Congress Uses "reconciliation" To Loophole National Healthca

FirefightnRick · April 25, 2009

...or rather that should have read, "To Loophole Government Health Rationing"

http://corner.nationalreview.com/post/?q=N...zhiZGIwNjliZWE=

Sen. Robert Byrd (D, W.Va.), who actually participated in writing the Budget Act of 1974, was far more emphatic in his opposition, writing on April 2 that it “would violate the intent and spirit of the budget process and do serious injury to the Constitutional role of the Senate . . . As one of the authors of the reconciliation process, I can tell you that the ironclad parliamentary procedures it authorizes were never intended for this purpose,” Byrd wrote. “Reconciliation was intended to adjust revenue and spending levels in order to reduce deficits. It was not designed to cut taxes. It was not designed to create a new climate and energy regime, and certainly not to restructure the entire health care system.”

According to Rep. Paul Ryan (R, Wisc.) this afternoon, the first step for "Reconciliation" took place today in Washington, despite the warnings. So, something that will be responsible for roughly 17% of our economy (Health Care) stands to only get 35 hours of debate before getting shoved down our throats if the libs are successful with this. I suppose next week during sweeps week we will hear from B.O. during another one of his self promotion hours about how this will be good for us.

Rick

Edited April 25, 2009 by FirefightnRick

meangreendork · April 25, 2009

TLDR. ITT: FFR doesn't like Obama.

drex · April 25, 2009

It's not so much that FFR does not like Obama....FFR loves his country. This is the first president ever that I have written to to beg for national security. I always thought that the first responsibility of the president was to protect and defend the constitution and people of the United States. Hang on everyone, this is going to be a very bumpy ride for the next four years.

eulesseagle · April 25, 2009

What FDR and LBJ could not do to finalize a socialist economy, including health care, BHO and congress, will hammer the final nails in the coffin.

When has the federal government run anything right?? Nationalized health care will be run by those out for short and long term political gains and not the benefit of the people. For those who disagree google (or use your favorite search engine) to find out for yourselves the "pitfalls" of nationalized health care in the countries that currently employ this disaster.

Do you want some non-medical Washington bureaucrat telling you, instead of your doctor, what treatments and medice should or should not be used??

UNTFan23 · April 25, 2009

The biggest issue I have with the proposed health care plan is how it will be paid for.

UNTflyer · April 25, 2009

The biggest issue I have with the proposed health care plan is how it will be paid for.

What do you mean, it will be free! FREE healthcare! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?! Long live King Obama!

oldguystudent · April 25, 2009

What do you mean, it will be free! FREE healthcare! Why hasn't anyone thought of this before?! Long live King Obama!

With all due respect Flyer, I've met you several times, and in person I think you're a pretty cool guy who does a lot of great things for UNT, but Jesus H Christ on a pogo stick! You frequently make some good points, but your constant vitriol and condescending tone discredit your message. I swear I feel like I'm in the freaking pre-school playground sometimes. Am not!

UNTflyer · April 25, 2009

Are too!

oldguystudent · April 25, 2009

Are too!

LOL! I think the obligatory rubber and glue remarks follow at this point!

UNT90 · April 27, 2009

17% of the national economy is about to be socialzed, with little to no debate in congress, and without anyone actually reading the details (again).

Provides a pretty good point for those that say we are on the path to socialism.

And we wonder why middle Americans are buying guns at a record pace.

Edited April 27, 2009 by UNT90

The Fake Lonnie Finch · April 27, 2009

The saddest thing about the country being turned from First World into Second World via legislated socialism is the complete lack of analysis by the majority of the press. The constant and indefinite propping up of the lower class is already bankrupting us. The press merely cheers it on as if something good really is being done. Sad and pathetic all the way around.

UNTflyer · April 27, 2009

The saddest thing about the country being turned from First World into Second World via legislated socialism is the complete lack of analysis by the majority of the press. The constant and indefinite propping up of the lower class is already bankrupting us. The press merely cheers it on as if something good really is being done. Sad and pathetic all the way around.

$6.6 trillion over 40 years to fight LBJ's "War on Poverty". Given that the average number of "poor" in America is 30 million, this comes to an average of $5,500 spent per "poor" person per year. For a family of four, that's $22k a year.

We cannot eliminate poverty because we cannot rule the human heart... some people just refuse to work, others refuse to improve themselves, and others still actually believe the producers should support the moochers.

UNTFan23 · April 27, 2009

$6.6 trillion over 40 years to fight LBJ's "War on Poverty". Given that the average number of "poor" in America is 30 million, this comes to an average of $5,500 spent per "poor" person per year. For a family of four, that's $22k a year.
We cannot eliminate poverty because we cannot rule the human heart... some people just refuse to work, others refuse to improve themselves, and others still actually believe the producers should support the moochers.

