Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So, you are on Medicade, draw SS (have you used up what you paid in yet?) and you do not pay taxes, yet you are against others being able to get affordable coverage, hmmmmmmm.
Casper
Is roy on trial?
Maybe read post #54 and then go haunt another thread...or at least stay on topic.
Any issue with the bribes, back door deals and political payback that this bill is full of? It's only in the millions (as far as we can yet tell).
Yet here your main concern is roy?
Good grief hmmmm is right.
"Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." and i quote -- "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." this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law."
Now how does this help deliver the best healthcare available to the most people???
So, you are on Medicade, draw SS (have you used up what you paid in yet?) and you do not pay taxes, yet you are against others being able to get affordable coverage, hmmmmmmm.
Casper
I agree. It's kind of hypocritical.
I can't lose my insurance. I deserve it.... but.... YOU on the other hand...
and, I'm sure he paid in as much as he's drawn out.
Roy is the one who wanted to argue this point. It's only right to answer his posts.
Quote:
Originally Posted by allydriver
Is roy on trial?
Maybe read post #54 and then go haunt another thread...or at least stay on topic.
Any issue with the bribes, back door deals and political payback that this bill is full of? It's only in the millions (as far as we can yet tell).
Yet here your main concern is roy?
Good grief hmmmm is right.
No one but Roy said anything about old people being a drain on society...
"Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." and i quote -- "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." this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law."
Now how does this help deliver the best healthcare available to the most people???
Interesting points. I did not know this provision. They ought to have the foresight to know that as conditions and needs change with time, there should be provision to make changes to the law. They're locking it up good and tight, aren't they. Stubborn, these Democrats. Just like mules. Fitting. I wish they'd follow the Constitution as closely as they follow the rules they create at whim to suit their own purposes.
"Senator Jim DeMint (R-S.C.) pointed out some rather astounding language in the Senate health care bill during floor remarks tonight. First, he noted that there are a number of changes to Senate rules in the bill--and it's supposed to take a 2/3 vote to change the rules. And then he pointed out that the Reid bill declares on page 1020 that the Independent Medicare Advisory Board cannot be repealed by future Congresses:
there's one provision that i found particularly troubling and it's under section c, titled "limitations on changes to this subsection." and i quote -- "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." this is not legislation. it's not law. this is a rule change. it's a pretty big deal. we will be passing a new law and at the same time creating a senate rule that makes it out of order to amend or even repeal the law."
Now how does this help deliver the best healthcare available to the most people???
So does Senator Chris Dodd get his booty/swag right away or does he have to wait for 2014 to get his new hospital in Connecticut? I'm figuring it's right away to ensure his 2010 relection. Did you know that's in the Obamacare bill? Yup, in addition to bribes there are some goodies for those Democrats facing tough sledding for re-election. That's the third quote in allydriver's post without Dodd's name/state.
It's always been understood that goodies are attached to certain Dem districts and so forth to help during the 2010 re-election year. Remember, 48% of the "Stimulus BIll" is slated to be spent in 2010. No mere coincidence there.
Is roy on trial?
Maybe read post #54 and then go haunt another thread...or at least stay on topic.
Any issue with the bribes, back door deals and political payback that this bill is full of? It's only in the millions (as far as we can yet tell).
Yet here your main concern is roy?
Good grief hmmmm is right.
I am pointing out the obvious concerning his own posts, sorry you missed that. Crying about socialist programs while using the socialist programs to their fullest is what it is. I will haunt where I want, no input from you is required, but thanks for the concern. As for the wheeling and dealing in Washington, where have you been for the last couple of hundred years, that is American Politics. Interesting that so long as their Party is making the deals to get their agenda passed it is all fair and square, but let the other guys do the same and let the finger pointing begin. Do I like the sort of dealing that goes on in Washingtoon, no, but the fault of that lies with us the Voters, since we elected them, Demo or Repub they bioth do it, and we allow it to continue. Don't like how your Reps are performing, vote em out, hold them accountable, no matter which Party they belong to.
Casper
It is very tiresome to keep seeing you talk about the bill with the H. R. designation as what Harry Reid is playing with. Any bill being considered in the Senate would have an S designation. HR means the bill originated in the House. Nasty Nancy's little abortion of a bill is the one you keep talking about. You need to get yourself informed about government sometime to avoid all those fool mistakes.
This Senate healthcare bill also includes a Senate Rule Change making it impossible to repeal the Reid bill, or parts thereof, once enacted into law.
I don't know if Congress has done this before with other bills. I had to go to the bill and look at the specific sections, and maybe this will look different to me tomorrow, but right now, I don't see this as making it impossible to repeal the bill, nor does it prohibit changes.
Here's the passage in question:
SEC. 3403. INDEPENDENT MEDICARE ADVISORY BOARD.
(3) LIMITATION ON CHANGES TO THE BOARD RECOMMENDATIONS.—
‘(A) IN GENERAL.—It shall not be in order in the Senate or the House of Representatives to consider any bill, resolution, or amendment, pursuant to this subsection or conference report thereon, that fails to satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
Okay - it says that Congress, in considering any changes to the provisions for the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, cannot make any changes unless they satisfy the requirements of subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
Sooo, what do these subsections say? First, I went to subsection(c)(2):
(c) BOARD PROPOSALS.—
(2) PROPOSALS.—
Then, I found subparagraph (A)(i):
(A) REQUIREMENTS.—
Each proposal submitted under this section in a proposal year shall meet each of the following requirements:
‘‘(i) If the Chief Actuary of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services has made a determination under paragraph (7)(A) in the determination year, the proposal shall include recommendations so that the proposal as a whole (after taking into account recommendations under clause (v)) will result in a net reduction in total Medicare program spending in the implementation year that is at least equal to the applicable savings target established under paragraph (7)(B) for such implementation year. In determining whether a proposal meets the requirement of the preceding sentence, reductions in Medicare program spending during the 3-month period immediately preceding the implementation year shall be counted to the extent that such reductions are a result of the implementation of recommendations contained in the proposal for a change in the payment rate for an item or service that was effective during such period pursuant to subsection (e)(2)(A).
So, (A)(i) is saying that there are specific requirements for any proposals, and getting back to the first passage, Congress cannot make changes unless such changes conform to the requirements set out in (A)(i). Sounds like a little overkill to me, but okay.
Then, I found subparagraph (C):
(C) NO INCREASE IN TOTAL MEDICARE PROGRAM SPENDING.—
Each proposal submitted under this section shall be designed in such a manner that implementation of the recommendations contained in the proposal would not be expected to result, over the 10-year period starting with the implementation year, in any increase in the total amount of net Medicare program spending relative to the total amount of net Medicare program spending that would have occurred absent such implementation.
This is another requirement for any proposals that would change the passage on the Independent Medicare Advisory Board, and basically it says, if the change would result in an increase in total Medicare Program spending, Congress can't do it.
To sum up, Sec. 3403 (3)(A) applies only to Sec. 3403 on the Independent Medicare Advisory Board. It doesn't apply to any other part of the bill. Also, it seem to me that Sec (3)(A) serves to restate and emphasize requirements for any changes to the Independent Medicare Advisory Board that are already spelled out in subparagraphs (A)(i) and (C) of subsection (c)(2).
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
hmmmm is right.
I wish they'd follow the Constitution as closely as they follow the rules they create at whim to suit their own purposes.
