Author Topic: House Panel Paves Way for 'Nuclear Option' to pass ObamaCare (Read 777 times)

Soul Crusher · « **on:** October 16, 2009, 07:07:26 AM »

Here it comes: House Panel Paves Way for 'Nuclear Option' to pass ObamaCare
Fox News ^ | 10/16/09

Posted on Friday, October 16, 2009 9:50:06 AM by pabianice

The Ways and Means Committee has adjusted the health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.

A key House committee on Thursday quietly altered its health care legislation in a way that could allow the Senate to mow over Republican opposition to Democratic reforms by exploiting a budgetary loophole.

The Ways and Means Committee adjusted its health care overhaul package so that the Senate, down the road, could avoid a filibuster and pass health care reform with a smaller number of votes than normally required.

The long-discussed process, nicknamed the "nuclear option," is known as reconciliation. It's coming into potential play after the Senate Finance Committee on Tuesday became the last of five committees to approve health care reform legislation, sending the overhaul proposals a big step closer to the president's desk. Before it gets there, though, the bill has to pass from the committees to the floors of the House and Senate.

(Excerpt) Read more at foxnews.com

________________________ ________________________ ____

If this bill is so great:

1. Why do they need a nuclear option to pass it?
2. Why doesnt it apply to the congress people and their staffs?
3. Why does it not go into effect until 2013 and tax collection starts now?
4. Why wont they allow a 5 day period to review the bill as ****** promised?
5. Why did Baucus give the CBO an outline instead of the bill itself?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #1 on:** October 16, 2009, 07:16:13 AM »

6. Why do we need individual mandates if this bill is so great?
7. How is placing more mandates on my insurance carrier going to lower my personal premiums?
8. Why did they not include negotiating with the drug makers?
9. Why no tort reform?
10. Why did they not repeal the anti-trust exemption?

ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS GARBAGE WANT TO GIVE SOME ANSWERS? ? ? ? ?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #2 on:** October 16, 2009, 07:54:35 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on October 16, 2009, 07:16:13 AM

6. Why do we need individual mandates if this bill is so great?
7. How is placing more mandates on my insurance carrier going to lower my personal premiums?
8. Why did they not include negotiating with the drug makers?
9. Why no tort reform?
10. Why did they not repeal the anti-trust exemption?

ANYONE WHO SUPPORTS THIS GARBAGE WANT TO GIVE SOME ANSWERS? ? ? ? ?

11. If Obama was so off on his estimates for the Stimulus Bill, why should be believe him on this?
12. How are the penalties enforced by this? The IRS?
13. Why is health care going to be offered at the DMV?
14. Are doctors getting their pay slashed?
15. If amnesty for illegal aliens is given, will they be eligible for public health care? Will they get fined?

COME YOU SUPPORTERS OF HCR - PLEASE EXPLAIN THESE TO ME?

240 is Back · « **Reply #3 on:** October 16, 2009, 07:59:22 AM »

I dont support the bill, but i'm certain it's gonna pass.

33, you declared this bill dead 2 months ago. I told ya obama is one smart mofo, shrewd enough to defeat hilary and the RNC just to get the job. I also said he'd be getting it thru. I sitll believe it.

Are you changing your position - now saying there's a chance it may pass?

tonymctones · « **Reply #4 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:01:00 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 07:59:22 AM

I dont support the bill, but i'm certain it's gonna pass.

33, you declared this bill dead 2 months ago. I told ya obama is one smart mofo, shrewd enough to defeat hilary and the RNC just to get the job. I also said he'd be getting it thru. I sitll believe it.

Are you changing your position - now saying there's a chance it may pass?

dude you argue for this bill more then the majority of ppl on here

240 is Back · « **Reply #5 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:03:06 AM »

Quote from: tonymctones on October 16, 2009, 08:01:00 AM

dude you argue for this bill more then the majority of ppl on here

nah, i argue for a way to stop the costs from rising. I haven't seen a repub bill that does that/ My monthy bill is 215 now and I'm healthy.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #6 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:04:38 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 07:59:22 AM

I dont support the bill, but i'm certain it's gonna pass.

33, you declared this bill dead 2 months ago. I told ya obama is one smart mofo, shrewd enough to defeat hilary and the RNC just to get the job. I also said he'd be getting it thru. I sitll believe it.

Are you changing your position - now saying there's a chance it may pass?

Reid admitted that it will cost 2 trillion dollars.

This thing is going nowhere 240. He may get a watered down bill, but this will literally in one fell swoop break every promise he ever made.

1. No new taxes to anyone under 250k? - Promise Broken
2. 5 days to review a bill? - Promise Broken
3. Transparency? Promise Broken.
4. Wont add to the national debt or deficit - Promise Broken.
5. No individual mandates - promise broken.

Keep it up 240 - you are like a beaten dog and getting worse.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #7 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:05:55 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 08:03:06 AM

nah, i argue for a way to stop the costs from rising. I haven't seen a repub bill that does that/ My monthy bill is 215 now and I'm healthy.