Interesting looking book based on the wikipedia entry. I may want to see about reading it but good gosh, 1,200 pages for a paperback book?! Maybe something to read over my 1-1/2 week vacation coming up this summer.

April 27, 2009

$6.6 trillion over 40 years to fight LBJ's "War on Poverty". Given that the average number of "poor" in America is 30 million, this comes to an average of $5,500 spent per "poor" person per year. For a family of four, that's $22k a year.
We cannot eliminate poverty because we cannot rule the human heart... some people just refuse to work, others refuse to improve themselves, and others still actually believe the producers should support the moochers.

Can we still use "war on...anything?" War is such an evil word.

Look, if you had bothered to look at BHO's voting record in Congress (including his "present" votes) and had listened to his support of global socialism you would have known what was coming. He beat a liberal, but much closer to the center, Hillary and a far-from-rightwinger McCain and didn't lie that much about what he was. We get what we pay for.

FirefightnRick · April 27, 2009

Look, if you had bothered to look at BHO's voting record in Congress (including his "present" votes) and had listened to his support of global socialism you would have known what was coming. He beat a liberal, but much closer to the center, Hillary and a far-from-rightwinger McCain and didn't lie that much about what he was. We get what we pay for.

52,000,000 of us knew better.

Rick

hickoryhouse · April 27, 2009

The complete lack of debate is what is surprising me, I am not upset with OBama as much as I am with Congress. I find it sad and embarrassing that congress is so afraid of the public lack of support for Govt run Health Care that they essentially tuck it in to the budget and shove it down the people throats with no possiblility of public debate, They know that their ideas are lacking the suport of the public but they want it anyway.

Additionally with the way this is being done the Republicans do not even have the opportunity to filibuster, that is even more unbelievable. Te majority in congress is so afraid of the public lack of support and the possibility of an intelligent debate that the take filibuster off the table, and aren't the Democrats the party that seemed to be filibustering every other month during the Bush administration.

I am all for changing our HC system if that is what the public wants to do, but lets talk about it, debate and have intelligent policy discussions. Don't hide behind shady politics and hidden agendas.

What I don't understand is why Congress thinks this is ok to do?

oldguystudent · April 27, 2009

He beat a liberal, but much closer to the center, Hillary

Seriously? If she'd become president, I'd be right there with you on the sky falling and the thought police knocking down my door. She makes Bill look like a regular Pat Buchanan, and if I recall my 1990s, conservatives (or Republicans, depending on how we're using the terms) just absolutely hated Bill.

untbowler · April 27, 2009

Seriously? If she'd become president, I'd be right there with you on the sky falling and the thought police knocking down my door. She makes Bill look like a regular Pat Buchanan, and if I recall my 1990s, conservatives (or Republicans, depending on how we're using the terms) just absolutely hated Bill.

Hated or just jealous at his White House booty calls.

FirefightnRick · April 28, 2009

Uh Oh…Team Obama Claims Americans Use TOO MUCH Health Care

Last Sunday on “Meet the Press,” Larry Summers, Obama’s chief economic adviser, let the cat out of the bag on health care. In explaining why universal health care wasn’t going to increase the deficit, Summers said that people are just getting too much unnecessary care. Summers claimed: “whether it’s tonsillectomies or hysterectomies . . . procedures are done three times as frequently [in some parts of the country than others]and there’s no benefit in terms of the health of the population. And by doing the right kind of cost-effectiveness, by making the right kinds of investments and protection, some experts that we — estimate that we could take as much as $700 billion a year out of our health care system.”
This sure seems like rationing.

The selective use of statistics by Summers and others in the Obama administration is startling. In 2000, New York had 501 abortions per 1,000 live births, Wyoming had 1. New York had 31 abortions per 1,000 women, Wyoming had fewer than 1. Abortion procedures rarely involve the health of the mother. Yet, presumably, Summers wouldn’t argue that these gaps, which are 10 to 167 times greater than the 3-to-1 ratio that so upsets him for other procedures, imply that abortions should be rationed.

Rick

Edited April 28, 2009 by FirefightnRick

hickoryhouse · April 28, 2009

Im sorry, but if i decide that I do not want to have my tonsils anymore because they annoy me.... I am going to have my tonsils out and I am going to pay for it and it is not the government's job to say if I am allowed to do that or not.

UNTflyer · April 28, 2009

Interesting looking book based on the wikipedia entry. I may want to see about reading it but good gosh, 1,200 pages for a paperback book?! Maybe something to read over my 1-1/2 week vacation coming up this summer.

One of the greatest books ever written.