I think some of the troubles getting this bill and others through the senate would be lessened if the Democrats instead of backing down when they can't get 60 votes instead forced the Republicans to actually stand there and filibuster properly if they want to stop the bill. I wonder how many senators actually want to stand up for hours on end going on about anything and everything and it would make it nice and clear who it is that is causing the lack of progress.
Someone needs to make this very clear to the elderly, because now it's just depressing. Put out a paid PSA on Fox News: "Attention all members of the Tea Party: Teabagging is not a term suitable for your cause. Before it was used by your pundits to describe your actions, it described (and still describes) the following: [extremely explicit and anatomically precise description of teabagging]. We do not mean to offend your sensibilities, we are just tired of laughing at you. That is all."
I think some of the troubles getting this bill and others through the senate would be lessened if the Democrats instead of backing down when they can't get 60 votes instead forced the Republicans to actually stand there and filibuster properly if they want to stop the bill. I wonder how many senators actually want to stand up for hours on end going on about anything and everything and it would make it nice and clear who it is that is causing the lack of progress.
There are only 40 Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats do not need Republican support.
You might want to read about Rule 22 and learn the history of the filibuster and cloture rules. Pay particular attention to the year 1975.
You might want to read about Rule 22 and learn the history of the filibuster and cloture rules. Pay particular attention to the year 1975.
Maybe you could just explain it to him, Steve. Tell us in your own words what the Rule means and how the history of the filibuster and cloture rules is germane to your response. Also, tell us why you think 1975 is so important.
I think some of the troubles getting this bill and others through the senate would be lessened if the Democrats instead of backing down when they can't get 60 votes instead forced the Republicans to actually stand there and filibuster properly if they want to stop the bill. I wonder how many senators actually want to stand up for hours on end going on about anything and everything and it would make it nice and clear who it is that is causing the lack of progress.
There are only 40 Republicans in the Senate. The Democrats do not need Republican support.
You might want to read about Rule 22 and learn the history of the filibuster and cloture rules. Pay particular attention to the year 1975.
What twists my nether region is that during the bush years when the republicans were in complete power, the democrats pretty much only threatened to filibuster judges allowing the republicans to pretty much pass whatever the hell they wanted. During the early bush years filibuster was used about 50 times in a given congressional year, as soon as the democrats gained power in the waning years of the bush administration it increased to over 100, now the republicans have pretty much required that the democrats get 60 votes on any major issue... These are the same republicans who wanted to get rid of the filibuster. Fuck you. hypocrites. That is all.
Olbermann says that the Senate bill charges more for pre-existing conditions? I thought this was one of the few "victories" left in this bill. I guess not.
If you want any more proof of how completely impotent the health care bill is likely to be, take a look at health insurance company stock prices.
Maybe we should have pay for congressional leaders connected to results they achieve. Instead, the Democrats are pretending they've achieved something other than being bought off by the health care industry.
I honestly wonder if things would have been different with Hillary?
If this is as good as Obama can do for a top issue of his campaign, we're in for a long ride.
Ignore the factual mistake in the headline, and watch the video in this article. It's depressing.
The reason that Lieberman wields such power right now is because the senate has used its procedural rules to illegally alter the constitution. The constitution explicitly says that the senate needs a MAJORITY, that is 50 votes, in order to pass a law. It is very hard to get that many votes, but not impossible. Illegally raising the number of votes to pass a law to 60 (and that is what the procedure does, as we have seen) makes it damn near impossible to pass anything controversial. Look at the house, where a simple majority can do the job, and you'll note that, while not great, at least the level of crap doesn't reach the height it does in the senate. And don't think that the motions in the senate to remove or time limit the filibuster will go anywhere, because both parties are too excited by the prospect of having the power to stop the other completely the next time they are in power to let the prospect be taken away.
Add to that the fact that both parties are in fact several different ones that have been united due to public perception that there are only 2 options in a given election (as seen by the lack of independents, even though many on both sides effectively represent one of the minor parties in beliefs) and the procedural rules that require a bi-party division (the entire system assumes that everyone belongs to either the 'Majority party' or the 'minority party'), and you have a recipe for bureaucratic stagnation. It should definitely be noted that the democrats include more disparate 'parties' in the ranks, thus making it even more impossible to for them to pass anything unconventional or controversial.
The whole situation adds up to nothing that is the least bit different from the status quo ever getting passed.
The ACLU or a similar organization should sue the federal government for violating the constitution with the filibuster rules, but I'm sure that the courts would just find some excuse to deny standing.
The ACLU or a similar organization should sue the federal government for violating the constitution with the filibuster rules, but I'm sure that the courts would just find some excuse to deny standing.
The Senate and the House are able to write their own rules on how they operate, thus the filibuster is not unconstitutional. Did you like it when it was used in previous administrations?
Did you like it when it was used in previous administrations?
