[quote]pittbulll wrote:
I personally would agree with opening Ins. To be sold across state lines and would even look at limiting law suits, But there is a lot more that needs to be done
[/quote]
Damn, pittbull, that’s downright reasonable!
[quote]dhickey wrote:
My understanding:
They are not actually going to pass the bill through reconciliation. The House is going to pass the bill that already passed the senate. Reconciliation will be used to tweak the bill once it passes, as a compromise to the house. Nothing shady about this by today’s standards.
Otherwise, the house would not accept the senate bill and they wouldn’t have the votes to pass a compromised bill in the senate.[/quote]
Interesting. I’m finding it a little odd that no one seems to really have a good handle on this. If it’s as you say, what’s standing in the way of the House doing this?
[quote]katzenjammer wrote:
[quote]dhickey wrote:
My understanding:
They are not actually going to pass the bill through reconciliation. The House is going to pass the bill that already passed the senate. Reconciliation will be used to tweak the bill once it passes, as a compromise to the house. Nothing shady about this by today’s standards.
Otherwise, the house would not accept the senate bill and they wouldn’t have the votes to pass a compromised bill in the senate.[/quote]
Interesting. I’m finding it a little odd that no one seems to really have a good handle on this. If it’s as you say, what’s standing in the way of the House doing this? [/quote]
They have to agree what will be sorted in reconciliation. Again, just my understanding.
The house dems did not like the compromises in the senate bill. the plan was to sort the differences in a new bill that would be passed in the house and senate. enter scott brown. now the only option that does not include passing a bill in the senate, is to accept the bill that already passed the senate. the house will do this if enough of the compromises that would have been made before SB, can be accomplished through the reconciliation process.
I don’t know why no one seems to have a handle on this. It seems pretty straight forward to me. maybe I am wrong?
Reconciliation is supposed to be only used to hammer out costs… not adjust / tweak / reword the bill… thats the issure here…
We do congressional request bills for research money all the time. the house and the senate both approve but with different amounts and reconciliation is used to hammer out the end cost… Not what bill or request was…
Thats why a big deal is being made of them trying to use reconciliation to change the bill…
Here’s Keith Hennessey’s (he’s very good btw) take: Challenges of the two bill strategy - Keith Hennessey
Even Obama-fawning Buffet is calling on Obama to scrap this 2,000 page fraudulent mess and start over: http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=ZmI5YzEwN2JiM2I4Yzk3OGJlM2YyY2E0ZjA1YjYxZjc=
If they get it passed they win. The goal is to irreversibly enslave the population to the feds for their very life. Once they get enough people dependent on DC for medical needs it will wind up just like every other federal monstrosity like SS and medicade. People will vote supporters in for all eternity. Anybody proposing to scale it back or return it to the private sector will be portrayed as heartless killers.
That’s why they do not want anything incremental or small enough to repeal. The goal is absolute public dependence. They want a sweeping all consuming foundation. Obama himself said a few years ago that single payer fully socialized healthcare is his goal. They need enough infrastructure enacted so as to facilitate the rest of the march to single payer. If they continue piecemeal (whch has actually been underway for a few decades) people may figure out how bad an idea it was and elect somebody to roll it back. They can’t have that. They need at least enough to make a reverse course very very difficult.
Losing in November at the polls is a worthwhile price for the long term plan of liberal perpetuity. At least in the minds of the leadership. Whether the underlings will toss their career for the cause remains to be seen.
[quote]Tiribulus wrote:
Whether the underlings will toss their career for the cause remains to be seen.[/quote]
Depends upon whether they are truly the collectivists they claim to be when it comes their own personal situation.
If they pass it this way something tells me the attack on the IRS building a week ago will become a more common occurrence. Perhaps Celente is right, the second American revolution.
John, you know, what with it already being shown that the Obama Justice Department is more concerned about domestic terrorists or likely terrorists – you know, returning veterans, Tea Party members and so forth – than they are with Islamic terrorism, and considering that we don’t yet know if it’s as violent as the Janet Reno Justice Department proved itself able to be, the above sort of post may not be the wisest.
As I listend to this tyrant call for an up or down vote I am becoming more and more convinced that the second revolution is about to start.
If this passes the economy is going to crash, when people lose everything they lose it.
[quote]John S. wrote:
If they pass it this way something tells me the attack on the IRS building a week ago will become a more common occurrence. Perhaps Celente is right, the second American revolution.[/quote]
It is kinda scary how accurate Celente has been.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
[quote]John S. wrote:
If they pass it this way something tells me the attack on the IRS building a week ago will become a more common occurrence. Perhaps Celente is right, the second American revolution.[/quote]
It is kinda scary how accurate Celente has been.[/quote]
It is like he said, if his forecasts where wrong he would have been out of business a long time ago.