Senate rules are in place prevent a tyrannical majority from abusing power...

[werepossum]

What's your excuse for not understandig it's about Republican obstructionism, not responsible slowing?

My guess would be his possession of a functional cerebrum.

 

[Craig234]

Considering that I reject your "progressive" utopia, I think the answer to your question is self-explanatory.

You gobble ideology and it sounds like a turkey. Gobble gobble.

 

[Craig234]

My guess would be his possession of a functional cerebrum.

Did he get yours? You didn't answer the point, either.

 

[Craig234]

Nice straw man.

werepossum didn't post a straw man, he posted idiotic false history becasue he doesn't understand things like the way the Suprme Court Justices used other nations' laws.

That's what Republican propagandists do - they lie, by saying things idiots can't understand are lies, hence why the liberal they're attacking is constantly trying to destroy the US and the world.

Hence Obama 'palling around with terrosists' because he is a secret terrorist who hates the US.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but the millions of people who fall for it are the real measure.

 

[werepossum]

Did he get yours? You didn't answer the point, either.

I see your point and recommend a nice hat.

Like I'm going to seriously engage someone who just said "Gobble gobble" as though it was a germane comment. Sorry, you must be this bright to ride the 'possum, please step away from the line.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

So my question about all this is, do you honestly think that the quoted section of the bill would actually be successful in preventing alteration of the act by a future Congress? I can't see how any rational person would think so. So if it doesn't, then who cares?

I care because it's wrong to attempt to do so. Is that the standard now, that anyone can attempt anything as long as eventually it will probably be fixed?

 

[woolfe9999]

I am a bit perplexed at why Harry Reid (or the staffer who actually wrote the provision) tried to put this in on this particular subsection. In spite of the ludicrous "death panel" gambit, the independent Medicare advisory board is about the most innocuous, and least important part of this bill. If you want to set something up as unrepealable, why not the whole bill or the material portions of it? There are now headlines on the all the tea partier/birther/Glenn Beck sites "Death Panels Are Unrepealable!" Oh brother. Sounds like someone screwed up.

They can't make anything unrepealable without a rule change which requires a 2/3's vote, and even then the rule change itself would be repealable with another 2/3's vote. I strongly suspect that this language will get chucked out in the conference committee.

- wolf

 

[Craig234]

I see your point and recommend a nice hat.

Like I'm going to seriously engage someone who just said "Gobble gobble" as though it was a germane comment. Sorry, you must be this bright to ride the 'possum, please step away from the line.

Post garbage and it gets called garbage. You haven't made a point yet, you just blabber on.

Only response to blabber is generally to say it's blabber. You're defending garbage.

 

[Craig234]

I care because it's wrong to attempt to do so. Is that the standard now, that anyone can attempt anything as long as eventually it will probably be fixed?

Your point is fine IF it's doing something wrong. If it's just some language to deal with Republican obstructioning in passing the bill, that's fine. I don't know which it is, and it's worth investigating.

 

[bfdd]

Craig234, what do other nations laws have to do with something being constitutional or unconstitutional here? Last I checked we're not supposed to follow other nations laws nor are they part of our constitution.

 

[shadow9d9]

Why do you think people are so upset. This is noting more than another pork filled bill that really does nothing except grant handouts to the insurance industry.

Obama like to talk about the evil insurance company...well...he is about to increase their customer base by 30 million people and that revenue stream will be subsidized by the federal government.

(And people say the GOP is in the pocket of the insurance industry)

You can thank the GOP do nothing party that has allowed the bill to be watered down. It allowed a handful of independents and hick state democrats to strip down the bill and profit hugely.

Can't complain if you support the party that removes 40 senators from the legislative process completely on the basis of trying to hurt the opposition.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am a bit perplexed at why Harry Reid (or the staffer who actually wrote the provision) tried to put this in on this particular subsection. In spite of the ludicrous "death panel" gambit, the independent Medicare advisory board is about the most innocuous, and least important part of this bill. If you want to set something up as unrepealable, why not the whole bill or the material portions of it? There are now headlines on the all the tea partier/birther/Glenn Beck sites "Death Panels Are Unrepealable!" Oh brother. Sounds like someone screwed up.

They can't make anything unrepealable without a rule change which requires a 2/3's vote, and even then the rule change itself would be repealable with another 2/3's vote. I strongly suspect that this language will get chucked out in the conference committee.

- wolf

Let's hope they get that out. Personally, I think think the Advisory Board isn't one of the least important things out there. There are a few things I like in the bill and being able to help those nearing the end of their lives is a good one. Another thing proposed is that there will be a concerted effort to determine treatment outcomes in a consistent framework to help the practitioner determine the best course of action. That kind of data would be invaluable. Now get the government and private insurances out of the patient/practioner relationship, decrease the regulatory compliance burden IN FACT (not the sort of nightmare HIPPA handed us) as well as the horrid and complex billing schemes which keep us from seeing people because we have to chase after prior authorizations and the like, and we have the beginnings of health care reform.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

You can thank the GOP do nothing party that has allowed the bill to be watered down. It allowed a handful of independents and hick state democrats to strip down the bill and profit hugely.

