OT What's your take? OT

Do you think this fiasco will pass Sunday?

I hope and pray reason will prevail. But I thought McCain would win.

Go figger.

Steve

Reply to
Steve B
Loading thread data ...

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:49:44 -0700, the infamous "Steve B" scrawled the following:

Those fools just might do it.

In WASHINGTON, D.C.? What were you thinking?

-------------------

If it passes, I'll bet you can count the seconds before a

2nd American Revolution starts thundering through our country.

I think I'll stock up on groceries and get more water today, JIC.

-- Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991)

--

Reply to
Larry Jaques

There is so much money involved, I doubt they can keep their hands off.

Reply to
cavelamb

In one thread, you've got a bunch of people all clamoring for a police state, then this one decrying government intervention.

The power to require ID is the same power to require health care.

"Go figger." Indeed.

Reply to
Steve Be

I hope (but do not pray) that reason will prevail and that everyone would have access to some level of medical care.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4239

Gunner Asch fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Look what Harry Reid Hid deep in the Health Care Bill

Unbelievable - Harry Reid Hidden deep in the Health Care Bill this passage.

They never stop, they will keep trying to shove this down our throats until they get it through...pass this on to everyone...

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada is proving once again the maxim that darkness hates the light.

Buried in his massive amendment to the Senate version of Obamacare is Reid's anti-democratic poison pill designed to prevent any future Congress from repealing the central feature of this monstrous legislation!

Beginning on page 1,000 of the measure, Section 3403 reads in part: ". 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."

In other words, if President Barack Obama signs this measure into law, no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word of Section

3403, regardless whether future Americans or their representatives in Congress wish otherwise!!

Note that the subsection at issue here concerns the regulatory power of the Independent Medicare Advisory Board (IMAB) to "reduce the per capita rate of growth in Medicare spending."

That is precisely the kind of open-ended grant of regulatory power that effectively establishes the IMAB as the ultimate arbiter of the cost, quality and quantity of health care to be made available to the American people. And Reid wants the decisions of this group of unelected federal bureaucrats to be untouchable for all time.

No wonder the majority leader tossed aside assurances that senators and the public would have at least 72 hours to study the text of the final Senate version of Obamacare before the critical vote on cloture. And no wonder Reid was so desperate to rush his amendment through the Senate, even scheduling the key tally on it at 1 a.m., while America slept.

True to form, Reid wanted to keep his Section 3403 poison pill secret for as long as possible, just as he negotiated his bribes for the votes of Senators Mary Landrieu of Louisiana, Ben Nelson of Nebraska and Bernie Sanders of Vermont behind closed doors.

The final Orwellian touch in this subversion of democratic procedure is found in the ruling of the Reid-controlled Senate Parliamentarian that the anti-repeal provision is not a change in Senate rules, but rather of Senate "procedures." Why is that significant? Because for 200 years, changes in the Senate's standing rules have required approval by two- thirds of those voting, or 67 votes rather than the 60 Reid's amendment received.

Reid has flouted two centuries of standing Senate rules to pass a measure in the dead of night that no senator has read, and part of which can never be changed. If this is not tyranny, then what is?

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

(snip)

What scholars (not!) are you cutting and pasting this from? This has been in the bill for months and it does not mean that no future congress can repeal this section. see here for the facts

formatting link

Reply to
anorton

As far as I know, an act of Congress cannot limit the actions of a future Congress.

Reply to
Ned Simmons

This is not true, Lloyd. It's an amateurish misreading of the text by RedState, which was in turn picked up by Sarah ("Death Panel") Palin, our Idiot-in-Chief. Then the Washington Times and the right-wing blogosphere revved up their engines and drove over the cliff.

Here's the real story. This kind of *rules* limitation has been done several times in the past. It is not a *legislation* limitation. Congress can overturn the whole thing any time they want to, with a regular vote:

formatting link
It is not Constitutional for Congress to pass a law that says future congresses can't overturn it. It wouldn't stand up if they tried.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

For those interested in estimating chances of Obamacare legislation passing, here's an interesting page:

formatting link
Intrade is a prediction market, and participants, who are betting with real money, currently estimate the chance of it passing as 84%.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4239

"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:4ba4233f$0$31268$ snipped-for-privacy@cv.net:

I already knew that. This is a regularly-circulated chain letter from the abjectly right-ish folks who can't actually figure out how to go vote.

I do. I will.

November 2012... the end of an error.

LLoyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

Ah, it would have helped if you'd added a smiley or something. I thought you actually believed that stuff.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

So does Intrade have any predictions on the 2010 elections? Is Reid likely to be reelected?

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

:Xns9D40D18DF3337lloydspmindspringcom@216.168.3.70...

If that is the case, why did they bother to put the words in the bill?

Dan

Reply to
dcaster

On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 12:47:57 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus4239 scrawled the following:

And you trust CONgresscritters to accomplish that? GET REAL, Ig.

-- Adults are obsolete children. --Dr. Seuss (Theodore Geisel, 1904-1991)

--

Reply to
Larry Jaques

It's all procedural. There are several explanations around the Web, but if you've followed federal legislation over the past few years, you'll see several similar uses of that phrasing.

It keeps certain provisions in the bill from being nibbled away by gerbils. It does NOT keep it from being overturned at the drop of a hat, should Congress so desire.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

I have not looked. Check it out and let us know. I am sure that there are some contracts regarding 2010 elections.

formatting link
For example, nomination of Palin is priced as a 23% chance. 2010 recession as 18%. Euro dropped in 2010 at 12%. A lot of interesting predictions are traded at intrade.

i
Reply to
Ignoramus4239

That's a stupid thing to say, which you would not have engaged in if you actually read federal legislation over the past two decades. It's been used at least since 1990.

This is a 2,000-page monster that you certainly haven't read. You don't know the appropriateness of the location of that provision, nor its context, nor even what it refers too. As usual, you're talking through your hat.

See above. You have no way of knowing, because you talk first, and look things up later to see what you said.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

The language to which opponents refer, and which the Washington Examiner explicitly cited, changes the rules of each House to limit Congress' ability to change the recommendations of the Board.

(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS-

`(A) IN GENERAL- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).

`(B) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS IN OTHER LEGISLATION- It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, amendment, or conference report (other than pursuant to this section) that would repeal or otherwise change the recommendations of the Board if that change would fail to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).

`(C) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THIS SUBSECTION- 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.

`(D) WAIVER- This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the Senate only by the affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.

`(E) APPEALS- An affirmative vote of three-fifths of the Members of the Senate, duly chosen and sworn, shall be required in the Senate to sustain an appeal of the ruling of the Chair on a point of order raised under this paragraph.

Congress can overturn this rule with a 3/5ths majority vote, in which case nothing would stand in the way of Congress changing the recommendations of the Board and voting on the changed version.

Section 3403 also includes language saying that the Secretary of Health and Human Services must not implement the recommendations of the Board if Congress acts to discontinue it using certain specified procedures. Nothing in the text says, nor could it constitutionally say, that Congress cannot enact new law terminating the Board, or for that matter, repealing any or all of the bill. The text does not restrict Congress's ability to terminate the Board; it creates a mechanism whereby Congress could terminate the Board more easily.

Reply to
cavelamb

To whom or what are you praying, and do you think that entity values your tax dollar more than the health and lives of those who can't afford the current bullshit we call "health insurance?"

Reply to
rangerssuck

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.