My first thought was ‘Death panels,’ too…

[fossten]

Why not? Automobile insurers are heavily regulated - but are quite profitable. In many states automobile insurance is required, and there are special policies that deal with high risk drivers (similar to pre existing conditions in health policies).

When employers offload their private carriers in favor of the public option, insurers will go down.

What's that? Oh, you hadn't heard that the public option was back in the House bill?

Oh, that's right, Shag DID remind you of that, and you admitted that the bill was dead, right?

So now you're pretending that the public option isn't under consideration?

Or did I imagine that conversation?

Your lies are getting too numerous for you to keep up with.

 

[shagdrum]

People will opt to keep their current plans -

...IF THEY CAN!

Obama's posturing aside, every iteration of this bill incentivises employers dropping the health care coverage they provide for their workers.

Estimates are over 100 million people losing their current coverage under this bill...

You might be interested Shag - take a look....

In other words, you don't know and don't wanna take the time to check. It is easier to present them as if they disprove my point so you can dismiss it.

 

[fossten]

Shag - she didn't respond to my citation of the Death Panels, so it's unlikely she'll respond to yours either. The art of propaganda begins with not taking a position.

 

[foxpaws]

When employers offload their private carriers in favor of the public option, insurers will go down.

What's that? Oh, you hadn't heard that the public option was back in the House bill?

Oh, that's right, Shag DID remind you of that, and you admitted that the bill was dead, right?

So now you're pretending that the public option isn't under consideration?

Or did I imagine that conversation?

Your lies are getting too numerous for you to keep up with.

It hasn't been voted on, the senate will never go for the public option...

And once again, patiently I state, I don't like the bill.... I hope it goes down to defeat.

Sorry to disappoint you. I know you are trying to claim that I am for this bill, I am not.

 

[fossten]

It hasn't been voted on, the senate will never go for the public option...

And once again, patiently I state, I don't like the bill.... I hope it goes down to defeat.

Sorry to disappoint you. I know you are trying to claim that I am for this bill, I am not.

And yet you keep defending it...

Run along now...

 

[shagdrum]

The art of propaganda begins with not taking a position.

Good point...

 

[shagdrum]

It hasn't been voted on, the senate will never go for the public option...

The Slaughter solution takes the senate completely out of the equation. Once the reconciliation bill passes the House, the Senate Bill is "deemed" to have passed the House as well and is sent to the President for signing.

Continually trying to focus on the Senate is to mislead.

 

[fossten]

The Slaughter solution takes the senate completely out of the equation. Once the reconciliation bill passes the House, the Senate Bill is "deemed" to have passed the House as well and is sent to the President for signing.

Continually trying to focus on the Senate is to mislead.

Hadn't you heard? Fox is claiming IGNORANCE that the Democrats are deliberately violating their oaths of office in order to pass a highly unpopular and well-known bill.

She keeps patiently trying to tell you, by posting NINETEEN TIMES in this thread, that she doesn't know anything about it. Don't you get it?

 

[foxpaws]

DEATH PANELS ARE IN THE BILL!!

Page 1557 has the Comparative Effectiveness Center:

(1) IN GENERAL.—The Secretary shall establish within the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality a Center for Comparative Effectiveness Research (in this section referred to as the ‘Center’) to conduct, support, and synthesize research (including research conducted or supported under section 1013 of the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act of 2003) with respect to the outcomes, effectiveness, and appropriateness of health care services and procedures in order to identify the manner in which diseases, disorders, and other health conditions can most effectively and appropriately be prevented, diagnosed, treated, and managed clinically.​

Read the whole section, but pay attention to the composition of the panel, especially the last discipline:

(i) DIVERSE REPRESENTATION OF PERSPECTIVES.—The members of the Commission shall represent a broad range of perspectives and shall collectively have experience in the following areas:

(I) Epidemiology.
(II) Health services research.
(III) Bioethics.
(IV) Decision sciences.
(V) Health disparities.
(VI) Economics.​

What is “comparative effectiveness”? It’s a system of rationing scarce resources, and it has everything to do with economics.