Can't complain if you support the party that removes 40 senators from the legislative process completely on the basis of trying to hurt the opposition.

Hard to support 60 senators who would rather have any bill than to start again with the purpose of improving the quality of health care the provider can give.

You have no clothes.

 

[fskimospy]

I care because it's wrong to attempt to do so. Is that the standard now, that anyone can attempt anything as long as eventually it will probably be fixed?

Why exactly is it wrong to do this? If something modifying or removing the areas that language has enough support to pass, it almost certainly has enough support to merit being an exception to this language or would cause the language to be removed. I think we can all agree that this doesn't actually put any restrictions upon the future actions of Congress, as Congress could repeal or modify it at any time were it to so choose. If you look at the legislative history of the US, there are TONS of examples of things that you probably wouldn't like that end up being completely toothless in this same vein, so I really wonder why this meaningless clause merits any attention whatsoever.

Now I can't be sure what his motivations were, the 'out of order' provision makes it seem most likely to me that he is attempting to prevent a whole host of BS/frivolous amendments from being offered to this bill while dealing with unrelated bills coming up in the future. I actually support that, because all it would be limiting in that case is pointless grandstanding and partisan BS.

 

[boomerang]

Our world is changing dramatically and perhaps irreversibly right before our eyes. In spite of poll after poll after poll telling our Senators that the majority of Americans do not want this bill in its current form, they press on behind closed doors. Despite being inundated with letters, emails, faxes and phone calls they press on. The media is silent.

The issue now is not the bill. The issue is not what is in it and what it will do. The issue now is what is happening to our Republic. The health care bill is a distraction from what is taking place. It's the vehicle for the change - the fundamental change. "The Fundamental Transformation of the Unites States of America."

Government of the people, by the people, for the people is no more if this bill passes. Our form of representative government will be dead. It will cease to exist. What will take its place has had many names through history. Voting these traitors out of office will not turn this country around. The form of government we will have is unconcerned about elections. They may be held, but there will be no meaning to them.

The usual cast of characters is in this thread attempting to minimize and dismiss legitimate concerns. We've heard them before. If it suits your purpose to consider this post lunatic ravings feel free to do so. But you know, deep down inside that our very way of life is teetering on the edge. You feel it in your bones. You know something is not at all right even though those on the extreme left want you to believe it's business as usual. It's not.

The people running our government no longer want a government run by the people. They know what's best and they are going to force it down our throats willingly ... or not. Passage of this bill will embolden them.

In our form of government, our representatives do what we the people want them to. Are they? You know the answer.

"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"

 

[EagleKeeper]

Why do you think people are so upset. This is noting more than another pork filled bill that really does nothing except grant handouts to the insurance industry.

Obama like to talk about the evil insurance company...well...he is about to increase their customer base by 30 million people and that revenue stream will be subsidized by the federal government.

(And people say the GOP is in the pocket of the insurance industry)

You can thank the GOP do nothing party that has allowed the bill to be watered down. It allowed a handful of independents and hick state democrats to strip down the bill and profit hugely.

Can't complain if you support the party that removes 40 senators from the legislative process completely on the basis of trying to hurt the opposition.

If the quality of the bill is such that a Senator does not feel that they can support it and/or it does not do what they feel it should do why blame them.

You seem to feel that if everyone does not toe the majority party line, they are a problem.

Other sweeping landmark bills in history have had a large Senate passage that included both parties.

It should make you wonder why this "sweeping" bill can not garner such support.

Reid does not want this bill to be examined by the public because it is so flawed. It can not stand the light of day because it does not accomplish what was promised to the American public.

And you have Democratic as well as Republican Senators that seem to feel that way.

However, the Dems apparently can be bribed.

 

[fskimospy]

Our world is changing dramatically and perhaps irreversibly right before our eyes. In spite of poll after poll after poll telling our Senators that the majority of Americans do not want this bill in its current form, they press on behind closed doors. Despite being inundated with letters, emails, faxes and phone calls they press on. The media is silent.

The issue now is not the bill. The issue is not what is in it and what it will do. The issue now is what is happening to our Republic. The health care bill is a distraction from what is taking place. It's the vehicle for the change - the fundamental change. "The Fundamental Transformation of the Unites States of America."

Government of the people, by the people, for the people is no more if this bill passes. Our form of representative government will be dead. It will cease to exist. What will take its place has had many names through history. Voting these traitors out of office will not turn this country around. The form of government we will have is unconcerned about elections. They may be held, but there will be no meaning to them.

