Why Not Reconciliation?

[Devil505]

Have any Senators or Representatives recommended reconciliation?

Or even said it could be used in this case?

I believe the Dems are within a few votes of having enough votes to pass Reconciliation, which is strictly a Senate issue. It can be used by employing pretty simple language, as long as the majority go's along.

With the GOP attempting to close down Congress entirely (filibustering everything) it is mandatory if anything is going to get done in Washington, imo)

 

[Mr. Shaman]

The American people, no matter how many times you tell yourself, do not want the current disaster of a bill. Reconciliation would be political suicide, and the Dems in Congress know it.

Yeah....Reconciliation has destroyed sooooooooooo many Republicans' careers.

​

 

[Hobo1]

Just as I feel reconciliation would constitute political suicide for democrats, republicans and conservatives failing to address HCR concerns would also be falling on their swords. The Genie is out of the bottle, and HCR will occur if any political party wishes to attain or remain in power.

Patience is warranted for any truly good, useful legislation, especially of this magnitude, and the democrats attempts to ram-rod their "solutions" without honestly addressing the reality of costs or allowing input from the other side is why it's sitting on the shelf.

Patience and pragmatism over a shrill desperate race to beat midterms would be the prudent approach.

These are my feelings as well. The current bill - which I guess must be the last one Obama put on the table before his Health Care summit, is de facto socialized medicine.

It may not be a government "take-over" in the form of a single payers system like Canada, but it is a backdoor take over in the sense that the government (specifically the Secretary of Health and Human Resources) has the power to establish the minimum requirements that all health insurance plans must cover. The Secretary also must track down people who do not have health insurance and force them to buy insurance or pay a penalty (sounds like fascism to me).

Anybody who takes the time to read the 126 page proposal set out by Obama's staff will see the dictatorial powers given to the HHR Secretary. Scary.

As far as reconciliation? I suggest you read this articleHow Reconciliation must happen. Pretty flaky way to pass health care.

I believe that after the 2010 elections, the Republicans should take some leadership and come up with a GOOD bill that does correct some of the grievous problems (cost and coverage) with health care and health care insurance.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Anybody who takes the time to read the 126 page proposal set out by Obama's staff will see the dictatorial powers given to the HHR Secretary. Scary.

"Well DONE, young Lemminghopper!!!"​

 

[OldTrapper]

"Well DONE, young Lemminghopper!!!"

Speaking of lemmings, even Pelosi admits she does not know what is in the bill, so, how could you?

http://sayanythingblog.com/entry/pe...care_bill_so_that_we_can_find_out_whats_in_i/

Pelosi: We Must Pass The Health Care Bill So That We Can Find Out What’s In It
By Rob on March 9, 2010 at 12:16 pm

No, I’m not making this up. From Pelosi’s speech today to the 2010 Legislative Conference for National Association of Counties.

“You’ve heard about the controversies within the bill, the process about the bill, one or the other. But I don’t know if you have heard that it is legislation for the future, not just about health care for America, but about a healthier America, where preventive care is not something that you have to pay a deductible for or out of pocket. Prevention, prevention, prevention—it’s about diet, not diabetes. It’s going to be very, very exciting.

“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy.


And you call Glen Beck mentally ill, lol

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Speaking of lemmings, even Pelosi admits she does not know what is in the bill, so, how could you?

Gee.....I guess I have to take Hobo1's word for it.

​

 

[OldTrapper]

Gee.....I guess I have to take Hobo1's word for it.

​

Well, obviously you have not read it, and are not interested in doing so. Pelosi admits she has not read it, and doesn't know what is in it.

So, since you do not want to believe Hobo, and have no other source for your faith (which clearly shows why you have no point of facts from which to debate) you will just be the lemming and support it no matter what happens.

And that is typical for the left wing loonie who needs someone else to decide for them.

 

[samsara15]

I love this.

40% 0f Americans have no healthcare.
One third of the working population earns $9 per hour or less.

And 'most people' don't want HC reform???

Bizarre.

The US is not a country where everyone is rich and can choose to buy health insurance if they want.

That is a myth perpetrated by the rich.

It is a country where most people are actually quite hard up and many tens of millions of people cannot afford health insurance.

And so, for example, infant mortality in the US is huge.

In most countries that was resolved 50 years or more ago.

