[excon]

Hello again, tom:

He'd like us to believe that he remained in his cocoon in the White House while Madame Mimi ,Reid ,and all his staff wrote laws ,regulations keeping him outside ,while they constructed a Potamkin agenda for him . Well if you believe that then yes ,you have joined the ranks of the Obots.

I believe that.

It's the reason why I'm NO LONGER an Obot. THAT he remained in his cocoon is WHY his agenda is failing. You just can't give speeches.. You gotta schmooz. He AIN'T a schmoozer.

excon

[talaniman]

At least they changed this being his Waterloo, to Katrina. I suppose that's progress. And Emperors don't have to schmooze.

[tomder55]

Tal you can insult me all you want .I won't let you get away with your lie about how Obamacare was passed.
1. All spending bills must originate in the House .But there was not one passed . So the Senate found HR3590, a military housing bill ,and stripped all the language out of it and turned it into the' Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act'.
2 But then the Dems didn't have the Super Majority required to pass it after Kennedy died. The House would've had to rubber stamp that law because any changes the House made would've forced the Senate to get 60 votes to pass. But the Dems in the House wanted changes. So the Senate Dems made a deal with the Dems in the House with no input from any Republicans. The House would agree to pass the Senate bill without any changes, IF the Senate agreed to pass a separate bill by the House that made changes to the Senate version. This second bill was called the Reconciliation Act of 2010.
3 . But they still needed that 60 votes . They declared that they would use the Reconciliation Rule to pass the Reconciliation Act ( Reconciliation Act and Reconciliation Rule are 2 different things remember ).The Reconciliation rule had never been used nor was it ever intended to be used to pass legislation of the magnitude of Obamacare. It was meant only for budgetary bills with the restrictions I already mentioned (expiration date ) .
All this was done without a single Republican vote. A law that fundamentally alters the relationship between the people and their health care providers and their government was shoved down our throats through legislative trickery .Democrat Representative Alcee Hastings of the House Rules Committee said “We’re making up the rules as we go along”. Madame Mimi told us they'd have to pass the law so we could find out what was in it.
So you can make all the phony claims about this law passing through a democratic process. That would only be true if you were talking about a democracy found currently in Venezuela. That bill was not passed by anything recognizable in the American process.

[excon]

Hello again, tom:

So you can make all the phony claims about this law passing through a democratic process.

Nahhhh... Using Roberts Rules of Order to your ADVANTAGE is NOT a tactic they use in Venezuela. It's as American as apple pie. It IS democracy at work.

Now, of course, you don't like it. So?

excon

PS> By the way, how come your side never did, and STILL isn't challenging the law based on those UNDEMOCRATIC and clearly un-Constitutional shenanigans???

Never mind...

[tomder55]

Glad you asked There is at least one lawsuit under the violation of the Origination Clause (Art 1 Sec 7 Clause 1).There are also hundreds of others that don't have standing until the law takes effect.
The one I'm watching is 'Sissel v. United States Department of Health & Human Services '.

[talaniman]

Tal you can insult me all you want .I won't let you get away with your lie about how Obamacare was passed.

Tom, I wish you and Speech would stop taking my attacks on right wingers so personally. I mean all of YOU and never call either of you names. I try any way.

Speaking of calling names, I never heard a liberal refer to the president as an emperor or messiah. That's you guys.

Well I have called Bush a moron, but I documented the reasons. :D

[tomder55]

Here are some other interesting cases making their way through the courts... 'Pruitt v. Sebelius ' ;and 'Halbig v. Sebelius' challenges the legality of subsidies to the Federal exchange. The law gives subsidies to the state exchanges and not the Federal exchanges. 'Liberty University v. Lew ' challenges the employer mandate . 'Roman Catholic Archdiocese of New York v. Sebelius ' challenges the contraception mandate .

[talaniman]

Reconciliation (United States Congress) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The Byrd Rule (as described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect has been to prohibit the use of reconciliation for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond 10 years after the reconciliation measure.

[tomder55]

Tom, I wish you and Speech would stop taking my attacks on right wingers so personally. I mean all of YOU and never call either of you names. I try any way.

Speaking of calling names, I never heard a liberal refer to the president as an emperor or messiah. That's you guys.

Well I have called Bush a moron, but I documented the reasons. :D

Admit it, you never believed that poor people should have squat in the first place.

I have made my position clear on that many times.

[tomder55]

Reconciliation (United States Congress) - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

'Clinton v. City of New York ' the court ruled that a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”.

[paraclete]

'Clinton v. City of New York ' the court ruled that a bill containing the “exact text” must be approved by one house; the other house must approve “precisely the same text.”.

That would appear to be a no-brainer, what is the point of reconciliation if there is some nonsense of having different versions of the Bill, in other words a lack of agreement? Sounds like a pack of egomaniacs running loose, but then.....................