With everything economics are a consideration - aren't they shag - in private health care they very much are. You have the money, you get better care, you don't, you get minimal care. You can afford the very best health insurance, you get great care, you are on medicaid, you get pretty rotten care.

The wealthy will still get the best care - whether through better insurance plans or buying care outright. That isn't going away. The AMA would be all over that if that were the case.

Foss mentioned that rationing in free market works - and it does - this is rationing in the free market.

It isn't a death panel-they do this in private insurance plans, medicare and medicaid already... They are going to look at a medicine, say that the $25,000 a month to put someone on that medicine isn't cost effective, because the $25,000 option is only 10% more effective than the $25 a month medicine, that is 'economics'. You can buy it yourself... that option isn't going away.

The decision makers at private insurers are very similar in make up - with the number crunchers taking up a great big seat shag.

 

[fossten]

And once again, patiently I state, I don't like the bill.... I hope it goes down to defeat.

So you hope Obama fails?

 

[foxpaws]

And yet you keep defending it...

Run along now...

I defend portions of it, because it has good points. People need to realize that health care insurance reform is needed and good. That just because one bill has bad parts in it we shouldn't scrap the whole idea. But, that is what will happen with the poisoning of the issue that is going on - even in this thread.

Death panels - do you really think any rep or senator would vote for death panels - that is so ridiculous.

 

[foxpaws]

So you hope Obama fails?

I hope this bill fails - I hope that a better bill will rise up from its ashes.

So yes, since Obama has placed this bill with reconciliation as a do or die mandate - yes, I hope he fails.

 

[foxpaws]

The Slaughter solution takes the senate completely out of the equation. Once the reconciliation bill passes the House, the Senate Bill is "deemed" to have passed the House as well and is sent to the President for signing.

Continually trying to focus on the Senate is to mislead.

That is why I don't understand the slaughter solution...

The senate has to pass the reconciliation part of the bill - but can avoid the 60 votes needed for passing a full bill, and also a fillibuster - they only need a simple majority to pass the conciliatory part of the bill handed to them by the house (51 votes).

They still control the bill. The president won't be able to sign the bill until the senate approves/rejects the reconciliation part.

Unless of course, the unthinkable happens, and the house doesn't add any conciliatory language to the bill. Obviously that isn't going to happen. If the house would just approve the senate bill - it would go right to the president's desk as it stands.

Yeah, right....

However, if the house approves the senate bill, hoping the reconciliation will be approved by the senate, but the senate doesn't approve the house's reconciliation - the bill as the senate worded it will be what ends up on the president's desk-that is why this is such a big deal. The senate won't approve the government option - they have stated that before, and if the house tries for it, the senate won't pass their reconciliation part of the bill. The senate will get exactly what it wants, their version of the bill, just as it stands.... the house hates that...

 

[shagdrum]

That is why I don't understand the slaughter solution...

The senate has to pass the reconciliation part of the bill - but can avoid the 60 votes needed for passing a full bill, and also a fillibuster - they only need a simple majority to pass the conciliatory part of the bill handed to them by the house (51 votes).

That depends on how they word the Slaughter rule. If it says that the reconciliation bill has to pass the Senate for the Senate Bill to be "deemed" passed, then you are correct. If the rule says that the reconciliation bill simply has to pass the House for the Senate Bill to be "deemed" passed, then this vote in the House is it. I will look into that later, but I think they are going with the latter wording.

Either way, the Senate Bill will have "passed" the House without a direct vote on that bill; ignoring the Constitutional requirement.

At this point, the debate is not about the merits of the bill, but about the blatantly unconstitutional procedure they are using to get it through. The merits of the bill are secondary. If this is passed in this fashion, it destroys our constitutional republic in favor of a soft tyranny.

 

[shagdrum]

Fox, would you agree that any bill that has to circumvent the Constitution to be enacted is not worth passing?

