Saturday, November 21, 2009
A filibuster!!!
If you want to see the beginnings of what a filibuster looks like, turn on C-SPAN 2 right now! Three senators asking each other questions they already know the answer to. Awesome! Cloture vote schedule for 7:00 p.m. our time tonight. It might start even earlier so tune in at 5:00. Listen for how the following vote: Blanche Lincoln, Mary Landrieu, Nelson, and Lieberman. At this point everyone but Lincoln has said he or she will vote for cloture.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
26 comments:
The cloture vote came through, 60-39 as per CNN. This opens up the floor for Senate debate on the proposed healthcare bill. Hopefully this can get the bill passed by the end of the year. Of course there is still a long way to go here. I guess though what I really want to know is where all of the funding for this bill will come from. Perhaps a tax hike? There's no way it can be deficit spending or simply taken from military spending. So, will this mean an increase of taxes on the American people. Or is this simply a tax break program? But then the government won't have the funding. Hopefully more solid details will be available soon.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/special/nation/health/compare-health-plans-2009/
After an extensive 13 seconds of research I came across this link that explains how the two major bills are funded (and other stuff).
By the way, if you had the chance to experience the 38th Annual Pops Concert you had to appreciate Jon R's inclusion of a comment about John McCain in his rap. It's rap so I didn't understand any of the rest of it, but I heard the politics part. Expect an encore performance in class on Monday!
well first off jon stated how jon mccain is the whitest person ever. and to a more relevant post. i agree with mklinka that there is one big problem with the funding for such a bill and with all the time taken for cloture votes to end filibusters its quite an obstacle for the bill to somehow be passed by the end of the year because we are still not entirely sure if it will even pass the senate for sure, especially after some of the confusing votes in the house.
So, basically, all through the new tax is what's been elaborated on so far, however, if you look, there's other revenues and also "other" on the chart that aren't explained. Where are these coming from, will pay-go come back?
On the link that Mr. B attached, I saw under that "key provisions" tab it states that under government run insurance the senate would change the current bill by allowing states to opt out of the universal coverage. I think this is a bit contradicting because if it is universal, it should be just out there for everyone...not in select states. Also, the projected number of uninsured people in 2019 is 54 million if nothing changes. I feel like that should be a pretty striking number to the people in charge of passing this bill and be somewhat of an encouragement to make the bill move along smoothly!
Well. The filibuster (that I did not view) must have been pretty ridiculous. That is because the idea of a filibuster is ridiculous. It is a useless part of United States government. Almost as useless as the executive branch. We should focus on the issues and making positive changes in our communities.
After looking at Mr. B's link about funding and whatnot, I found it interesting that whether I agree with it or not, the bill is moving through congress like it should. Certain provisions are being made by the Senate to the bill passed in the house. Kate, I understand where you are coming from about the states being able to opt out of the coverage...but taking away the states' rights to have the option is somewhat contradictory to our government as a whole. (FEDERALISM, kind of ).
Also regarding POPS concert, I did not in fact write the John McCain lyrics, my good friend Maino probably did. By the way, I was not saying he is the whitest person ever...my musical interpretations do not necessarily reflect my political views, however it does remain a fact that John McCain is in fact caucasian.
There will be no encore. Sorry.
Jon :)
Yes Klatour, you're right...there are additional links to click on that give more information. For example, under "Key Provisions" you can click "Revenue Raisers" and the OTHER revenue raisers are explained:
A surcharge on taxpayers who earn more than $500,000 a year, or $1 million a year for families.
Includes a tax on high-cost insurance plans and would raise Medicare payroll taxes for the wealthiest Americans. Also levies a 5 percent tax on elective cosmetic surgery.
An elaboration.
p.s. Jon's right too...Federalism...or at least that's the argument that supports this provision (e.g. "Shouldn't the states have the right not to be included in this big government socialism on the national level?" Federalism).
I think it's exciting that the bill is moving forward, it's evident reform was needed regardless of what your political ideology is. Analyzing the link Mr. Bretzmann posted- I think an important part to note is under the Insurance Reform tab that on both bills, bans on lifetime limits, AND most importantly coverage denials based on preexisting conditions.
I also find KLatour's point on the state's ability to opt out of the universal healthcare- and I can see this to potentially become a conflict.
Well the cloture passed and thats a good thing? This means that we are one step closer to becoming Cancada. National healthcare will be nice but the bill still needs alot of work. The senate can now sit on the bill for the next year and hopfully come to some sort of an agreement by the end of next year. This bill well hopefully be tha main focus of on the senate floor for then next few moonths.
It's definitely reassuring to see that progress is being made. Whether it is the House or the Senate bill, the current number of uninsured (~47 million) will be at the very least reduced by fifty percent by 2019, if not more, especially considering that the projected number of uninsured without a plan is 54 million. It's also positive to see that there have been compromises on issues like abortion coverage, and that bans on discriminations based on health status, sex, and preexisting conditions are included.
Although this bill is moving closer and closer to passing, i would still like to see improvement on it. The point Kate brought up does sound interesting. If some states ended up opting out and some didn't, this would cause so much controversy. States would have to decide who would be eligable and so forth.
What a filibuster! Hmm I also looked at the site and have a couple points. I believe that this is basically going to end up what party controls the state legistlature ( if the states are liberal or have a high percentage of people without health insurance, who wouldnt take free healthcare?) Also, the state has to kick money in if they want to join. So if your California right now who is broke because they didnt collect enough taxes has many people who are uninsured, they cant even think of having this in their state.
