PDA

View Full Version : Bogus legislation



TXduckdog
10-08-2009, 12:10 PM
Anybody see the interview of Harry Reid actually saying that the health care bill will be attached to an unrelated tax bill?

YardleyLabs
10-08-2009, 01:01 PM
Anybody see the interview of Harry Reid actually saying that the health care bill will be attached to an unrelated tax bill?
Are you surprised? The only way the Bush tax cuts passed was that they were handled through the budget reconciliation process so that they would only require a 50% majority and were not subject to floor amendments. I fully expect that any health bill will be passed in a similar manner since it is unlikely that a meaningful bill can attract 60% support.

WaterDogRem
10-08-2009, 01:54 PM
Are you surprised? The only way the Bush tax cuts passed was that they were handled through the budget reconciliation process so that they would only require a 50% majority and were not subject to floor amendments. I fully expect that any health bill will be passed in a similar manner since it is unlikely that a meaningful bill can attract 60% support.

Fully Agree, because the majority of Americans are happy with their Health insurance and don't see the need for Gov. run Health Insurance.

Bob Gutermuth
10-08-2009, 02:52 PM
America will be fortunate indeed if osamacare and cap & trade wind up in the congressional dumpster

Eric Johnson
10-08-2009, 03:22 PM
All I saw was a brief mention about Sen Reid having worked out a special deal for Nevada. Something about Nevada not being impacted by changes in Medicare. Just found it......Same old, same old.

Eric
************
By Lisa Mascaro
Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 | 10:27 a.m.

Sun Coverage

WASHINGTON — Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured a deal today that would give Nevada full, 100 percent funding in the Senate health care bill for an initial expansion of Medicaid.

The agreement reached with the committee chairman comes after Reid vowed last week to strike a better deal for Nevada before bringing any legislation to the floor.

Hew
10-08-2009, 04:27 PM
Are you surprised? The only way the Bush tax cuts passed was that they were handled through the budget reconciliation process so that they would only require a 50% majority and were not subject to floor amendments. I fully expect that any health bill will be passed in a similar manner since it is unlikely that a meaningful bill can attract 60% support.
The Bush tax cuts were applicable to the BUDGET reconciliation process. Health care reform isn't a budgetary item and technically isn't subject to BUDGET reconciliation. So if the dems want to ram the square peg of health care reform into the round hole of budget reconciliation they're going to have to get down and dirty...really dirty...way more so than the GOP had to in order to pass the tax cuts. If they're feelin' that froggy, they should just go ahead and jump. 2010 is just around the corner. ;-)

Here's a really interesting and even-handed article about it: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/why-democrats-dont-want-to-pass-a-51-vote-health-care-bill--and-why-that-has-liberals-fuming.php

Hew
10-08-2009, 04:30 PM
All I saw was a brief mention about Sen Reid having worked out a special deal for Nevada. Something about Nevada not being impacted by changes in Medicare. Just found it......Same old, same old.

Eric
************
By Lisa Mascaro
Tuesday, Sept. 22, 2009 | 10:27 a.m.

Sun Coverage

WASHINGTON Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid secured a deal today that would give Nevada full, 100 percent funding in the Senate health care bill for an initial expansion of Medicaid.

The agreement reached with the committee chairman comes after Reid vowed last week to strike a better deal for Nevada before bringing any legislation to the floor.
When you're tanking in the polls in your home state you gotta bring home the bacon no matter what it takes. Reid is dripping with flop sweat at the thought of becoming the next Tiny Tom Dashole.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2009, 05:58 PM
The Bush tax cuts were applicable to the BUDGET reconciliation process. Health care reform isn't a budgetary item and technically isn't subject to BUDGET reconciliation. So if the dems want to ram the square peg of health care reform into the round hole of budget reconciliation they're going to have to get down and dirty...really dirty...way more so than the GOP had to in order to pass the tax cuts. If they're feelin' that froggy, they should just go ahead and jump. 2010 is just around the corner. ;-)

Here's a really interesting and even-handed article about it: http://tpmdc.talkingpointsmemo.com/2009/09/why-democrats-dont-want-to-pass-a-51-vote-health-care-bill--and-why-that-has-liberals-fuming.php
They are very comparable. The tax cuts, which included provisions phasing in and phasing out over a period of more than a decade to avoid an even more seriously negative CBO appraisal, were related to the budget process only because they involved revenues. Health care legislation, which phases in spending and revenues over a period of a decade but, unlike the tax cuts, does not result in deficit increases, is related to the budget because it is directly related to spending and revenues. That is all the justification that has ever been used in attaching controversial programs to the budget reconciliation process to avoid the Senate rules requirement for a supermajority.