 

[foxpaws]

That depends on how they word the Slaughter rule. If it says that the reconciliation bill has to pass the Senate for the Senate Bill to be "deemed" passed, then you are correct. If the rule says that the reconciliation bill simply has to pass the House for the Senate Bill to be "deemed" passed, then this vote in the House is it. I will look into that later, but I think they are going with the latter wording.

Either way, the Senate Bill will have "passed" the House without a direct vote on that bill; ignoring the Constitutional requirement.

At this point, the debate is not about the merits of the bill, but about the blatantly unconstitutional procedure they are using to get it through. The merits of the bill are secondary. If this is passed in this fashion, it destroys our constitutional republic in favor of a soft tyranny.

I think the house has to vote on the senate bill as it stands shag - that is the big deal here. They are trying to get the senate to 'promise' to approve their reconciliation part... If the senate won't 'promise' the house won't approve the senate's bill. At least that is how reconciliation has worked in the past-and why I don't understand how slaughter changes that.

There might be something that avoids the house voting directly on the senate bill - and maybe that is what this whole slaughter thing is about, but if there is - I don't understand that at all, it would be totally unconstitutional.

So, how would the house avoid voting on the senate bill first? that weird thing where there would be a law that passes the law without really voting on the law... That isn't going to pass any constitutional test.

 

[foxpaws]

Fox, would you agree that any bill that has to circumvent the Constitution to be enacted is not worth passing?

This seems like a perfect example, if the senate bill doesn't pass the house as it stands, this shouldn't be made into law.

 

[fossten]

There might be something that avoids the house voting directly on the senate bill - and maybe that is what this whole slaughter thing is about, but if there is - I don't understand that at all.

So, how would the house avoid voting on the senate bill first?

Louise Slaughter is trying to rewrite the House rule so that they can just 'deem' it to have passed. That's it.

 

[foxpaws]

Louise Slaughter is trying to rewrite the House rule so that they can just 'deem' it to have passed. That's it.

unconstitutional then - it would get struck down.

And doesn't the rule have to pass the house - I would think that most reps would run away when presented that little rule...

 

[fossten]

unconstitutional then - it would get struck down.

And doesn't the rule have to pass the house - I would think that most reps would run away when presented that little rule...

Nope. She's just writing a new rule. It's a committee thing.

 

[foxpaws]

Nope. She's just writing a new rule. It's a committee thing.

I can't imagine the Senate parliamentarian letting this just slide - he is going to demand a vote on the senate bill by the House before the Senate takes any action on a reconciliation.

He isn't going to go with some 'rule' set by the house rules committee.

The senate is rather aware of their power...

 

[fossten]

But Jokin' Joe Biden can overrule the parliamentarian.

And by the way - the Slaughter Rule isn't just unconstitutional - it's ANTI-Constitutional. It's a blatant grab for power directly in the face of the law.

 

[foxpaws]

also foss, the change in the rule would have to pass the house -
Under the Slaughter Rule, a majority would be needed to approve it and the idea behind adopting it is to give Democrats in tough re-election campaigns the ability to say they didn't vote for what is an unpopular health care bill. Instead, they can say they merely voted on a procedural rule.

 

[foxpaws]

But Jokin' Joe Biden can overrule the parliamentarian.

And by the way - the Slaughter Rule isn't just unconstitutional - it's ANTI-Constitutional. It's a blatant grab for power directly in the face of the law.

Yep - this slaughter thing is pretty much Nancy's buddies doing anything to get the bill passed. How secure is Slaughter's seat - you might want to give some money to her opponent (Nancy's is way too secure - you will never oust her).

However, the senate would still have to pass reconciliation-and they won't...whether Joe lets it get to the floor or not.

And from last I heard the Slaughter solution is pretty much on the ropes...

And what is the difference between 'un' and 'anti' in your mind - intent?

 

[shagdrum]

I think the house has to vote on the senate bill as it stands shag - that is the big deal here.

There is the big problem. They are Constitutionally required to vote on the exact same bill that the Senate passed and they are creating a rule to avoid voting on the bill.