We live in an nation where a large segment of the public are blind to the basic needs of ther rest. Where people belive in the Ayn Rand / rugged individual myth. That is one of the reason why we have been in economic decline ever since the Eisenhower era.

 

[Gipper]

We live in an nation where a large segment of the public are blind to the basic needs of ther rest. Where people belive in the Ayn Rand / rugged individual myth. That is one of the reason why we have been in economic decline ever since the Eisenhower era.

You have that exactly backwards...again.

We are in decline due to unconstitutional socialist policies.

Socialism is like a slow growing cancer. Its kills it's host in a torturous leisurely fashion. It spreads an evil web that metastasizes to all organs of society. And, once it has overwhelmed all of societies defenses, death comes quickly but extremely painfully. This is what we Americans have to look forward to unless a new Ronald Reagan can save us.

 

[Hobo1]

We live in an nation where a large segment of the public are blind to the basic needs of ther rest. Where people belive in the Ayn Rand / rugged individual myth. That is one of the reason why we have been in economic decline ever since the Eisenhower era.

It is strange you should say we are a people blind to the basic needs of the rest, yet the hallmark of the second half of the second half of the 20th century (post Eisenhower) has been a growth of entitlements. Your logic is incongruous.

I lived during the Eisenhower presidency and remember how social problems were handled. Working people joined private workers unions to find solutions to their social problems - they didn't look to the government. And people saved money and planned for possible problems, such as loosing their jobs or getting sick.

Nobody looked to the government to solve problems. They remembered the Great Depression and how Roosevelt's "New Deal" did very little to put shoes on their children. Their solution was to save money before they spent on modest luxuries. Most of all they worked harder to make certain their family could make it through the hard times. It was the hard working American, like my grandfather and father, who made the American economy grow.

The same holds true today.. success comes to those who work hard and those who are clever.

Last year I met a man who never went to school. When he was young he bought a piece of land in a river flood plain. Today he has a old shack, and sits on the front porch on old seats pulled from a car. He has a bulldozer and sells sand from the river bottom. Bring your pick-up truck and he will fill it up. Every year the rains come and sand from upstream fill in his sand pit, so every year he starts with a full sand pit. But he pays for health care for his family by writing a personal check from his bank account.

Ayn Rand wrote at a time in history when America was stronger and its people more motivated to solve their problems by themselves. That sounds like the medicine we need to solve our health care problems - not Obamacare and crooked politicians.

 

[citizenzen]

It is strange you should say we are a people blind to the basic needs of the rest, yet the hallmark of the second half of the second half of the 20th century (post Eisenhower) has been a growth of entitlements. Your logic is incongruous.

His logic is sound.

Surely you've seen that there are many here who would love to see an end to that support. And they don't care how much people will suffer, just so they can save a few dollars in taxes.

Those "entitlements" and our humanity hang by a thin thread. Samsara15 sees that quite clearly.

 

[citizenzen]

I lived during the Eisenhower presidency and remember how social problems were handled. Nobody looked to the government to solve problems.

Your memory seems to be fading my friend. These excerpts are from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (bolding mine)...

Eisenhower and Social Security

Dwight Eisenhower was the principal force behind the greatest single expansion of Social Security beneficiaries in the history of the program. He led the legislative drive to add over ten million Americans to the system. Here’s how it developed.

When the Social Security Act became law in 1935 its purposes were primarily aimed at factory workers and other employees of business organizations. The legislative process leading to passage of the law was both lengthy and contentious. Large numbers of working American’s were left out of the original Old Age and Survivors Insurance coverage. No major changes in the Social Security law had been made since its initial passage.

During the presidential campaign of 1952, candidate Eisenhower made it clear that he believed the federal government played a rightful role in establishing the Social Security system, but he made no promises concerning its future. However, after the election it became clear that the Republicans would have control, by slim margins, of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This changed the political and legislative landscape considerably.​

And you gotta love this from DDE's presidential papers...

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."​

Unfortunately today, their number is not so negligible. They are however, just as stupid as before.

 

[asur]

We are in decline due to unconstitutional socialist policies.

True, the US is creating a society of people who do not work and will
have to be supported by a minority of working stiffs. What's sad is that there are
some people that think it can be beneficial.

Pelosi stated "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".

As for me I don't want to read it because I know it can't be paid for in the long run.