The usual cast of characters is in this thread attempting to minimize and dismiss legitimate concerns. We've heard them before. If it suits your purpose to consider this post lunatic ravings feel free to do so. But you know, deep down inside that our very way of life is teetering on the edge. You feel it in your bones. You know something is not at all right even though those on the extreme left want you to believe it's business as usual. It's not.

The people running our government no longer want a government run by the people. They know what's best and they are going to force it down our throats willingly ... or not. Passage of this bill will embolden them.

In our form of government, our representatives do what we the people want them to. Are they? You know the answer.

"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"

Quoted for batshit crazy.

I especially like how you think our system of government is about to collapse because legislators are not doing what their constituents tell them to, despite the fact that our system of government was expressly created by the founding fathers with numerous protections for legislators to do just that.

Ahhhh ignorance. The world is so much clearer when you don't know what you're talking about. (apparently it is far scarier though, as you are constantly afraid the world is collapsing)

 

[jonks]

Other sweeping landmark bills in history have had a large Senate passage that included both parties.

It should make you wonder why this "sweeping" bill can not garner such support.

Some may have, but healthcare has not been one of them. Medicare itself passed the senate in 1965 by a vote of 70-24 after monumental wrangling, and that without the daily feedback of twitter and 24 hour news cycles. And that was with 68 democrats vs 32 republicans. Left and Right ideas on healthcare are not going to naturally dovetail, in fact, they seem irreconciliable on several fronts. At the debates Obama said he believed healthcare for americans is a right, and McCain said it was a responsibility. Hard to meet between those two points.

 

[JEDIYoda]

werepossum didn't post a straw man, he posted idiotic false history

That is the way all of werepossum`s posts are....regarding all the topics he posts about!!

 

[fskimospy]

werepossum didn't post a straw man, he posted idiotic false history becasue he doesn't understand things like the way the Suprme Court Justices used other nations' laws.

That's what Republican propagandists do - they lie, by saying things idiots can't understand are lies, hence why the liberal they're attacking is constantly trying to destroy the US and the world.

Hence Obama 'palling around with terrosists' because he is a secret terrorist who hates the US.

Yes, it sounds ridiculous, but the millions of people who fall for it are the real measure.

No it was a straw man, he was just strawmanning the USSC's position on the Constitution. This is what happens when someone knows they would lose an argument on the merits.

 

[werepossum]

Our world is changing dramatically and perhaps irreversibly right before our eyes. In spite of poll after poll after poll telling our Senators that the majority of Americans do not want this bill in its current form, they press on behind closed doors. Despite being inundated with letters, emails, faxes and phone calls they press on. The media is silent.

The issue now is not the bill. The issue is not what is in it and what it will do. The issue now is what is happening to our Republic. The health care bill is a distraction from what is taking place. It's the vehicle for the change - the fundamental change. "The Fundamental Transformation of the Unites States of America."

Government of the people, by the people, for the people is no more if this bill passes. Our form of representative government will be dead. It will cease to exist. What will take its place has had many names through history. Voting these traitors out of office will not turn this country around. The form of government we will have is unconcerned about elections. They may be held, but there will be no meaning to them.

The usual cast of characters is in this thread attempting to minimize and dismiss legitimate concerns. We've heard them before. If it suits your purpose to consider this post lunatic ravings feel free to do so. But you know, deep down inside that our very way of life is teetering on the edge. You feel it in your bones. You know something is not at all right even though those on the extreme left want you to believe it's business as usual. It's not.

The people running our government no longer want a government run by the people. They know what's best and they are going to force it down our throats willingly ... or not. Passage of this bill will embolden them.

In our form of government, our representatives do what we the people want them to. Are they? You know the answer.

"Fundamentally Transforming the United States of America"

I don't know it's this bill in particular. Americans have discovered that we can elect people who will take wealth from others and gift it to us. And they'll call these gifts entitlements so we don't even have to feel guilty. When healthy people demand that government provide for their education, health care, retirement, even daily sustenance, is it really surprising that our Mandarins don't think our opinions matter?

How can we claim to be capable of running the country, even indirectly, but not capable of running our own lives without government help? Seems to me we can't have it both ways.

 

[werepossum]

No it was a straw man, he was just strawmanning the USSC's position on the Constitution. This is what happens when someone knows they would lose an argument on the merits.

I was merely pointing out that assuming something is unconstitutional and will therefore be overturned is unwise because the SCOTUS no longer considers itself as just an arbiter of the Constitution. When a justice quotes something other than the Constitution - especially foreign laws or practices - as justification for a decision, he or she is obviously not interpreting the Constitution which says exactly nothing about foreign laws or practices (except for treaty obligations.) If you have an explanation as to how a justice is actually interpreting the Constitution when he or she quotes a foreign law, I'd be interested in reading it. I suspect though that I would get another lecture on how the justices are much smarter and better educated than I and therefore I should just accept whatever they proclaim. Which, come to think of it, isn't that much different from the core Democrat position of "government knows best."