About 52% of the nation has health care in some manner. Reform is needed, anyone can see that. This bill only covers less than the population of California and is just like these insurance companies; YOU HAVE TO BE ELIGIBLE! By the way, the bill may not add to deficit ( which seems very unlikely) but where are we getting the money? Taxes.
I agree with K-Laz. I think there will be problems if states have the option to decline the health care plan. I think the bill makes it seem that a state can choose to have nothing to do with this bill, but will states still get taxed for this plan even it they opt of it?
"...but taking away the states' rights to have the option is somewhat contradictory to our government as a whole."
In my opinion, this is sort of a back-door response to the issue at hand. That is because I think the real question is, is this good for the country or not? And if it is good then we should put it everywhere. This really isn't one of those issues where it could be better some places and have an actual negative impact on the status quo in others. And if someone says the bill is bad everywhere, I would have to question whether or not they've actually read the provisions of either bill (or maybe they've simply just been bribed by insurance companies).
I don't think that conservatives should even be invited to offer input in the Senate bill for 2 reasons; First, look at what happened with the Stupak amendment in the House. Republicans supported the Stupak amendment by voting for it, knowing that in the end they'd vote against the bill anyways. All this did was create a big squeeze for Speaker Pelosi and made it harder to please all of her fellow Democrats with less wiggle room and an obvious attempt of the typical use of the Republican tool of stagnation and try to stall just to be obstructionists. So what if that disaster happens again but in the Senate instead? Secondly, at least in the Senate, the GOP is so vehemently against the public option that even Olympia Snowe probably won't be voting for it, so why let them sit there and be fear mongers to blue dogs and independents that are on the borderline vote?
first off on what k-iglinski said, cancada? is canada so bad now we can't even pronounce its name correctly well they are one step ahead of us on the healthcare debate, they already have it and according to michael moore canada has it very good especially in his movie "Sicko", but i'm not sure he is the most reliable source especially because we cannot use any country as an example for our new healthcare bill because every country that has it has a small fraction of the population the united states has. the filibuster ending so quickly was a very good thing for our country to progress, but chances are it might not pass even with the democratic senate, while i agree with everyone being provided health insurance, i think the O administration is trying to accomplish too much in its first year. unless he's trying to accomplish his first 1460 days in 365. but that might be too much for our presidents administration. while i believe he should have waited to
first a comment on what k-iglinski said, cancada? is canada becoming so bad now that we can't even pronounce our beloved screwed up neighbors to the north's name correctly? they are at least one moose lunge ahead of us in the health care situation and according to michael moore it is very good (possibly not the most reliable source, but hes a very educated intelligent human being no matter what your ideology is). while i am pleased that the filibuster is over, because it would have delayed our progress into a better more unified nation. i am more unsure if the bill will actually get passed by the senate. i also believe the obama administration is trying to accomplish to much in its first year, it is like they are trying to accomplish his first 1460 days in 365. so i believe he should have waited until next year to have the bill be brought up, but since we are in the middle of a recession and people are losing jobs left and right, more and more people need health coverage to help support themselves. the one major problem is that a healthcare reform of this scale has never been attempted before and every country that has it has only a small fraction of the population the united states does. but then again, if canada(yes thats how u spell it) can accomplish it and speak french at the same time, maybe we can too.
Wow Astoiber, you sure like to make some bold statements, and quite frankly I'm suprised a AP GoPo student would make such rediculous comments. 1) The filibuster is as American as apple pie. It's a means of trying to prevent majoritarian rule. It gives the little guy the floor to show his/her dissent for the policy which governs you, me, and millions of other citizens. When a piece of legislation as heavy as the health care bill is being considered in the US, tanks do not take to the street; soldiers do not capture all those who disagree. In America, we filibuster, and I'm damn proud of that. 2)The executive branch is useless? So there was just no need for Washington, Lincoln, Roosevelt(x2), and Reagan? Come on now. I don't even have to explain how rediculous that one is.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zWyEc7FAMTg
Mike F. what are you talking aboot. Thats what they say ey. I was typing fast sorry.
JakeK you've learned well.
First off, SICKO is NOT a credible source because the does not point out any negatives to his arguement which their are. The United States of America has some the best doctors in the whole world who save many lives through miracles. People come from ALL over the world to come get surgerys from lasic eye surgery to a seperating conjoined twins at the head. Micheal Moore points out every negative aspect of the insurance companies, and thinks everyone should just get health care for free. First off, if health care was free for all, we would be trillions of dollars in debt and taxes would be high and that would be against what President Obama said during his campaign. The whole aspect of Sicko is the extreme liberal view and is a socialist government. Our health is the thing that affects humans alike and do we as a nation truly want our government controlling many aspects of it?
I agree that the cloture brought us one step to advancing in the healthcare debate, however, I think there is still a lot more debate to come. For the next year the bill will go between the house and the senate, each one making changes until middle ground can finally be met. But when that ground is met, the bill will be so watered down and be so far from what the Democrats wanted to begin with. I also agree on the idea that there is going to be a problem with the states right to opt out of the bill.
in my defense jake, i was just being facetious. i simply had to post something and that was it. and yes i stand by my claim that we have no need for an executive branch. by the way, reagan was a terrorist.
Post a Comment