 

[Devil505]

Pelosi stated "But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it".

No she didn't. Fox News cut her off in mid sentence to deceive the public.

Here's her full sentence:
“But we have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy. Furthermore, we believe that health care reform, again I said at the beginning of my remarks, that we sent the three pillars that the President’s economic stabilization and job creation initiatives were education and innovation—innovation begins in the classroom—clean energy and climate, addressing the climate issues in an innovative way to keep us number one and competitive in the world with the new technology, and the third, first among equals I may say, is health care, health insurance reform. Health insurance reform is about jobs. This legislation alone will create 4 million jobs, about 400,000 jobs very soon.

Fox News may as well Photoshop her picture into a murder scene & claim she's the murderer!

Anyone who believes anything they see on Fox News needs to have their head examined!

 

[Hobo1]

Your memory seems to be fading my friend. These excerpts are from the Eisenhower Memorial Commission (bolding mine)...

Eisenhower and Social Security

Dwight Eisenhower was the principal force behind the greatest single expansion of Social Security beneficiaries in the history of the program. He led the legislative drive to add over ten million Americans to the system. Here’s how it developed.

When the Social Security Act became law in 1935 its purposes were primarily aimed at factory workers and other employees of business organizations. The legislative process leading to passage of the law was both lengthy and contentious. Large numbers of working American’s were left out of the original Old Age and Survivors Insurance coverage. No major changes in the Social Security law had been made since its initial passage.

During the presidential campaign of 1952, candidate Eisenhower made it clear that he believed the federal government played a rightful role in establishing the Social Security system, but he made no promises concerning its future. However, after the election it became clear that the Republicans would have control, by slim margins, of both the House of Representatives and the Senate. This changed the political and legislative landscape considerably.​

And you gotta love this from DDE's presidential papers...

Now it is true that I believe this country is following a dangerous trend when it permits too great a degree of centralization of governmental functions. I oppose this--in some instances the fight is a rather desperate one. But to attain any success it is quite clear that the Federal government cannot avoid or escape responsibilities which the mass of the people firmly believe should be undertaken by it. The political processes of our country are such that if a rule of reason is not applied in this effort, we will lose everything--even to a possible and drastic change in the Constitution. This is what I mean by my constant insistence upon "moderation" in government. Should any political party attempt to abolish social security, unemployment insurance, and eliminate labor laws and farm programs, you would not hear of that party again in our political history. There is a tiny splinter group, of course, that believes you can do these things. Among them are H. L. Hunt (you possibly know his background), a few other Texas oil millionaires, and an occasional politician or business man from other areas. Their number is negligible and they are stupid."​

Unfortunately today, their number is not so negligible. They are however, just as stupid as before.

You must remember the atmosphere in the country during the Eisenhower time era. The programs that Eisenhower were talking about were passed by Roosevelt and the question of the day was whether to eliminate them or make some minor course corrections to the existing programs. The question was whether the government hand ANY role in the personal lives of the citizens.

Eisenhower was talking about keeping and refining a safety net that already was in effect. Plus, it is important to point out that both Social Security and Unemployment benefits had dedicated sources of revenue to pay for them. Both the employer and the taxpayer pay into the funds dedicated to these programs. The Social Security fund is not a part of the General Fund. Properly managed, Social Security could have been a model program how government can maintain a safety net for its citizens. People who qualify for Social Security get a check and they can spend it as they wish. There is no co-op pools (as the health care bill has), that gets food at a discount or tells people the must live healthy lives (as the health care bill has).

I think most people would agree that the federal government should "play a rightful role" in maintaining the health and welfare its citizens. Big corporations cannot become so powerful that they get massively wealthy at the expense of the welfare of the citizens. That is why we have anti-trust laws against monopolies. Clearly the Health Care industry has taken advantage of the laissez faire environment they have been operating in. Abuses regarding "existing conditions" and "payment caps" should be corrected through regulations. Medical malpractice lawsuits that force doctors to practice "defensive medicine" (increasing costs by 30%) should also be controlled.

There are other regulations that should be made to correct some fundamental problems (such as making all health care payments tax deductible). But don't forget we already have Medicare for the poor, and Health Savings Accounts which are tax free.

I just don't see any need for the government to step in and guarantee cradle to grave health care. That responsibility belongs to the individual.

And I am sure Eisenhower would quite agree with me.