[talaniman]

This may explain it better Clete,

Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Unlike rules under regular order, as per the Congressional Budget Act of 1974, reconciliation cannot be subject to a filibuster. However, the process is limited to budget changes, which is why the procedure was never able to be used to pass a comprehensive reform bill like the ACA in the first place; such a bill would have inherently non-budgetary regulations.[113][114] Whereas the already passed Senate bill could not have been put through reconciliation, most of House Democrats' demands were budgetary: "these changes—higher subsidy levels, different kinds of taxes to pay for them, nixing the Nebraska Medicaid deal—mainly involve taxes and spending. In other words, they're exactly the kinds of policies that are well-suited for reconciliation."[111]

The remaining obstacle was a pivotal group of pro-life Democrats led by Bart Stupak who were initially reluctant to support the bill. The group found the possibility of federal funding for abortion substantive enough to warrant opposition. The Senate bill had not included language that satisfied their abortion concerns, but they could not include additional such language in the reconciliation bill as it would be outside the scope of the process with its budgetary limits. Instead, President Obama issued Executive Order 13535, reaffirming the principles in the Hyde Amendment.[115] This concession won the support of Stupak and members of his group and assured passage of the bill.[112][116] The House passed the Senate bill with a 219–212 vote on March 21, 2010, with 34 Democrats and all 178 Republicans voting against it.[117] The following day, Republicans introduced legislation to repeal the bill.[118] Obama signed the ACA into law on March 23, 2010.[119] The amendment bill, The Health Care and Education Reconciliation Act, was also passed by the House on March 21, by the Senate via reconciliation on March 25, and was signed by President Obama on March 30.

[paraclete]

Thanks Tal so the issues are it is a badly constructed bill and statements made regarding it's content and impact may not have been accurate. has anyone heard of politics because this sounds exactly like politics, tell em' what they want to hear not what they need to know

[talaniman]

Complex and intricate, would be a better term. If it wasn't they would have torn it apart, driving trucks through the loopholes, and that's ALL the votes Obama had for its passage in the first place. Implementation is slow and difficult because the opposition will NOT quit, or even aid not one bit. Any possible glitch or delay is an excuse to under mind the whole thing by the opposition will be used.

So, you tell me why they would exploit the adjustments a few (2 million well to do) must make to deny the many (47million) who will benefit. In the long run the few will benefit too. We do play hardball politics, so don't believe the opposition won't/isn't lying and deceiving either. After all they are the ones without the power of votes on their side, and were more than willing to shutdown the government to repeal, or delay the implementation of the ACA.

It's the law and they are desperate having so far been defeating in every effort. Clinton tried years ago the story straight and it was killed before it even got a vote. Obama learned well to keep the whole story close to his vest, and get it passed and fight on his own terms. He spent a lot of political capital to keep it going. If the results improve, so will his ratings. The opposition knows that. The battle continues.

[paraclete]

The battle continues.

Tal I understand what you are saying, but reality says if you did it right, you could do it without costing the majority a lot of money. I don't understand why it would affect the rich, they had adequate resources to cover their medical costs anyway, unless it was a way of making the rich pay, a wealth transfer, in which case I could see why it would be objected to. This is a tax on everyone, a strangely organised tax because it is progessive over time and took a long time to implement. If you want to implement a welfare objective you simply do that, budget line item and if you want a tax you simply implement that, budget line item

[talaniman]

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Americans are the rich guys? Not hardly, just 5%, which is FAR from a majority. Your facts are flawed. That seems to be the reality. Look it up for yourself.

[paraclete]

Where do you get the idea that a majority of Americans are the rich guys? Not hardly, just 5%, which is FAR from a majority. Your facts are flawed.

I didn't say americans are rich, I said the rich could pay for their own costs anyway, but americans are generally rich anyway by the standards of the rest of the wolrd, so all this griping, well it says a lot about the people, they just don't know how well off they are.

what I said is that the ACA is a tax on everyone, that's rich and poor, and everyone in between, who are the majority, the much vaunted middle class, who never had it so good, or bad, depending upon your perspective.

there are people here who want to blame BO for this, and yes, he laid claim to the initiative, but those who are to blame are the insurers; who saw the opportunity to gouge the people, the politicians; who failed to prevent that, and the people themselves; because they failed to hold their politicians to account

What is needed to fix it is a clean sweep so everyone can get on the same page

[talaniman]

What does being well off as compared to the rest of the world have to do with the American concept of equality and its definition and evolution here? We are a diverse society and getting everyone on the same page is a challenge.

When passions and opinions run high, its more of a challenge. But don't be fooled by the passions or the challenges as we move to fix and improve but there are no quick easy fixes. And there is always another election in two years.

Progress is slow but steady, so don't be distracted by the noise.

[speechlesstx]

"Complex and intricate" is libspeak for "we didn't read the damn thing and you're too stupid to understand it anyway."

[talaniman]

"Complex and intricate" is libspeak for "we didn't read the damn thing and you're too stupid to understand it anyway."

Did YOU read it?