Kilm wrote:To address a couple of things, the "deemed passed" vote is nothing more than a tactic to be used so there is no yes or no vote to tie these people to. They are considering that for only one reason...and that is that they KNOW they are going to get their asses handed to them in November because of this bill.
Yep, that's the political reason. Who gives a fuck? Does a majority voting that they "deem" the Senate bill passed instead of voting for the bill itself prevent you from knowing who voted which way? Does it stop it from being a majority vote? No? Then what the fuck does it matter?
Kilm wrote:A large majority of the US is against this bill. You can spout whatever bullshit you want saying different, but the people fucking spoke in Massachusets based solely on this bill and if you think that is the end you are BADLY mistaken.
Bold words for being wrong. 46% support - 42% oppose - 12% don't know.
http://kff.org/kaiserpolls/8058.cfm.
More broadly: Will this vote hurt the Democrats in November? No. No, it will not. Think about this. Let's assume your (incorrect) point that a "large majority" of the United States is against this bill. If Democrats pass the bill, they can argue that they recognize it's controversial nature, they fought as hard to improve it as possible, and in the end they passed a bill that's better than the status quo. If they fail to pass it, what are they supposed to argue? I tried my damnedest to pass a bill that everyone hates, but I was too incompetent to succeed, so please re-elect me so I can try again? You seriously think that's a better message?
My guess: If this bill fails, Democrats lose the House. They probably don't lose the Senate, but might very well drop down to even. If this bill passes, Democrats retain the House, suffering significant losses, maybe 30+. They also retain the Senate with a minimum of 52 votes, more likely 54 or 55.
Kilm wrote:Everyone in this country wants to fix health care.
Really? Care to show me a legitimate proposal to the right of this one? And no, "malpractice reform" doesn't count.
Kilm wrote:The other serious issues with this whole thing are that reconciliation does not actually cover this. This is not a budget bill. They are railroading the process through when they could be sitting down and starting from scratch and developing a true long term plan.
The basic bill is not a budget bill and therefore doesn't fit under reconciliation. Fortunately for me, that one's already passed the Senate. The reconciliation sidecar is a budget bill and therefore fits under reconciliation. Fortunately for both of us, there's a process via which Republicans can raise objections to the sidecar, and a Senate parliamentarian who can rule on them, so our disagreement can be firmly resolved.
Kilm wrote:The other serious issue with this is that the federal government has no rights under the constitution to force people to buy health care. You either buy it or you pay a penalty.....and they have NO constitutional right to do this. Some states are already introducing legislation to protect their people from this bill.
Yes, they do. Fortunately, we have a process of judicial review and a Supreme Court-- a Supreme Court, I should note, that features 6 republican-appointed Justices. They will have the opportunity to evaluate your argument and resolve the matter.
I do dearly hope that if the processes set up to evaluate the procedural and constitutional merits of this legislation uphold it's legitimacy that you will shut up and stop whining.
Kilm wrote:The latest count is 32 states who have had enough of this administration. Even Bush and his retarded antics did not have people riled up enough to pass state constitutional amendments against him and his policies.
Did you seriously just post a list of PROPOSED legislative actions-- many of which are non-binding resolutions-- to demonstrate that these states have "had enough of this administration?" I think what you actually mean is that "at least one legislator in 32 states has had enough of this administration."