Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 01:56 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:

What parliamentary procedures are you claiming the Dems used to forward HC reform? Specifically.

Cycloptichorn


Laughing Laughing Laughing

You can't be serious with that question.


I'm dead serious. Go on and tell us. Because from what I can tell, the Dems passed HCR on a straight vote in the House and they overcame a filibuster and passed it in the senate with 60 votes. I guess the most you could point to would be the 'deem and pass' strategy that was used to reconcile the amended version from the Senate in the House. But that's used regularly by both parties and hardly counts as some sort of trick.

YOU are the one who said they used parliamentary procedures to do it, YOU tell us which ones they used. Surely you wouldn't have mentioned it without knowing exactly what you were referring to. Right?

Cycloptichorn
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:01 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Quote:
By a vote of 219 to 212, the House of Representatives passed the Senate version of ObamaCare, which the president signed will law immediately. Thirty-four Democrats broke with their party to oppose the bill.
The reconciliation package, which fixes issues House Democrats had with the bill, will be voted on next. The reconciliation bill avoids a Republican filibuster.




Quote:
David Freddoso: Five things we learned about Obamacare after it passed

"[W]e have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it, away from the fog of the controversy."
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., famously said that about President Obama's health care reform package. She was right. We are just finding out what was contained within that Obamacare law that Obama signed weeks ago.
Here are five things we've learned so far:
One: No sooner had Obamacare passed than the White House discovered that someone goofed. Despite all of Obama's promises and talking points, Obamacare as passed by Congress does not require insurers to cover children with expensive pre-existing medical conditions.
Immediately, the White House got an assurance from the insurers. After demonizing them for months as callous profiteers on others' misery (in fact, the entire industry is barely profitable), Obama now tells Americans that they can trust health insurance companies to do the right thing out of the goodness of their hearts.
Two: State governments discovered that they are no longer just required to guarantee payment for indigent patients' care under Medicaid. Obamacare changes Medicaid law so that now states must also guarantee treatment to the poor.
This is a thorny issue: Many doctors refuse to see Medicaid patients because the program doesn't pay enough for them to break even. (In some states, payments to doctors have been delayed for months or years.)
Some cash-strapped states expect this new definition to spawn court challenges, which will ultimately force them to pay exorbitantly high prices to doctors and hospitals for their existing patients.
Three: Even as Medicaid's costs increase because of the above, so will the number of Medicaid patients under Obamacare's coverage provisions. Thanks to the "Cornhusker Kickback" -- the special Nebraska provision that was extended to every state in the final version of the bill -- the federal taxpayer is on the hook for 90 percent of the new patients' expenses.
So remember those rosy budget projections about Obamacare reducing the deficit, or at least not costing too much? Forget it.
Four: Douglas Shulman, commissioner for the Internal Revenue Service, announced this week at the National Press Club that Obamacare means he can take your tax refund from you. Obamacare requires Americans to purchase insurance, but contains no serious enforcement mechanisms.
So, Shulman said, the IRS will collect penalties from those who fail to purchase "qualified" insurance by confiscating the interest-free loans that taxpayers make to the government throughout the year through employment withholding.
Five: The ski-tourism industry suddenly realizes that it is endangered by Obamacare. Ski resorts must now provide health care or else pay a fine for each employee who works more than 120 days out of the year -- and many of their employees do.
The bill had applied only at the 150-day threshold, until House Democrats changed it in reconciliation. They also cranked up the fine from $750 to $2,000 per employee, in order to pad their budget numbers.
Those are just five things we've learned, out of more than 2,000 pages. You can bet we'll learn a lot more in the seven months leading up to Election Day.
Speaking of which, on Monday evening, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., explained away public opposition to this new health care law, shaped in large part by the special deals he made with reluctant senators last December.
"The loud minority made a lot of noise," Reid said. "Everybody acknowledges, with rare exception, that what we did with our immediate deliverables was terrific."
Reid's state defies the laws of math. Sixty-two percent of Nevadans somehow constitute a "rare exception." And it looks as though the "loud minority" will send Reid looking for a new insurance plan later this year.
David Freddoso is the Washington Examiner's online opinion editor

Read more at the Washington Examiner: http://washingtonexaminer.com/node/101701#ixzz1GEEUPGd8
georgeob1
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:03 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
I never used the word "trick". That is your appelation and an all too common and deceitful rhetorical evasion you employ. You alter the clear meaning of what your interlocutor writes and then indignantly demand that he defend your distorted version. I'm not buying it.

