• Please read the Announcement concerning missing posts from 10/8/25-10/15/25.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

House Democrats looking at 'Slaughter Solution' to pass Obamacare without a vote

What a bad ass name for a Representative:

Representative Slaughter.

Just as awesome as the name of my alter-ego congressman:

Senator Klashnikov
 
Because when Republicans use this nuclear option, it's used on reconciliation matters such as the Bush tax cuts that were passed with a necessary Congressional vote where the filibuster can stop hundreds of bills....and then reconciled line by line.

FYI ~ The nuclear option has never, ever been used. Never. If you think it has, please provide documentation.

We all know what the reconciliation process is used for, it's been used dozens of times...and you know full well it was never implemented to pass major legislation as this bill clearly is.

May Democrats are on record howling about reconciliation and properly so, however, Republicans would never use it for bills of this magnitude and you know it. You're being disingenuous, everyone sees right through it, it's become an absolute joke and now strains at the credibility of your argument.

No kidding? Disingenuous, ehh? So, you don't consider any of the below bills to be "major" legislation:confused:
The 1995 Balanced Budget Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 52 to 47.

The 2001 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 58 to 33.

The 2003 Bush Tax Cut was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 50 to 50, with Dick Cheney casting the tie-breaking vote.

Note - These two tax cuts added $1.3 trillion to the U.S. deficit... and was not paid for! To me, that's "major" legislation!

The 2005 Deficit Reduction Act was also passed in reconciliation with a 50 to 50 vote and a Cheney intervention.

The 2006 Tax Relief Extensions Act was passed in reconciliation. The final vote was 54 to 44.

By the way, it was the Republicans who were in control of the Senate when each of these bills were passed using... omg... reconciliation!

The Parliamentary rules just reminded you all of the process that is necessary, I suggest you give that a good solid read.

Yes, reading up on these issues and definitions certainly is good advice... for all of us.


This is a bill that requires people to purchase insurance from an insurance company Dems are telling us are so horrible.

Disingenuous argument. People need health insurance. The fact that insurance companies are vampires sucking the blood from all of our financial necks does not erase the fact that people need to buy their products.

There are dozens of State AGs ready to file immediately, this is unconstitutional, it requires an American citizen to purchase health insurance....mandates them to purchase a product from a private entity....I think the AGs have a good chance.

Well, we shall see what we shall see.


And then...this is a ten year plan that doesn't kick in fully for some years...but you'll be taxed for it immediately.

Another disingenuous argument.
Not unless you are very affluent. The President’s proposal to combine the House and Senate bills would expand access to quality reliable coverage and help tens of millions of Americans pay for it. To do that, it levies some new taxes, but very few people would actually have to pay them.

Income and payroll taxes: The President’s plan follows the Senate’s lead, and includes a 0.9 percent Medicare payroll tax on income over $250,000 for families, and $200,000 for individuals. Each of us pay this tax already, it’s the deduction on your paycheck under the heading "medicare tax." The proposal would increase this tax for these high earners from 1.45 percent to 2.55 percent, but only on the amount of income over the $200,000 or $250,000 threshold. So a family bringing in $300,000 a year, would pay roughly $450 more a year in Medicare taxes—about 0.15 percent of their income, or less than two tenths of a percent.

The president’s plan also includes a new tax on what’s called "unearned income." Right now income from things like interest earned, dividends, annuities, royalties, and rents is usually not subject to Medicare taxes. The President’s proposal would make these sources of income subject to a 2.9 percent tax, but only for single taxpayers earning more than $200,000 alone, or joint filers earning more $250,000.

The Obama proposal eliminates the House plan to pay for reform primarily from a 5.4 percent tax surcharge on income over $500,000 a year for individuals, and $1 million for couples—the so-called millionaire’s tax.

Excise tax on high cost plans: The primary revenue component of the Senate and White House plans is a tax on expensive health care plans, sometimes referred to as "Cadillac plans." Most Americans get their insurance through their employers, which pay on average about 83 percent of the premiums, and somewhat less than that for family coverage. You likely don’t even know how much that portion is, but it’s part of your compensation and it’s protected from income tax. The rest of your premium is usually deducted from your paycheck.

The President’s proposal delays implementation of the tax and increases the threshold for plans to qualify for it. Under this proposal, the tax wouldn’t take effect until 2018 and would apply only to plans with a total cost that exceeds $27,500 for a family or $10,200 for individuals (not counting vision and dental coverage). (For comparison’s sake, in 2009 the average health insurance premium was $13,400 for a family and about $4,800 for an individual.)

The 40 percent tax would apply only to the portion of the premium above the tax threshold, and it would be paid by the insurers. So, after 2018, if you have a family plan that costs $30,000 a year, your insurer would pay a tax totaling 40 percent of the $2,500 beyond the threshold, roughly $1,000 per year. At least some of that expense would likely be passed on to you and your employer.