By the way, you use 'strawman' a lot and I do not think it means what you think it means. A strawman is an associated but weaker argument set up by a debater in place of the opposing argument, the purpose being to defeat the new, weaker argument in order to defeat, or to seem to have defeated, the original, stronger argument. In this case I brought up an issue (the reliability of something unconstitutional actually being declared unconstitutional) which is at best ancillary to and more properly merely related to Rudder's original argument, that being that this will be declared unconstitutional. For instance, one could agree completely with me that SCOTUS no longer considers itself bound by the Constitution and still believe Reid's action will be overturned by SCOTUS or lower courts. One could also agree completely with me that SCOTUS no longer considers itself bound by the Constitution and still believe that Reid's action is completely constitutional and in fact an excellent idea. Or one could believe SCOTUS is still bound by the Constitution and will overturn Reid's action as unconstitutional. Or one could believe SCOTUS is still bound by the Constitution and will not overturn Reid's action because it is not unconstitutional. So calling this point a strawman is completely wrong.

 

[fskimospy]

I was merely pointing out that assuming something is unconstitutional and will therefore be overturned is unwise because the SCOTUS no longer considers itself as just an arbiter of the Constitution. When a justice quotes something other than the Constitution - especially foreign laws or practices - as justification for a decision, he or she is obviously not interpreting the Constitution which says exactly nothing about foreign laws or practices (except for treaty obligations.) If you have an explanation as to how a justice is actually interpreting the Constitution when he or she quotes a foreign law, I'd be interested in reading it. I suspect though that I would get another lecture on how the justices are much smarter and better educated than I and therefore I should just accept whatever they proclaim. Which, come to think of it, isn't that much different from the core Democrat position of "government knows best."

By the way, you use 'strawman' a lot and I do not think it means what you think it means. A strawman is an associated but weaker argument set up by a debater in place of the opposing argument, the purpose being to defeat the new, weaker argument in order to defeat, or to seem to have defeated, the original, stronger argument. In this case I brought up an issue (the reliability of something unconstitutional actually being declared unconstitutional) which is at best ancillary to and more properly merely related to Rudder's original argument, that being that this will be declared unconstitutional. For instance, one could agree completely with me that SCOTUS no longer considers itself bound by the Constitution and still believe Reid's action will be overturned by SCOTUS or lower courts. One could also agree completely with me that SCOTUS no longer considers itself bound by the Constitution and still believe that Reid's action is completely constitutional and in fact an excellent idea. Or one could believe SCOTUS is still bound by the Constitution and will overturn Reid's action as unconstitutional. Or one could believe SCOTUS is still bound by the Constitution and will not overturn Reid's action because it is not unconstitutional. So calling this point a strawman is completely wrong.

I do use it a lot, and I use it correctly. In fact I feel like I'm sort of the 'straw man police' on here because of how frequently I have to correct people on the issue. You stated that the Supreme Court considers its position to be the ultimate arbiter of what is good for society as opposed to how to interpret the Constitution. This deliberately and deceitfully misrepresents the USSC's position, thus making it easier for you to defeat it. Hence, it is a straw man of the USSC's position as I mentioned to Craig earlier. You could also say it's merely a gross distortion and an unfounded smear, but in this case it can easily be both.

The majority of the members of the US Supreme Court are not strict constructionalists and therefore they take into account the society around the Constitution when thinking of how to apply it. (even Scalia says he's not a strict constructionalist) There's your answer.

You seem to think differently (which is fine), but you have far less expertise to back your opinion up than they do. Your contempt for education and qualifications are clearly on display here but they just make you look bad, not them.

 

[jonks]

When a justice quotes something other than the Constitution - especially foreign laws or practices - as justification for a decision, he or she is obviously not interpreting the Constitution which says exactly nothing about foreign laws or practices (except for treaty obligations.)

The Constitution says absolutely squat about what the SC can consider in making its rulings. Art III is pretty damn short. (btw, where does the const say the SC can't look to foreign law in interpreting our laws?) Centuries of jurisprudence and existing and developing common law have guided the court. The court may have on occassion looked to foreign jurisdictions as examples or for illustration, but I'm not aware of any decision where a law passed by a state in our union or one passed by congress was ruled unconstitutional based in any part due to conflict with a foreign law (not treaties). I'm not even aware of any ruling they made where they cited a foreign law (not treaty) as the sole justification for the ruling. If I am incorrect, please point out where that happened.

 

[nobodyknows]

Change you can believe in!

When people start voting with their guns then we will have change you can believe in. Until then we're stuck with a capital ruled by nothing but greedy self interests.

So unless your willing to shoot the first shot then we have play the game with the rules we have.