You were the one expressing highly self-righteous indignation about the "tricks" employed by Republicans in Wisconsin. I replied that both parties routinely employ the parliamentary devices available to them in advancing their legislation, and that your indignation was excessive and unjustified. Now you are asserting precisely the same thing, but niggling about exactly which devices are employed. This doesn't merit a response.
Cycloptichorn
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:04 pm
@cicerone imposter,
Dude, that reconciliation bill was to reconcile the House and Senate version of the two bills. It avoids a filibuster that the Republicans had promised to do on the HOUSE version of the bill.

Reconciliation between two different bills passed by the House and Senate, and Budget Reconciliation, a process where the Senate can pass things with only 51 votes and is filibuster-proof, are two different things.

Details matter in these discussions!

And quoting the Washington Examiner? I saw you link to free republic earlier. When did you start taking the extreme right wing seriously, man? You might as well link to Rush Limbaugh for your evidence.

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:09 pm
@georgeob1,
georgeob1 wrote:

I never used the word "trick". That is your appelation and an all too common and deceitful rhetorical evasion you employ. You alter the clear meaning of what your interlocutor writes and then indignantly demand that he defend your distorted version. I'm not buyijng it.

You were the one expressing highly self-righteous indignation about the "tricks" employed by Republicans in Wisconsin. I replied that both parties routinely employ the parliamentary devices available to them in advancing their legislation, and that your indignation was excessive and unjustified. Now you are asserting precisely the same thing, but niggling about exactly which devices are employed. This doesn't merit a response.


Specific question: WHAT parliamentary procedures were you referring to, George? Can't you just answer a simple damn question that is asked you, rather than responding with a bunch of condescension?

You didn't say that they routinely did, you said that they DID use parliamentary procedural maneuvers to pass HCR. So tell us what they are.

I'm betting you can't do so, because the truth is: you don't really know. Isn't that right?

Edit: I see you edited this into your post:

Quote:


Parliamentary procedures involve everything from the committee process for drafting legislation and accepting or rejecting amendments; to rules for debate, limitations on amendments; to special majority provisions for budget amendments. All were used or threatened.


Bullshit. The Dems had the HC reform bill in commitee in the Senate for months, George. Amendments to the bill were voted on in the open Senate. Saying that 'rules for debate' are parliamentary procedures, in the same way as what Walker's bunch did in WI, beggars belief.

What specific majority provisions for budget amendments are you referring to? You say that they were 'threatened.' Is this serious? You're backpedaling here, from claiming that the Dems DID use similar tactics to what Walker's bunch did, to saying that they 'threatened' to do them.

I stand by my above comment that you don't really know WHAT the Dems did or didn't do. You just have some sort of hazy memories of reading about this stuff a year ago. And you sure as hell can't be bothered to actually look ANYTHING up. So you just throw a bunch of crap up there as a smokescreen to hide your lack of specific knowledge.

Cycloptichorn
MontereyJack
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:20 pm
georgeob said:
Quote:
@MontereyJack,

Good luck with that. King Kanute had some trouble with tidal movements some time ago.


That's because Canute deliberately set up his throne in front of the incoming tide to make a political point. However, considering nearly 2/3 of the country and Wisconsin disagreed with Scott Walker, I have the feeling that you'v e already seen your high water mark and are now in the outgoing tide.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:26 pm
@georgeob1,
Quote:
While in both the instances of the passage of Obamacare and the recent action in Wisconsin, the majority party employed most of the parliamentary devices available to them to move their legislation forward,

Including it seems parliamentary devices that are illegal under Wi law and weren't available to them.
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:33 pm
@parados,
Quote:
Including it seems parliamentary devices that are illegal under Wi law and weren't available to them.
The validity of that allegation remains to be seen, and given the opining in the media today it appears that the CW is that this action will stick after the courts look at it.
parados
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:35 pm
@hawkeye10,
We will know in the next 20 days or less.
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:37 pm
@parados,
Quote:
We will know in the next 20 days or less.


And in less then 60 days concerning the recalls
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:44 pm
@BillRM,
Quote:
And in less then 60 days concerning the recalls
We are talking about the legality of the bill that was passed...
BillRM
 
  2  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:47 pm
@hawkeye10,
Quote:
We are talking about the legality of the bill that was passed...


