fair enough.

you seem to be posting in favor of how "awful" this is so, I had no point of context for your specific viewpoint other than how you've attached it to Neal's.

my only point in posting on this is to make sure everyone knows that every version of Windows comes with a complete list of Neal's rantings on using reconciliation before now.

Just open up notepad.

Just keep making snarky little comments you still can't prove how this is constitutional. There are things we can do to make healthcare more affordable, more accessible without initiating this new big government bureaucracy but that would not give your boys the power they want.

"healthcare REFORM and "the public option". two different things."

Yes they are, just wish Washington would realize that an treat them as two different things. They talk about how much money can be saved in fraud and waste in medicare, but I don't see anyone ON EITHER SIDE doing anything NOW to take advantage of those savings, so they lose credibility there. Everyone knows medical malpractice lawsuits are out of hand but again, no action to do anything there, so another loss in credibility.

Medicare is single payer you are correct, but it is also optional. You don't have to participate if you don't want to. Maybe that is what makes it a little more constitutional but it still should have been challenged. As I've pointed out before and you have always ignored, once a government monstrosity is in place, it is almost impossible to remove until it collapses. Which medicare and social security are both getting close to doing. So yeah, all those entitlement programs you mentioned ARE unconstitutional. We've been fooled for decades by progressives sneaking this crap in while we were asleep. Our fault? Sure is. But we are awake now, and this kind of behaviour is no longer going to be accepted so you can forget us "working with" anyone who is trying to perpetuate further steps in that direction.

Maybe we won't win in the courts. But we're gonna give it a try. At least we are standing up against people like you.

Can you read the word "abuse"? If I condoned it, I would have tried to make that position tenable. I didn't, and so think it was wrong then. I thought so at the time, too. Just wasn't on any internet sites at the time to discuss it. I may have commented here about the potential use of the "nuclear option" as a related bad idea, too.

Yours is a poor argument, especially since I was against it then, was against pretty much everything Bush did, didn't vote for Bush either time, etc. But you can't know that and assume otherwise and then make a childish comment as if your assumptions were fact.

Sorry, still can't call you truthseeker with a straight face. So you say Dems have been working with Republicans with all their "generous" concessions. Sure, and I can claim that I want to cut you into a thousand tiny pieces...oh, but I'm willing to work with you and agree to reduce that to only 500 pieces. You'll still die painfully, but oh whoopie look I'm working with you, aren't I?

you really just dont get it, do you?

your article talks about "national healthcare" OK - well, let's parse this out properly.

healthcare REFORM and "the public option". two different things.

your op ed infers that reform amounts to a single payer system. it doesn't. the public option isnt even that.

medicare IS just that.

So, in terms of reform you're saying that the govt can't regulate insurance companies because the commerce clause was never intended to allow that. OK - good luck fighting that in court. Since scotus has already ruled that this is, in fact, the purpose of this clause it would be remarkable but not unprecedented for them to reverse themselves.

"general welfare" doesn't support the idea that the govt can provide healthcare? OK. This view could then be applied (and would have to be given how judicial rulings work) to anything in this regard. So, social security, medicare, medicaid, food stamps, SHIPS, HUD assistance - all of it would be challenged as unconstitutional.

Again, these are just cocktail arguments you're making.

in the real world, it's just bunk.

but hey - maybe I'm wrong! Good luck with your court case! I would love to watch that unfold for you.

seriously - in fact, you should call the ACLU. Tell them that if the govt forces you to buy health insurance your rights are being infringed. I'm not joking. It wouldnt surprise me if someone does just that.

can't wait to see where that goes.

So, just as an aside - if this notion of unconstitutionality of this legislation were to reach SCOTUS and they said it is, in fact, constitutional - would that be when you start whining about judical activism and the partisan makeup of the bench?

my guess is YES so, let me offer a premature congratulations, your intellectual masturbation will be complete.

That's the way the founding fathers designed our system, to be difficult to pass major new programs. Otherwise there would be complete switches to entire portions of our lives being changed up every time a new group gained control. It's called balance.

And healthcare at the federal level is unconstitutional. Posted this yesterday but snarky could only complain about the lack of a challenge on medicare. Good point, that was also unconstitutional and should have been challenged, but two wrongs don't make a right.

http://blog.heritage.org/2009/08/20/is-national-health-insurance-constitutional/

President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

Wikipedia again:

One of the most important developments to emerge from the Congressional Budget Act of 1974 has been reconciliation (See Pub.L. 93-344, § 310; 88 Stat. 297; 2 U.S.C. § 641.) Reconciliation developed into an important procedure for implementing the policy decisions and assumptions embraced in a budget resolution, in a way that was unforeseen when the Budget Act was written. Under the original design of the 1974 Budget Act, reconciliation had a fairly narrow purpose. It was expected to be used in conjunction with the second resolution adopted in the fall, and was to apply to a single fiscal year and be directed primarily at spending and revenue legislation acted on between the adoption of the first and second budget resolutions. Congress has subsequently used the procedure to enact far-reaching omnibus budget bills, first in 1981.