TXduckdog
10-08-2009, 07:30 PM
They are very comparable. The tax cuts, which included provisions phasing in and phasing out over a period of more than a decade to avoid an even more seriously negative CBO appraisal, were related to the budget process only because they involved revenues. Health care legislation, which phases in spending and revenues over a period of a decade but, unlike the tax cuts, does not result in deficit increases, is related to the budget because it is directly related to spending and revenues. That is all the justification that has ever been used in attaching controversial programs to the budget reconciliation process to avoid the Senate rules requirement for a supermajority.


Jeff...you can't be serious. Tax cuts are worlds away from the biggest government monopoly in history.

Where do you get the idea that health care doesn't increase deficits. This bad boy sure does.

YardleyLabs
10-08-2009, 09:23 PM
Jeff...you can't be serious. Tax cuts are worlds away from the biggest government monopoly in history.

Where do you get the idea that health care doesn't increase deficits. This bad boy sure does.
What government monopoly? Under the Senate bill the government has no role in providing health services or administering payments beyond what it has today. Tax cuts and health spending are both related to budget equally and therefore are equally appropriate to be addressed within the context of Senate rule for budget bills. The 60 vote rule is a Senate tradition, not a law, and may be changed at any time by majority vote. It is a tradition that has been maintained because neither party wants to give it up permanently. However, it is also a tradition that has been set aside on a regular basis for certain types of votes. Both the 2001 and 2003 tax cuts passed the Senate with less than 60 votes. The 2003 cuts passed with 50 votes plus the vote of Cheney as tie breaker. If that kind of vote was appropriate for something that combined to add more than $2 trillion to our deficit, I don't see why it is not equally appropriate to do it for health care.

TXduckdog
10-09-2009, 10:47 AM
Monopoly....1) exclusive ownership through legal priviledge, command of supply or concerted action; 2)exclusive possession or control; 3) a commodity controlled by one party.

I think there are aspects from each of these definitions that certainly apply to the proposed government control of healthcare. Therefore monopoly is an applicable term in this case.

YardleyLabs
10-09-2009, 10:51 AM
Monopoly....1) exclusive ownership through legal priviledge, command of supply or concerted action; 2)exclusive possession or control; 3) a commodity controlled by one party.

I think there are aspects from each of these definitions that certainly apply to the proposed government control of healthcare. Therefore monopoly is an applicable term in this case.
Can you explain further? I don't see how any of these apply. Insurance has been and continues to be a regulated industry with limited Federal regulation and extensive state regulation. What is changing. I am not asking as some form of trick question. I truly don't understand your argument.

TXduckdog
10-09-2009, 10:59 AM
You don't see how the goverment through ---- taxation, cutting and/or regulating present services, mandating specialists actions, mandating everyone to have health insurance, whether private or the public option.

These are just a few right of the top of my head.

Jeff...do you really believe that government will NOT be in control of the healthcare system as we know it with the passage of ANY of the current bills?

YardleyLabs
10-09-2009, 11:17 AM
You don't see how the goverment through ---- taxation, cutting and/or regulating present services, mandating specialists actions, mandating everyone to have health insurance, whether private or the public option.

These are just a few right of the top of my head.

Jeff...do you really believe that government will NOT be in control of the healthcare system as we know it with the passage of ANY of the current bills?
I believe that our health care system is currently controlled by a variety of forces -- both governmental and private. The one force that is not involved currently and is not likely to be involved any more is open market competition for the simple reason that consumers are shielded from the economic impact of their choices by insurance and have only a limited ability to make informed decisions about their medical needs anyway. I do not believe anything in the proposed program will change that for better or worse. Today, the rules are made largely by whoever pays the bills. For those covered by private health plans (about 60% of the population), those decisions are regulated by private insurance companies with little external review. For those covered by Medicaid or Medicare, those decisions are regulated by State and Federal governments, although with generally less oversight than exists with private plans. The proposed changes will add a few more people to public plans and add even more people to private plans. I do not believe it creates anything even vaguely approaching a government monopoly.

TXduckdog
10-09-2009, 11:30 AM
Jeff...are not the proposed health-care reform proposals the single largest proposed government entitlement in history?

For those involved in the entitlement and these proposals want EVERYBODY involved, the government pays the bills....since they do....government will make the rules...hence a government monopoly.

This WSJ article has tremendous detail.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461121881407350.html?m od=djemEditorialPage

I'd like to believe, as you do, that we are "safe" from government intrusion, but brother, that just ain't so.

YardleyLabs
10-09-2009, 11:34 AM
Jeff...are not the proposed health-care reform proposals the single largest proposed government entitlement in history?

For those involved in the entitlement and these proposals want EVERYBODY involved, the government pays the bills....since they do....government will make the rules...hence a government monopoly.

This WSJ article has tremendous detail.....http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703746604574461121881407350.html?m od=djemEditorialPage

I'd like to believe, as you do, that we are "safe" from government intrusion, but brother, that just ain't so.
I think both Social Security and Medicare are bigger both in terms of number of beneficiaries and cost. However, I haven't actually done the math.

Hoosier
10-09-2009, 11:36 AM
I think both Social Security and Medicare are bigger both in terms of number of beneficiaries and cost. However, I haven't actually done the math.