I wish the Democrats had used it much more than they did, and I don't fault the Republicans for using it.
The only issue I have is that the Democrats are being pussies about it. They should let the Republicans stonewall and filibuster, and then use that to fuel a media hate machine, denouncing the Republicans as unpatriotic and obstructionist, and showing how the filibuster is preventing the government from moving forward and doing anything.
Both sides need to use the legal avenues available to them to their fullest. Historically, the right does just this, while the center does nothing and the left squabbles with itself.
I do agree with the other forum members who have previously stated that a filibuster should be real with members droning on and on on the Senate floor. It should not be this pansy-assed version where you just say you are doing a filibuster. What is this, playground politics?
The ACLU or a similar organization should sue the federal government for violating the constitution with the filibuster rules, but I'm sure that the courts would just find some excuse to deny standing.
The Senate and the House are able to write their own rules on how they operate, thus the filibuster is not unconstitutional. Did you like it when it was used in previous administrations?
Rym already answered this, but like I said in a early post, the democrats used the fillbuster mainly for high court appointments and even then they let most of them go through. Republicans use the fillbuster like it's going out of style.
The ACLU or a similar organization should sue the federal government for violating the constitution with the filibuster rules, but I'm sure that the courts would just find some excuse to deny standing.
The Senate and the House are able to write their own rules on how they operate, thus the filibuster is not unconstitutional. Did you like it when it was used in previous administrations?
The constitution says the senate needs a simple majority to pass laws. The filibuster is a procedural rule that makes it necessary to get more votes to pass a law than the constitution specifies. Since senate rules are not constitutional amendments, if they violate constitutional requirements, they are unconstitutional.
The filibuster is a procedural rule that makes it necessary to get more votes to pass a law than the constitution specifies.
Look, I think it's sometimes procedural crap, but your argument has no foundation.
Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two thirds, expel a member.
They still need a simple majority to pass a bill, but they require more votes to end a filibuster. They never altered the number of votes necessary to pass a bill, so they're perfectly within the framework of the constitution. Technicalities are a bitch, but that's how it works.
Watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It's a great movie, and the filibuster is a central part of the movie.
Complaining about the rules is kind of like crying over spilled milk - unless you are actively trying to have the rules changed. That's probably futile as well, since neither party seems to have any interest in doing away with filibuster rules.
Watch Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. It's a great movie, and the filibuster is a central part of the movie.
Complaining about the rules is kind of like crying over spilled milk - unless you are actively trying to have the rules changed. That's probably futile as well, since neither party seems to have any interest in doing away with filibuster rules.
An unrelated question: I watched Keith Olbermann talk about the bill last night, and he said something that I haven't been able to verify. He claimed that the bill would now allow an insurance company to increase your premium by as much as 50% should you have a pre-existing condition, and yet I cannot find a provision that says that anywhere in bill itself nor in the two sets of amendments proposed to that bill. Does anyone know what he's talking about? As far as I can tell, the premium rate can still only be varied based on age, smoking, individual/family, and a rating area to be established by the state.
I haven't looked in detail, but it seems like people are assuming that older people have pre-existing conditions, and are equating a higher premium based on age to a higher premium based on a pre-existing condition. This may have some truth, but it is misleading. I'd like to see where Olbermann got that talking point, since I've heard the 300% figure used in reference to age. The 50% figure was new to me, suggesting that it came from somewhere else.
As for the filibuster, I like how it prevents a small majority from having absolute power. I haven't given it too much thought, but that seems to be a nice feature of the fillubuster. On the other hand, in terms of health care, it's prevented the small majority from enacting a meanginful bill. It definitely has its advantages and disadvantages.
I'd like to see where Olbermann got that talking point, since I've heard the 300% figure used in reference to age.
Well, that's taken directly from the text of HR 3590, and that part has never been altered by subsequent amendments. A lot of people throw around the "OMG THEY'RE GOING TO CHARGE OLD PEOPLE MORE FOR HEALTH CARE," but, well, the elderly already pay more for health insurance, somewhere in the neighborhood of 5 times more on average than younger people. The "vary by no more than 3 to 1" line is actually a limitation on how much more the elderly can be charged for a premium based solely on their age. The only other factor is smoking, which can vary by no more than 1.5 to 1. I've yet to a find text allowing a company to vary the rate based on a pre-existing condition, and considering that section 2701 specifically states that those are the only factors allowing for variation in the rates of premiums, I'm leaning towards that claim being a bunch of bullshit.
The filibuster is a useful tool to have; the Democrats just need to utilize the rules to their full advantage. You want to filibuster health care? You should have to actually talk.
This article suggests that the high risk pools will cost up to 50% more. At least that was what the Republicans proposed. I guess that's where the figure is from. Was this included in the final House bill?
In Vermont, we have community rating. (Everyone pays the same) A lot of people complain about it, but it keeps premiums for older people affordable. I'm shocked at how much older people pay in other states. I think that insurance companies ought to be able to adjust premiums for voluntary choices, such as smoking, but growing old is not a choice.