Ok jackass - and what do you think is going to happen when ObamaCare mandates that your present carrier cover all sorts of new conditions?

Your costs are going way higher 240 with obamaCare.

240 is Back · « **Reply #8 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:13:42 AM »

Look, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, nor am I trying to convince anyone what the right call on this issue is.

I know my bill has gone up 46+% this year. and if it does that for another 2-3 years, I can't affor health care. it's that simple.

You're telling me it's not the insurance company's costs that it's gone up this month. Their fixed costs, etc. I don't buy it. When they have the ability to jack up ANY REQUIRED GOOD OR SERVICE 46% in a year, govt interveniton is required.

If ammo, gasoline, or beef jerky went up 46% a year for the next 5 years, you would be demanding some sort of regulation to slow that shit down too.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #9 on:** October 16, 2009, 08:23:23 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 08:13:42 AM

Look, I don't claim to be an expert on this topic, nor am I trying to convince anyone what the right call on this issue is.

I know my bill has gone up 46+% this year. and if it does that for another 2-3 years, I can't affor health care. it's that simple.

You're telling me it's not the insurance company's costs that it's gone up this month. Their fixed costs, etc. I don't buy it. When they have the ability to jack up ANY REQUIRED GOOD OR SERVICE 46% in a year, govt interveniton is required.

If ammo, gasoline, or beef jerky went up 46% a year for the next 5 years, you would be demanding some sort of regulation to slow that shit down too.

Do me a favor 240 - call up your carrier and ask them what mandates are on your policy that contribute to your premiuim going up.

And, no I dont favor price controls. Usually the main reason for shortages if govt actions to begin with and if anything, the govt price controls make things far worse.

How again did you get through MBA course of study?

240 is Back · « **Reply #10 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:03:27 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on October 16, 2009, 08:23:23 AM

Do me a favor 240 - call up your carrier and ask them what mandates are on your policy that contribute to your premiuim going up.

And, no I dont favor price controls. Usually the main reason for shortages if govt actions to begin with and if anything, the govt price controls make things far worse.

How again did you get through MBA course of study?

um, ok?

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #11 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:07:25 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 09:03:27 AM

um, ok?

240 - please list what classes you took to get an MBA?

I'm curious because economics obviously was not one of them.

240 is Back · « **Reply #12 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:21:23 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on October 16, 2009, 09:07:25 AM

240 - please list what classes you took to get an MBA?

I'm curious because economics obviously was not one of them.

yes i took economics. acct. finance. marketing. org mgmt. ERP. all that great stuff.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #13 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:26:17 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 09:21:23 AM

yes i took economics. acct. finance. marketing. org mgmt. ERP. all that great stuff.

Were you sleeping during those courses?

240 is Back · « **Reply #14 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:28:41 AM »

Quote from: 333386 on October 16, 2009, 09:26:17 AM

Were you sleeping during those courses?

Yes. Yes I was. great thread derail on your part

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #15 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:30:28 AM »

Quote from: 240 is Back on October 16, 2009, 09:28:41 AM

Yes. Yes I was. great thread derail on your part

Fine - get me an answer to those 15 questions I asked directly about the Health Bill.

You have an MBA and should be able to give me a coherent answer.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #16 on:** October 16, 2009, 09:48:12 AM »

Let's focus back on the 'Nuclear Option'...some dems are pushing for a reconciliation vote, which is historically only used for budgetary matters. This would change the senate vote to pass a bill from 60 to 51. I think this is unconstitutional and it ensures unopposed dominance of the party in charge. This is a big announcement...and bad for the people. Good things typically come with compromise and debate.

a_joker10 · « **Reply #17 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:00:56 AM »

It won't come to the floor if they try their "nuclear option"

There are lots of ways that the Republicans can tie up the house for over a year, just through procedural tricks.

You will see this come to play if they even try it.

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #18 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:15:37 AM »

Perhaps your right, but then the media will focus on republicans holding things up, rather than the real issue, which is the liberal democrats trying to shove this through bipassing established procedure.

Soul Crusher · « **Reply #19 on:** October 16, 2009, 10:16:15 AM »

Quote from: shootfighter1 on October 16, 2009, 10:15:37 AM

Perhaps your right, but then the media will focus on republicans holding things up, rather than the real issue, which is the liberal democrats trying to shove this through bipassing established procedure.

Shoot - they are cutting doctor payments by 248 billion!

shootfighter1 · « **Reply #20 on:** October 16, 2009, 11:40:59 AM »

Yeah, and the fact that this bill is likely to force insurance companies to raise premiums because of the taxes and restrictions.

This f'n congress would not consider making no (or low) cost interventions first. I believe that is because many ultimately want the insurance companies completely out of healthcare. They want the government to control it....so, they may not be doing everything they can to reduce the costs to us...in hopes they can later pass a gov plan. You can't put taxes on the insurance companies and decrease physician reimbursement without those costs being passed along. This administration is all about creating big government.