Health Care Overhaul Bill Slowed by Read-A-Thon
Sid9
Health Care Overhaul Bill Slowed by Read-A-Thon
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Filed at 1:06 p.m. ET
WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is in health care gridlock after a
Republican senator forced the clerk to read aloud a 767-page
amendment.
GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had sought approval to require that
any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in
advance and with a full cost report.
When he was rebuffed by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana, Coburn
invoked his right to require that an amendment by another lawmaker be
read aloud. That sent the Senate into limbo, since the amendment by
Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, is 767 pages long.
It's unclear how long the procedural standoff will continue. Democrats
are struggling to pass their bill by Christmas.
==================
The article says 767
pages....http://cspan.org/pdf/sanders_amend_2837.pdf shows only 366
pages.....I estimate it's a twelve hour read.
Stile4aly
> pages.....I estimate it's a twelve hour read.
It's likely that Sanders will withdraw the amendment, since it doesn't
have a chance of passing anyway.
jane
> pages.....I estimate it's a twelve hour read.
You are absolutely right. Why should our senators know what they are
voting for?
There is actually no delay. The time to read the bill would be a lot
shorter than the time for a senator to actually study what he is
voting for. Personally, I think the bill should not only be read in
the Senate, but discussed as each section is read.
Tell me, How many bills do you think YOUR senator has read before
voting?
Jane
Frank Pittel
It doesn't matter what they're voting for. They were told to vote for
it by dumbo so they have to vote for it.
--
-------------------
Keep working dumbo needs the money
Sid9
"jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:0bc3ba8f-6084-4e08...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
.
Republicans desperately afraid to permit a vote on the Sanders
amendment.
They fear going home to their constituents and having to explain their
vote.
jane
> "jane" <jane.pla...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:0bc3ba8f-6084-4e08...@19g2000vbq.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Dec 16, 1:36 pm, "Sid9" <s...@belsouth.net> wrote:
> >> December 16, 2009
> >> Health Care Overhaul Bill Slowed by Read-A-Thon
> >> By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
>
> >> Filed at 1:06 p.m. ET
>
> >> WASHINGTON (AP) -- The Senate is in health care gridlock after a
> >> Republican senator forced the clerk to read aloud a 767-page
> >> amendment.
>
> >> GOP Sen. Tom Coburn of Oklahoma had sought approval to require that
> >> any amendment considered by the Senate must be offered 72 hours in
> >> advance and with a full cost report.
>
> >> When he was rebuffed by Democratic Sen. Max Baucus of Montana,
> >> Coburn
> >> invoked his right to require that an amendment by another lawmaker
> >> be
> >> read aloud. That sent the Senate into limbo, since the amendment by
> >> Sen. Bernie Sanders, an independent from Vermont, is 767 pages
> >> long.
>
> >> It's unclear how long the procedural standoff will continue.
> >> Democrats
> >> are struggling to pass their bill by Christmas.
> >> ==================
>
> >> The article says 767
> >> pages.....I estimate it's a twelve hour read.
>
> > You are absolutely right. Why should our senators know what they
> > are
> > voting for?
>
> > There is actually no delay. The time to read the bill would be a
> > lot
> > shorter than the time for a senator to actually study what he is
> > voting for. Personally, I think the bill should not only be read in
> > the Senate, but discussed as each section is read.
>
> > Tell me, How many bills do you think YOUR senator has read before
> > voting?
>
> > Jane
>
> .
> .
>
> Republicans desperately afraid to permit a vote on the Sanders
> amendment.
> They fear going home to their constituents and having to explain their
> vote.
Yes, republicans are afraid to vote for it and Democrats are afraid to
vote against it. Neither side has studied it because neither side has
the time to read it let alone study it.
Although Cloture has become an inapproriately used tool, The intent of
Cloture is a good thing. It is "supposed" to extend discussion and
debate.
You, Sid, are sitting here trying to convince us that it is a good
bill and should be passed. Tell me, have you read it? Do you know
what is in it? I will tell you that although this bill will be bad
for the country, this bill will be a godsend for ME personally.
Let me explain: If I do not buy insurance, the government will fine
me 2.5% of my wages up to a cap of $750. The reason is to force
everyone to buy insurance in exchange for removing the "preexisting
condition" clause.
Let's use logic here. Have you price the cost of insurance lately?
$750 is not a fine, it is a gift from heaven. All I have to do is pay
my $750 fine each year and wait for Medicare. If I do get a serious
illness or get in an accident, I will buy my insurance at THAT point.