I think that insurance companies ought to be able to adjust premiums for voluntary choices, such as smoking, but growing old is not a choice.
I'm always in favor of positive incentives over negative ones wherever possible. Raise the rates for everyone, but allow/mandate the offering of statutory discounts for signing oaths that you, say, always wear your seatbelt, don't smoke, drink fewer than three drinks/week, etc... Furthermore offer statutory discounts for measurable benchmarks (fitness levels, for example).
The problem with negative incentives is that it's difficult to punish people (at least, where health care is concerned), and it's a passive, near universal punishment that probably won't encourage lifestyle changes. But suddenly, if you put a dollar value on keeping in shape or not smoking, you can inspire the greedy to do whatever they need to do for this "free" money.
This articlesuggests that the high risk pools will cost up to 50% more. At least that was what the Republicans proposed. I guess that's where the figure is from. Was this included in the final House bill?
The current Senate bill does include a provision establishing an immediate, temporary, high-risk pool, which ends in 2014. That pool is being created to give immediate access to health insurance to individuals with pre-existing conditions. Even then, I don't see anything in that section about charging up to 50% more to individuals with pre-existing conditions.
I agree with many of Olbermann's sentiments, but I can't condone the use of misinformation to drum up displeasure for a bill.
EDIT: Actually, I do believe that the Senate bill offers rebates and incentives for certain "wellness" preventative measures. I'll re-read it and check it out, but I remember seeing something about offering incentives to people who quit smoking, lose weight, and so forth.
My employer offers a plan where the company (not a third party insurance company) covers me. Will this still be possible in the future? Will this legislation affect my coverage?
Comments
You might want to read about Rule 22 and learn the history of the filibuster and cloture rules. Pay particular attention to the year 1975.
Maybe we should have pay for congressional leaders connected to results they achieve. Instead, the Democrats are pretending they've achieved something other than being bought off by the health care industry.
I honestly wonder if things would have been different with Hillary?
If this is as good as Obama can do for a top issue of his campaign, we're in for a long ride.
Ignore the factual mistake in the headline, and watch the video in this article. It's depressing.
Add to that the fact that both parties are in fact several different ones that have been united due to public perception that there are only 2 options in a given election (as seen by the lack of independents, even though many on both sides effectively represent one of the minor parties in beliefs) and the procedural rules that require a bi-party division (the entire system assumes that everyone belongs to either the 'Majority party' or the 'minority party'), and you have a recipe for bureaucratic stagnation. It should definitely be noted that the democrats include more disparate 'parties' in the ranks, thus making it even more impossible to for them to pass anything unconventional or controversial.
The whole situation adds up to nothing that is the least bit different from the status quo ever getting passed.
The ACLU or a similar organization should sue the federal government for violating the constitution with the filibuster rules, but I'm sure that the courts would just find some excuse to deny standing.
The only issue I have is that the Democrats are being pussies about it. They should let the Republicans stonewall and filibuster, and then use that to fuel a media hate machine, denouncing the Republicans as unpatriotic and obstructionist, and showing how the filibuster is preventing the government from moving forward and doing anything.
Both sides need to use the legal avenues available to them to their fullest. Historically, the right does just this, while the center does nothing and the left squabbles with itself.
Complaining about the rules is kind of like crying over spilled milk - unless you are actively trying to have the rules changed. That's probably futile as well, since neither party seems to have any interest in doing away with filibuster rules.
As for the filibuster, I like how it prevents a small majority from having absolute power. I haven't given it too much thought, but that seems to be a nice feature of the fillubuster. On the other hand, in terms of health care, it's prevented the small majority from enacting a meanginful bill. It definitely has its advantages and disadvantages.
If only Congress was paid based on performance!
The filibuster is a useful tool to have; the Democrats just need to utilize the rules to their full advantage. You want to filibuster health care? You should have to actually talk.
In Vermont, we have community rating. (Everyone pays the same) A lot of people complain about it, but it keeps premiums for older people affordable. I'm shocked at how much older people pay in other states. I think that insurance companies ought to be able to adjust premiums for voluntary choices, such as smoking, but growing old is not a choice.
The problem with negative incentives is that it's difficult to punish people (at least, where health care is concerned), and it's a passive, near universal punishment that probably won't encourage lifestyle changes. But suddenly, if you put a dollar value on keeping in shape or not smoking, you can inspire the greedy to do whatever they need to do for this "free" money.
I agree with many of Olbermann's sentiments, but I can't condone the use of misinformation to drum up displeasure for a bill.
EDIT: Actually, I do believe that the Senate bill offers rebates and incentives for certain "wellness" preventative measures. I'll re-read it and check it out, but I remember seeing something about offering incentives to people who quit smoking, lose weight, and so forth.