Obama intends an up-or-down vote on health reform

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

Fair enough, I wouldn't want to address it either. I enjoy talks of airplanes and muslims when dealing with healthcare. I'd much rather be on a plane than waiting in a cold hospital. It looks like it has come down to people's fear of illegal immigrants. They aren't coming here 'stealing' jobs, the jobs are low skilled and shitty so american's don't want them, but it has to get done so the illegals do it. Either find a plan to create higher skilled jobs or reform immigration so the illegals can get into the system and start paying their fair share of taxes. You must come to the realization that it is impossible to start evicting illegals on a massive scale, large agribusiness would never allow that (agribusiness has more money than you).

Immigration issues (taxing them, taking jobs, etc) are of no importance to my question. My question relates to the cost of health care legislation. Did the CBO account for an additional 30 million people or whatever it is?

[Rhinox]

You're assuming the illegals don't pay taxes. If they do(which most do) then what does it matter?

[ilduce]

@swamp yes they took this into account looking at the numbers that came out 9 hours, ago. The numbers are being re crunched everyday so the total cost is going to keep changing.

P.S. glad we got that illegal alien thing, airplanes, and Muslims out of the way.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

You're assuming the illegals don't pay taxes. If they do(which most do) then what does it matter?

I'm not assuming they don't pay taxes, regardless, that has nothing to do with how much it will cost.

It would seem like the cost would double if they CBO didn't account for them becoming legal. Basically 1 trillion over 5 years, so 2 trillion over 10 now. If they didn't account for 30 million people it would seem that is way off, not even considering the govt. always underestimates the cost of things.

[Rhinox]

That's a silly question to ask then. Its like asking if the cbo takes into account poor people.


They have a rough estimate which wouldn't be rough at all if it weren't for the nativist scaring them underground to live as fugitives.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

That's a silly question to ask then. Its like asking if the cbo takes into account poor people.

They have a rough estimate which wouldn't be rough at all if it weren't for the nativist scaring them underground to live as fugitives.

It's not a silly question at all. If they only accounted for the 30 million uninsured, then they did not account for 30 million more people which would then be relevant to the costs.

[Rhinox]

This is not a public Option. No one is providing free health care and they pay taxes. Why does it matter again?


If you're worried about the tax subsidies then don't. Again they pay taxes with phony SS numbers that they will never collect.

that 30 Million figure you're talking about is the amount of people that will now be insured with this bill not the amount of uninsured. That number is much higher.

[Rhinox]

oh lawl

Hey swampy


http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/17/tr...onstitutional/

tl;dr

GOP Rep. Mike Pence says Slaughter solution is unconstituional. How does he know? Because he said he used it three times.


Mad props for admiting it?

[kuronosan]

Could be wrong but I'm sure you guys are saying the same thing just different ways.

Yea, that's exactly what we're saying actually. riker needs to work on his reading comprehension.

[willriker]

; ; i do... sorry about that

[Olo401]

oh lawl

Hey swampy


http://dailycaller.com/2010/03/17/tr...onstitutional/

tl;dr

GOP Rep. Mike Pence says Slaughter solution is unconstituional. How does he know? Because he said he used it three times.

Mad props for admiting it?

That's hilarious.. not so much the hypocrisy, but the fact that he doesn't even know that the Constitution clearly states that the House & Senate have the right to make their own rules.

There's also an interesting development brewing in the wake of the whole obstructionist wave that's taken over the Senate - a fairly new and very open interpretation of the Constitution that claims at the start of each session of Congress (i.e every two years) each chamber starts fresh, and not bound by the previous rules unless they decide to adopt them by simple majority. So for example if the Republicans win a majority in the Senate this year they can just do away with the filibuster rule by choosing (with a simple majority vote on the first day of the new session) to not follow the previous Senate rules, or to follow a modified version instead that doesn't include the Cloture rule. Of course, the Dems can do it also but not until the new Congress starts next January since they already voted to adopt the previous rules..

[Darus Grey]

It really goes even further than that, Dems could do away with it all now.

These are RULES not LAWS, and thus the senate is not technically bound by them in any manner, and a majority vote can nullify any of them, or if you have a strict interpretation of the constitution, all measures pass with a majority vote regardless of rules set by the senate, if the president signed them, they'd be law.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

There's a couple slight distinctions on what R's did. One, they never "deemed passed" anything that was taking over 1/6th of our economy. Two, they "deemed passed" joint resolutions, something where the text didn't change. Is that Unconstitutional? Don't know. Is it the same as what the D's are doing? Of course not.

And Olo, the Senate and House can not bypass the constitution. They can set their own rules, but they can't violate the constitution. A perfect example is the filibuster, the constitution is silent thus they can create the filibuster. However, the constitution says a bill must pass both houses in order to become law, thus congress can't override that requirement with a rule. Furthermore, the text must be the same. Powell v. McCormak for the first, Clinton v. New York for the latter if you actually care.

[Cephius]

So to the GOP, healthcare is a big enough issue where we have to stick religiously to the Constitution. Funny how going to war wasn't. All bets are off when Dubya gets to invade a country, eh?

[Olo401]

Jumping back on track for a moment..

CBO told lawmakers that the health package would cost $940 billion over the next decade, reducing the deficit by $130 billion. It will reduce the deficit by $1.2 trillion in the second decade of the plan's implementation, according to those who have seen the score.
That's a larger deficit reduction than the healthcare measures passed by both the House and the Senate last year, though the CBO said the current bill would spend more than those bills.

Source: http://thehill.com/blogs/blog-briefi...eficit-by-130b

[Olo401]

Republicans "pissed" that they didn't get a copy of the CBO's cost estimate

Uhh.. but are you congressional Republicans obstructionist and lazy??! This link is the CBO estimate for the reconciliation bill, found on the home page of the CBO website. It took me 30 seconds because I used Google to get the website. Just typing in cbo.gov and clicking the link takes about 10 seconds.

[Acturus]

Republicans "pissed" that they didn't get a copy of the CBO's cost estimate

Uhh.. but are you congressional Republicans obstructionist and lazy??! This link is the CBO estimate for the reconciliation bill, found on the home page of the CBO website. It took me 30 seconds because I used Google to get the website. Just typing in cbo.gov and clicking the link takes about 10 seconds.

That sounds out of context. I thought it was typical to present actual copies of results. The whole "put up on website" thing isn't how most studies are released.

Whether or not the CBO had to give "everyone" the results is probably where the R's are getting upset. Chances are the President and the bill's owner or committee got copies of results, and neglected to share.

[SwampdonkeyPLD]

So to the GOP, healthcare is a big enough issue where we have to stick religiously to the Constitution. Funny how going to war wasn't. All bets are off when Dubya gets to invade a country, eh?

Technically there's still a distinction. The text isn't the same unlike when the GOP used it.

[Olo401]

That sounds out of context. I thought it was typical to present actual copies of results. The whole "put up on website" thing isn't how most studies are released.

Whether or not the CBO had to give "everyone" the results is probably where the R's are getting upset. Chances are the President and the bill's owner or committee got copies of results, and neglected to share.

You could probably also say that the Republicans never bothered to ask, given the fact that they'd rather bitch about it and gain political points than actually work with others..

[Zilong]

since when do republican cares about insignificant things like facts anyway?