The Byrd Rule (described below) was adopted in 1985 and amended in 1990. Its main effect is that reconciliation cannot be used for provisions that would increase the deficit beyond ten years after the reconciliation measure.

Congress used reconciliation to enact President Bill Clinton's 1993 (fiscal year 1994) budget. (See Pub.L. 103-66, 107 Stat. 312.) President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets. However, on August 25, 2009, Senator Jeff Bingaman (D-NM), one of the members of the Senate Finance Committee's "Gang of Six" bipartisan group to work on a health insurance reform bill in the Senate, has said that reconciliation may be used, is an acceptable option, and that he can support it.

Until 1996, reconciliation was limited to deficit reduction, but in 1996 the Senate's Republican majority adopted a precedent to apply reconciliation to any legislation affecting the budget, even legislation that would increase the deficit.[3]

Under the administration of President George W. Bush Congress used reconciliation to enact three major tax cuts. These tax cuts were set to lapse after 10 years to satisfy the Byrd Rule. Efforts to use reconciliation to open the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge to oil drilling failed.

umm, regarding your false belief in how reconciliation has been used:

http://www.tnr.com/article/politics/truth-and-reconciliation

to quote:

"" What is the precedent for using reconciliation to enact major policy changes? Much more extensive than the architects of the Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 had in mind-or than Senate Republicans are willing to admit these days. Reconciliation was designed as a narrow procedure to bring revenue and direct spending under existing laws into conformity with the levels set in the annual budget resolution. It was used initially to cut the budget deficit by increasing revenues or decreasing spending but in more recent years its primary purpose has been to reduce taxes. Twenty-two reconciliation bills were passed between 1980 and 2008, although three (written by Republican majorities in Congress) were vetoed by President Clinton and never became law.

Whether reducing or increasing deficits, many of the reconciliation bills made major changes in policy. Health insurance portability (COBRA), nursing home standards, expanded Medicaid eligibility, increases in the earned income tax credit, welfare reform, the state Children's Health Insurance Program, major tax cuts and student aid reform were all enacted under reconciliation procedures. Health reform 2009 style would be the most ambitious use of reconciliation but it fits a pattern used over three decades by both parties to avoid the strictures of Senate filibusters.""

Maybe Snarky he didn't write about them because those particualr items LET US (the Citizens) keep more of our hard earned money.

This bill is not wanted by the Citizens of this country so they are going to back door it in.

If I remember right these idiots in Washington are supposed to serve the people of their districts but alas they are only serving their own agendas. This Obamacare debacle is showing the whole country what these fools are really about.

Wikipedia:

President Clinton wanted to use reconciliation to pass his 1993 health care plan, but Senator Robert Byrd (D-WVa) insisted that the health care plan was out of bounds for a process that is theoretically about budgets.

Randy, I know this is hard for you but if your logic is that a majority is what's needed to validate an idea - that's all reconciliation is, a majority vote.

Unless, are you saying that we should use polls to decide things? Is that what you're saying? So, if it polls well with the public, then our representatives should use that information to make their decisions?

Is that what you're saying?

As far as being "necessary", just so I'm clear, you're saying that healthcare reform isn't a top issue for people?

There are not enough true conservatives in America to stop the march toward socialized medicine. Oh, sure, polls indicate that over 40% of Americans claim to be conservative, but security trumps freedom any day. The debates in congress will continue a while longer, politicians will be threatened with replacement next November, but the jugernaut of socialized medicine is on the roll. It will be an expensive, demeaning, and generally inferior replacement for what we have now, but it will be fair. Equally lousy for everyone.

True conservatives will be left in the position that they have always been more confortable. Pessimistic gadflys reminding the great unwashed of the folly of their ways.

I'm thinking of a new business. Ultra light sandwich boards with the message "We Are Doomed" on the front and "I Told You So" on the back.

"We're not gonna pass heathcare with a 50-plus-1 majority"

-soon to become-

"YES WE CAN!"

I think Joe Wilson should present this little clip on the floor of the House, not saying a word, and then take his seat.

http://www.theospark.net/2009/09/video-7-lies-in-under-2-minutes.html

Seven lies in under two minutes (although I counted 8).

I'm as patriotic as the next guy, but I don't see why this healthcare nonsense should require 60 votes. 51 is a majority in the Senate, so why shouldn't things pass with that? Yea, I know in this case it's the left's fascist medical system, but think about how screwed up this country is. How can we ever fix it if you need 60 patriots in the Senate to pass legislation when we can barely scrape up a dozen or two? How could something like the Fair Tax ever pass if 60 votes were needed?

It makes me think that the majority party runs the show, but the minority party can always prevent the show from becoming law.

While this may be a good thing while the socialists are ruling, overall it shouldn't be like that if you ask me. It means all legislation will have goodies set aside for members of the other side to get their votes.