Are you at all serious about ANYTHING that you write? Do you really expect an "end of the world" over this legislation, which replaces, formalizes and funds some of the charity care which has kept you alive the past few years? Seriously?
Maybe you should consider stocking up on tin foil.
Probably not this time. But, then, the socialists will keep trying until they do enact it. Note, I didn't say "pass" the socialized medicine. I wrote "enact" it. They might deem it to been passed, or executive order, or some other trickery. But, they will keep trying until we lose the freedom to manage our own health care.
So what is their accuracy of past predictions?
Wes
-- "Additionally as a security officer, I carry a gun to protect government officials but my life isn't worth protecting at home in their eyes." Dick Anthony Heller
But Ed, they are trying to pass this on a one vote margin in the Senate and according to an earlier link:
The Examiner takes issue with this language:
### Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: 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.
But that does not mean that "no future Senate or House will be able to change a single word" of the section, as The Examiner says. The paragraph is followed directly by this one:
Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, Dec 24 2009: WAIVER ? This paragraph may be waived or suspended in the senate only by the affirmative votes of three-fifths of the Members, duly chosen and sworn.
he intent is to make this cost-saving mechanism difficult to repeal, but not impossible. "If they want to repeal this provision they need a supermajority," said Bill Dauster, deputy staff director and general counsel of the Senate Finance Committee. The bill?s Democratic drafters fear that Congress can?t be trusted to make necessary Medicare cost reductions on its own. "The reasoning is that the Senate is not going to make the cuts that are necessary otherwise." ###
So as they are maneuvering, they want to pass on 51 and require 60 to revoke it?
Can I assume that the 60 number to revoke is meaningless? As in another senate with a willing house can take it down with a simple majority vote?
Wes
On Fri, 19 Mar 2010 20:25:29 -0500, the infamous Ignoramus4239 scrawled the following:
Happily, it's down 1.9 points today.
-- If we attend continually and promptly to the little that we can do, we shall ere long be surprised to find how little remains that we cannot do. -- Samuel Butler
Nope. It still requires only 51 (in the Senate) to overturn the entire bill.
It has the status of House rules, but nothing in the House rules can preempt Congress's ability to overturn any legislation. They can change a rule at any time, and they can overturn a bill at any time.
Again, it's procedural, and amounts to a House rule. It cannot preclude future congresses from overturning it by a simple majority vote. But they'd have to overturn the rule as well as the legislation.
It really isn't worth getting worked up about. It's an attempt to keep underhanded amendments from defeating the function of the legislation by the back door. It's been done before.
Some things are inherently unpredictable or have a probability of an event change because of something. But their estimates have been very good, in general.
i"Ed Huntress" fired this volley in news:4ba4dfc2$0$21783$ snipped-for-privacy@cv.net:
You didn't quite word that right, Ed. It's an UNDERHANDED attempt to keep amendments from the defeating the function...
LLoyd
Nope, I had it right, Lloyd. If you do some checking, you'll see that this phrasing has been used for similar purposes in the past.
The "amendments" we're talking about are irrelevant, and sneaky, snipes taken at the legislation by adding an amendment to an unrelated bill. It's been decades since I studied this stuff in college but I remember one issue that was related to it. After the Civil Rights Act was passed, some southern legislators tried to sneak an amendment into a military funding bill that would have gutted the CRA. Who can vote against a military funding bill in the middle of a war?
That kind of sneakiness is exactly what these provisions are intended to prevent. And it's really a moderate, and weak protection. If Congress wants to be forthright and vote specifically about provisions of this bill at some time in the future, or even completely overturn it, they can do so.
Of course, people opposed to the bill are going to scream bloody murder. Some of their bag of tricks have become complicated, because they'd have to come out in the open with their opposition. Of course, they're probably among those who have used these procedural methods in the past, on other issues. They're counting on us not noticing There's a LOT of that going on with the health care bill.
=A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 =A0 Dan
I thought that changing the rules of the House required a super majority.
Dan
IIRC, the current House rules committe has a 2xD+1 to 1xR ratio favoring the majority party and voting on anything brought to the floor is a simple majority.
Wes
We do now.
There you go again, Ed.
You make fun of Sarah Palin for her "Death Panel" statements, just after you admit that those death panels already exist - "They're called Medical Directors in the insurance industry."
The federal government wants to be in the health care business and will be before too long - anyone who thinks the public option has been forgotten simply isn't paying attention. And when we do get there, we will have bureaucrats making the same decisions that are made by the insurance companies' Medical Directors. There will always have to be someone to say "no", and sometimes that will be to an expensive procedure that might prolong a life.
So, which is it? Was Sarah on target, or will the taxpayers be footing the bill for every possible procedure and drug that might even slightly benefit a patient?
You can't have it both ways.
John Martin
Yup, and at my age, I'm glad still to be going, John.
Sarah has an inkling that *someone* must be making these life-and-death decisions, because we're already at the point where some people are dying because they don't get proper treatment that we all know is available. But either she didn't know (most likely) or didn't care (another possibility) that she was aimed in the wrong direction.
It must be socialism, she thinks, because socialism is always evil and capitalism is always virtuous, in her Alice-through-the-looking-glass, world. Now government is going to be overt about it: the life-choice consultations, which have been a function of hospitals and their ethics boards for decades, suddenly are going to become government-controlled "death squads" in her wacky imagination. The death squads, as always, are upper-level staff in private insurance companies. Her hubris, or ignorance, or the weakness of a mind that allows it to be vicitimized by ideology, led her to conclude that it was all the fault of the government rather than an economic necessity of doing business in the topsy-turvey world of medical "markets."
She has the certainty of the born-again, John. That is to say, she has a weak mind that obtains absolutist certainty by marrying herself to an ideology or a religion. So she's taken a nutty interpretation of something that exists because of the economics of the INSURANCE industry, and attributed it to GOVERNMENT by, first, a misunderstanding what the new committees are and do, and, secondly, because she can't believe that the virtuous insurance industry actually is doing what she fears so much.
She has no idea of what the bill actually says. People are just feeding her one-liners. And she's a fool.
At least we can vote them out. The insurance companies own you. Until a few days ago, they could make those life-and-death decisions any way they want -- and what they often "want" is to improve profits using any possible excuse. If you've been reading the news, you know that they just tried to pull off a trick by which newborn babies are denied coverage for "pre-existing conditions."
Sarah is full of shit. The bubblehead remains as clueless as ever. As for footing the bill, you and I foot most of them already. And you apparently haven't studied the European models of what consumers can get as part of the program, and what's available to them at their own expense, with something like health care savings accounts or even private insurance.
Don't try to tell that to people like Gunner. He's been having it both ways for years.
HAHAHAHA................ Speaking of Sarah:
Levi Johnston pitches antidote to Sarah Palin Alaska series Levi's re-loading!
Levi Johnston, Sarah Palin's grandbaby-daddy and the bane of her existence, is pitching his own docu-series in which HE will introduce viewers to Alaska.
The news comes just days after Discovery Networks announced that its TLC network would air "Sarah Palin's Alaska" in which SHE would introduce us to Alaska.
Yes, TV is about to erupt in warring Palin-clan docu-series. Life could not get better.
"If I could wave my magic wand I would want it to premiere at the exact same hour, minute, and second as Sarah Palin's does," Stuart Krasnow, the executive producer of Levi's series, told The TV Column.
Levi's show, tentatively titled "Levi Johnston's Final Frontier," is " 'Jersey Shore' on ice," Krasnow said.
Gee. Fireworks. I *love* fireworks.
I wonder if we'll learn which has the bigger schwantz?
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.