Since the "preexisting condition" clause has been removed, my illness
or accident WILL be covered.
After my illness or injury is treated, I will drop my insurance and go
back to paying my $750/yr fine.
Now all we have to do is convince our congress to pass a law that
permits us to buy auto insurance or homeowners insurance AFTER the
accident or AFTER the house catches on fire.
Jane.
Bert Hyman
Trombo...@webtv.net (Zor-El of Argo City) wrote:
> I have a cousin in DC who works as a Senatoial staffer; her job is to
> read pending legislation and to deliver a concise report to the
> Senator so s/he doesn' have to dirty his/he hands acually handling
> legislation.
Since the members of Congress don't actually write their own bills
either, this makes perfect sense.
It gives them more time to solicit bribes.
[Newsgroups restored]
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN be...@iphouse.com
Sid9
You should have listened to Bernie Sanders explaining how both
government, business and individuals would benefit from his proposal.
The current senate bill is a boondoggle for insurance companies and
should be defeated.
It is as much a gravy train as the Republican passed HMO advantage
program and Medicare Part D (Prescription plan),
Sid9
"Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
news:Xns9CE457CC5E6...@216.250.188.141...
.
Republicans have fought significant campaign finance reform forever.
McCain-Feingold was a weak kneed ineffective loophole riddled bill.
Legalized bribes called "campaign contributions" are a serious
problem.
Bob
news:hgdhaj$ef5$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> "jane" <jane....@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:d3914078-5902-4de7...@a21g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>> Yes, republicans are afraid to vote for it and Democrats are afraid to
So you are with the Republicans and oppose
the Democrats and Obama on this bill?
Bert Hyman
<si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE457CC5E6...@216.250.188.141...
>> In news:29105-4B2...@storefull-3173.bay.webtv.net
>> Trombo...@webtv.net (Zor-El of Argo City) wrote:
>>
>>> I have a cousin in DC who works as a Senatoial staffer; her job is
>>> to
>>> read pending legislation and to deliver a concise report to the
>>> Senator so s/he doesn' have to dirty his/he hands acually handling
>>> legislation.
>>
>> Since the members of Congress don't actually write their own bills
>> either, this makes perfect sense.
>>
>> It gives them more time to solicit bribes.
>>
> Republicans have fought significant campaign finance reform forever.
> McCain-Feingold was a weak kneed ineffective loophole riddled bill.
>
> Legalized bribes called "campaign contributions" are a serious
> problem.
As usual, you miss the point entirely.
Why are legislators in a position to solicit and accept bribes, or to
extort contributions from citizens?
The problem isn't the contributions, it's the fact that corrupt
politicians sell their votes, or threaten citizens with onerous
regulation.
Bob
Would you support a law that allowed only individuals
to donate to politicians, and only up to $1000 per year?
Sid9
They are in a position to solicit bribes because it is exceedingly
expensive to run for office.
Most Americans cannot run for office on their own resources, even for
the lowest of offices at the city and county level..
McCain-Feingold was a weak kneed loophole riddled law attempting to
remedy this abuse.
One of the serious problems is a USSC decision that equated money with
free-speech.
At this point the only way to reverse that decision is with a
constitutional amendment about campaign financing.
It's not in the cards.
So crooks like former Rep Jack Tauzin can leave the house and take his
reward at $2 million as year from the pharmaceutical industry.
Bert Hyman
<si...@belsouth.net> wrote:
>
> "Bert Hyman" <be...@iphouse.com> wrote in message
> news:Xns9CE45E5C840...@216.250.188.140...
>
>>
>> Why are legislators in a position to solicit and accept bribes, or
>> to
>> extort contributions from citizens?
>
> They are in a position to solicit bribes because it is exceedingly
> expensive to run for office.
Why are they willing to spend so much money to obtain an office that
pays so little? How many leave Congress poorer than when they entered?
You're working very hard to evade the underlying issue.
Why?
Sid9
They don't spend their own money.
They get "campaign contributions" that are tantamount to a bribes....
Excellent example: Republican ex-Rep from TX Jack Tauzin who slipped
the "no-negotiation" clause into Medicare D...then resigned to become
head of the big Pharma Mfrs Association for $2 million a year...where
he resides this very day.
What's so difficult?....it's a shit system and it will take a
constitutional amendment to change it unless we get a USSC that will
reverse their earlier decision.
McCain-Feingold was a weak loophole riddled attempt to repair the
system