I was aware of that however we do have a lot of interesting things coming to a head in less then two months and the challenge to the bill is just one of them.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 02:57 pm
@parados,
parados, What were the illegal parts of what happened in WI?
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:00 pm
@parados,
This is an interesting read from a year ago..

The Republican complained about the Dems only giving 24 hours notice for a vote on a bill.
http://www.jsonline.com/news/wisconsin/88742322.html
parados
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:06 pm
@cicerone imposter,
http://sunshinereview.org/index.php/Wisconsin_Open_Meetings_Law
Quote:
Notice requirements

Governmental bodies must give public notice of all meetings, showing the time, date, place (as accurately as possible) and subject matter of the meeting. If the body anticipates that part of the session will be closed they must indicate this along with the topics to be discussed in that session. The body must distribute and communicate the notice to the public, to those news media who have filed a written request for such notice, and to the official newspaper designated, if there is one. Otherwise, the body must communicate with whatever publication would involve the area's news or announcements.

The notice must be provided at least 24 hours before the beginning of the meeting unless this requirement is impossible or impractical. It cannot be provided less than two hours in advance of the meeting.

The meeting started at 6pm. Email notice was given at 4:18pm

The issue is the conference committee that was created and met with less than 2 hour notice. The 2 hour notice is only available in case of emergency. The Conference committee is not a sub unit of the Senate since it involves both bodies.

It also appears the vote took place in a locked Capitol building which would also be a violation of the law.
0 Replies
 
cicerone imposter
 
  1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:07 pm
@parados,
Sounds somewhat similar to what happened in DC with ObamaCare. I could be wrong.
parados
 
  4  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:16 pm
@cicerone imposter,
No.. there was no conference meeting prior to both houses voting on the bill.
There was no vote with less than 24 hour notice.

It doesn't sound at all like it and any claim they did so is patently false and only shows ignorance.
0 Replies
 
parados
 
  3  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:19 pm
@cicerone imposter,
I can find stories in the NY Times at least 24 hours prior to the Senate vote on the health care bill stating which day they are going to vote.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/21/health/policy/21health.html
0 Replies
 
georgeob1
 
  -2  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:20 pm
@Cycloptichorn,
Cycloptichorn wrote:

[Specific question: WHAT parliamentary procedures were you referring to, George? Can't you just answer a simple damn question that is asked you, rather than responding with a bunch of condescension?
...

You didn't say that they routinely did, you said that they DID use parliamentary procedural maneuvers to pass HCR. So tell us what they are.

I'm betting you can't do so, because the truth is: you don't really know. Isn't that right?
Are you implying Democrats didn't use ANY parliamenatry maneuvers to advance the Obamacare legislation in the House or Senate? You have a burden of proff here as well. We all observed the limitations on amendments and the time made available to review this 1000+ page legislation - now found to be replete with unworkable and positively harmful provisions and unanticipated consequences - some requiring hundreds of extra legal administrative waivers, mostly to politically connected unions and corporations. Threats to use the budget reconciliation process to bypass minority rights on voting schedules were indeed repeatedly made - as I noted.

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I stand by my above comment that you don't really know WHAT the Dems did or didn't do. You just have some sort of hazy memories of reading about this stuff a year ago. And you sure as hell can't be bothered to actually look ANYTHING up. So you just throw a bunch of crap up there as a smokescreen to hide your lack of specific knowledge.

Cycloptichorn


Once again;
"You were the one expressing highly self-righteous indignation about the "tricks" employed by Republicans in Wisconsin. I replied that both parties routinely employ the parliamentary devices available to them in advancing their legislation, and that your indignation was excessive and unjustified. Now you are asserting precisely the same thing, but niggling about exactly which devices are employed. This doesn't merit a response."
hawkeye10
 
  -1  
Reply Thu 10 Mar, 2011 03:22 pm
@parados,
Quote:
This is an interesting read from a year ago..

The Republican complained about the Dems only giving 24 hours notice for a vote on a bill.
You logic fails however when one realizes that this bill would have passed even if all of the DEMS had shown up. The lack of notice on the vote did not alter the process, so where is the damage?
 

Related Topics

 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.05 seconds on 05/20/2024 at 03:31:51