Posted on 08/17/2009 8:35:39 AM PDT by Selkirk
It makes little or no real difference if this provision is in the bill.
The “public option” is imposed via other elements of the bill, which take effect in the event of ANY CHANGE in your insurance terms.
Also, it can easily be imposed as an attachment to any other legislation that comes along.
= = =
INDEED.
The Globalists have been IGNORING THE CONSTITUTION FOR DECADES.
What’s a mere “law.”
“Trojan” just reminds me of condoms (sorry USC fans and alumni).
We are going to get screwed, but NOT in a safe manner.
And without much kissing.
It turns out there is a problem with that. If they try to pass it under the "reconciliation" rule, meaning they only need 51 votes, then the Senate parlimentarian must strip out anything that does not directly impact the budget. So anything dealing with a public option, any policy items, any new rules or regulations that don't deal with direct government expenditures must be stripped out of the bill. The senators don't get any say concerning what parts are removed and what parts remain, and it has to be an up or down vote - no amendments.
COOP or Co-Op is the new buzz word. It is Bull like every other Obama plan.
Socialists/statists gleefully telling us one of the possible tactics that will be used to force this down our throats...and if that doesn’t work they have to use the government tonque depressor on us.
Then 51 votes would suffice.
Only if they use the same language in the bill the House passes, if the House passes one, that is, in order to avoid reconciliation requirement. This legislation falls under Article I, Section 7 of the USCon:
All bills for raising Revenue shall originate in the House of Representatives; but the Senate may propose or concur with Amendments as on other Bills
The Senate would not be able to amend the House bill, otherwise, the conference committee will ensue. That would then require yet another vote in the House for the conference bill, more time passes, people get a good look again and raise the roof.
As I say, the only way this is avoided is to have the Senate agree to whatever language comes from the House -- and that doesn't sound as though it's happening, does it? Not with the "Gang of Six" they keep referring to on the Senate Finance committee.
“Yeah, on the stimulus package, it was “Give us a pot of money and we’ll figure out good things to do with it.” On health care, it’s “Give us ultimate power over everything and then we’ll figure out what we’re doing.”
Mr Kimball is correct. It doesn’t matter what’s in any bill. Once the precedent is set they will amend it piece by piece until we’re all controlled by the central authorities.
The current rules require an unachievable 60% super-majority. They could waive those rules to an achievable (with enough pressure) 50%.
Stroke of the pen/law of the land. Kinda cool...
Not to worry. All the stripped out parts can be passed piecemeal, and/or hidden in other legislation.
Thanks, sounds like you know something about "making sausage." I wish I knew more about it.
After the parliamentarian strips out the stuff, couldn't the conference Senate/House committee just merge in all the leftist stuff from the House bill anyway?
Can the conference committee make up new stuff that is not in either bill? If they did I'm not sure anybody would notice.
Understood, but that's why I'm looking askance at this Gang of Six business, unless the House agrees to adopt whatever language they happen to come up with and use it to pass that as their bill first ...
“So the Blue Dogs have played a great role. They made the House bill a lot better. They made it much better for small businesses. If you have a payroll less than $500,000 and you're a small business now, you don't have any responsibility for healthcare anymore. That's a big deal.”Obviously “no responsibility for healthcare” can only mean a public option would exist. So much for there being no public option and so much for the Blue Dogs being the key to preventing socialized medicine.
(Time index: 4:45–4:56)
Yes, it would be noticed, said parliamentarian. If there is any change made to the bill that has passed the House in the first place, it must be presented again for vote/passage.
I would put no trick past them.
What part of the Constitution allows czars? What power does the Constitution, the legislative branch, or the Judicial branch grant them?
And the congresscrooks always read the bills before they vote :)
My point is that we can't relax if they remove "public option" from the senate bill. In fact, I suggest vigilance no matter what any of the bills say before the go into committee.
The Democrats and the “Republicans” on that panel make me want to throw up.
Demonically deceptive political hacks of the highest, or should I say lowest, sort.
What part of the Constitution allows czars? What power does the Constitution, the legislative branch, or the Judicial branch grant them?
I don't like the precedent that has been set with Executive Orders, initially something that only affected those in the Executive branch, but as we know, they've been allowed to usurp the power of the Legislative Branch, wholly un-Constitutional, IMHO. But you raise a good point, are these czars beholden to any authority other than the president who appoints them? What check does Congress have on that executive power, what if one or more czars abuses, violates the law, Constitution as you say, who has standing, the ability to challenge? And would the Supreme Court recognize their legitimacy/illegitimacy or would they say since there is nothing about them in the Constitution, they have carte blanche to do whatever they want, however they want, "We have no opinion on the matter, since the Constitution is silent on the question" ??
Someone needs to put a stop to this practice, along with many other executive abuses.
From the article link:
- - - - -
“What is going on here is nothing more than politics. The President knows very well that you aren’t going to have healthcare reform without a public option. But he also knows that he has to get this out of the Senate.”
So, what Howard Dean, former Chairman of the DNC (and in that capacity, one of the chief architects of the Obama presidency) is telling us is that the recent comments coming out of the White House, that it is prepared to take the public option off the table is nothing more than a trojan horse. He knows he has the votes in the House, and he knows he can squeak it through the Senate so long as the public option is off the table. But he also knows that once the sanitized version passes the Senate, he no longer needs to overcome a filibuster, which means that the reconciled bill between the House and Senate bills (which will likely end up with something that resembles the House version and will certainly contain a public option) will only need a simple majority in the Senate.
He will play nice for the cameras and for the moderates in the Senate, but in the end, those public option soldiers will come spilling out of that horse.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.