Aren't both of those going bankrupt?

ducknwork
10-09-2009, 11:47 AM
Today, the rules are made largely by whoever pays the bills.

If one of the HC bills are passed, who will be paying the bills? The government?;)
________
STARCRAFT 2 REPLAY BEGINNERS (http://screplays.com)

YardleyLabs
10-09-2009, 11:49 AM
Aren't both of those going bankrupt?
Not as fast as the rest of the government.:rolleyes:

There are a few different issues involved with the "bankruptcy" of social security and medicare. On social security, the process is a very slow one that has been accelerated by two factors: (1) real increases in post retirement life expectancy without off-setting changes in retirement age or benefits, or off-setting tax increases, and (2) spending of surpluses over the last 20 years to finance current deficits used primarily to finance general tax cuts. In Medicare, increased longevity is also a factor. It is made worse by price inflation for services other than physician services at rates more than twice the rate of inflation plus the addition of new services such as the drug benefit with no increase in premium. The latter was made worse by the inclusion of special windfall provisions benefiting the pharmaceutical and insurance industries to the tune of tens of billions of dollars per year. By the way, the principal source of savings in the proposed health bills is to eliminate some of these windfall programs.

ducknwork
10-09-2009, 11:52 AM
By the way, the principal source of savings in the proposed health bills is to eliminate some of these windfall programs.

Why don't we start saving money now, then, when the savings are proven and measurable, start spending that money? It shouldn't be 'spend now, save later', rather, the other way around...

I think someone should introduce our congress to Dave Ramsey.
________
W128 (http://www.mercedes-wiki.com/wiki/Mercedes-Benz_W128)

Hoosier
10-09-2009, 12:04 PM
How exactly do you save money, and run up the national debt at the same time? We're really just talking about not running the debt as fast (when we're talking about savings) as we could be running it up aren't we?

ducknwork
10-09-2009, 12:13 PM
Nonsense!




;)
________
Boiling (http://www.cooking-chef.com/boiling/)

Eric Johnson
10-09-2009, 01:20 PM
Jeff-

Have you seen the Senate bill? No one else has, including the members of the Senate Finance Committee. They'd like your copy please.

Eric

YardleyLabs
10-09-2009, 02:09 PM
Jeff-

Have you seen the Senate bill? No one else has, including the members of the Senate Finance Committee. They'd like your copy please.

Eric
There is no legislative language yet but there is a very detailed markup that would be the basis for drafting legislative language (this is not an uncommon approach). The markup (223 pages long) is at (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill---Full-Text) and the Baucus white paper detailing the components of the plan is at (http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf). Both are as of 9/22/09 and there have been numerous amendments in committee. The CBO report was based on the 9/22 documents as far as I know. By the way, I have a number of reservations about the Senate bill and generally believe it is worse than the House Bill.

badbullgator
10-09-2009, 02:25 PM
You guys are missing the entire point. obongocare is just like the Nobel Prize. All you have to do is tell everyone how good it will be and BANG there it is......good as gold we can print and spend as much as we want because we are being told it will actually save money so it must be so....can obongo win another NPP next year for healthcare visions?????

Gerry Clinchy
10-09-2009, 03:29 PM
There is no legislative language yet but there is a very detailed markup that would be the basis for drafting legislative language (this is not an uncommon approach). The markup (223 pages long) is at (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill---Full-Text) and the Baucus white paper detailing the components of the plan is at (http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf). Both are as of 9/22/09 and there have been numerous amendments in committee. The CBO report was based on the 9/22 documents as far as I know. By the way, I have a number of reservations about the Senate bill and generally believe it is worse than the House Bill.

Wasn't the number of amendments that was mentioned something like 534? Heck, if every amendment was only 1 page, it would be double the size of the original markup;-)

Anybody know what it costs now? Probably won't matter since it will be different by tomorrow; and by the time they actually vote on it.

Begins to look a little bit like a shell game ... except nobody, even the ones manipulating the shells, know where the pea will turn up.

TXduckdog
10-10-2009, 09:45 AM
There is no legislative language yet but there is a very detailed markup that would be the basis for drafting legislative language (this is not an uncommon approach). The markup (223 pages long) is at (http://www.docstoc.com/docs/11382446/Baucus-Health-Care-Bill---Full-Text) and the Baucus white paper detailing the components of the plan is at (http://finance.senate.gov/healthreform2009/finalwhitepaper.pdf). Both are as of 9/22/09 and there have been numerous amendments in committee. The CBO report was based on the 9/22 documents as far as I know. By the way, I have a number of reservations about the Senate bill and generally believe it is worse than the House Bill.


Markup...schmarkup......thats BOGUS........it's uncommon in that the SFC is the ONLY finance committee that uses this procedure.

In this age of government transparency and NOT government as usual, you'd think they could actually use legislative language for all folks to read.

But then we know that all that is a LIE.