did you read my post above?

[YupItsMe]

did you read my post above?

Not before I posted. But I agree wholeheartedly.  If 20 million more Mexican become elligible voters, we will never win another election again.  The spread is just too close. 

[debk]

Not before I posted. But I agree wholeheartedly.  If 20 million more Mexican become elligible voters, we will never win another election again.  The spread is just too close. 

Right.....and while I would like to see them have to pay taxes....what it will do the presidential and congressional races is frightening....