While the term "Cadillac plan" suggests that expensive plans are luxuries, that’s not always the case. A plan may be more expensive because employees live in a part of the country with high health costs, or are older and more expensive to insure, or have inherently dangerous jobs such as firefighting or construction work. That’s why the proposal would raise the "Cadillac tax" threshold another $1,850 for these categories of workers.

It’s estimated that few families and individuals will have plans that would be taxed when it first takes effect in 2018. But the number who do qualify could grow over time because the cost of health care has been rising faster than general inflation. If the cost of health care slows, fewer insurance plans would be taxed.

And that is ultimately the idea behind the tax. One of the problems with our current health care system is that the uninsured and underinsured get too little care, while those who are fully covered sometimes get more care than they need—and sometimes more than what is good for them. The excise tax would encourage employers to provide coverage designed to encourage more cost-effective treatments, which would help ease the rising cost of care.
See: Consumer Reports Health Blog: Will health-care reform raise my taxes?

These tax increases would only apply to wealthier people, not average middle class or low income families.

The first 6 to 7 years costs 800+ billion, I'm hearing we're waiting this morning on yet another CBO estimate on whatever the Dems have in this bill, no one really even knows yet, what does the next ten years with every single benefit involved over the entire ten years cost? Or the next ten years after that....

News on the newest CBO report...

The non-partisan Congressional Budget Office Thursday estimated the U.S. Senate's revised healthcare bill would cost $875 billion over 10 years.

The CBO said the bill would reduce the deficit by $118 billion, $14 billion less than the previous CBO score, The Hill reported. The CBO previously estimate the Senate bill would cost $871 billion over the next decade.

The new estimate on the Senate bill likely will generate debate as the House Democratic leadership works to garner support, aides said. However, lawmakers still are waiting for the CBO to score President Barack Obama's proposed fixes to healthcare legislation.

The bill is still estimated to provide coverage for 31 million uninsured.
CBO: Senate healthcare bill costs $875B - UPI.com

Looks like it's still going to be a winner.

You...Left leaning members...have you considered ten years out, twenty years out, thirty years out...you know...when our children are responsible for this? What in the world are you thinking?

What in the world are you thinking? If nothing is done health care costs will only go higher and higher and higher. THAT is a fact! I don't think anyone is arguing that fact, not even Fox News. This bill will reduce the deficit over time, lower premiums for the majority of Americans and protect Americans against insurance companies preying on them by cancelling their policies, or raising premiums, when they get sick. It will also allow Americans with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance. Some of these advantages will kick in immediately upon its passage.
 
FYI ~ The nuclear option has never, ever been used. Never. If you think it has, please provide documentation.



No kidding? Disingenuous, ehh? So, you don't consider any of the below bills to be "major" legislation:confused:


By the way, it was the Republicans who were in control of the Senate when each of these bills were passed using... omg... reconciliation!



Yes, reading up on these issues and definitions certainly is good advice... for all of us.




Disingenuous argument. People need health insurance. The fact that insurance companies are vampires sucking the blood from all of our financial necks does not erase the fact that people need to buy their products.



Well, we shall see what we shall see.




Another disingenuous argument.

See: Consumer Reports Health Blog: Will health-care reform raise my taxes?

These tax increases would only apply to wealthier people, not average middle class or low income families.



News on the newest CBO report...


CBO: Senate healthcare bill costs $875B - UPI.com

Looks like it's still going to be a winner.



What in the world are you thinking? If nothing is done health care costs will only go higher and higher and higher. THAT is a fact! I don't think anyone is arguing that fact, not even Fox News. This bill will reduce the deficit over time, lower premiums for the majority of Americans and protect Americans against insurance companies preying on them by cancelling their policies, or raising premiums, when they get sick. It will also allow Americans with pre-existing conditions to obtain health insurance. Some of these advantages will kick in immediately upon its passage.

First off, it's dead so might as well start gettting over it.

Second, how does it not tax the middle class if they are forced to pay for it in their federal taxes, or face steep fines for not doing so.

The government can't constitutionally force you to buy a product, period.

Name one government program EVER that reduced the cost of anything or cut the deficit a nickel.

American hate this bill, and for good reason. It's dead in the water.
 
First off, it's dead so might as well start gettting over it.

I wouldn't bet the farm on that. :lol:

Second, how does it not tax the middle class if they are forced to pay for it in their federal taxes, or face steep fines for not doing so.

As my post, and link, clearly stated those taxes are on the rich and cadillac policies. Neither apply to the middle class. A fine is not a tax, no matter if Repubs call it such.

The government can't constitutionally force you to buy a product, period.

Really?

Name one government program EVER that reduced the cost of anything or cut the deficit a nickel.

So, this will be historical "and" a precedent. :cool:

American hate this bill, and for good reason. It's dead in the water.

Wrong. Americans want this. Americans need this. And Americans will get this. Watch and learn.
 
blah blah blah

americans are SICK TO DEATH of health care

for president obama to keep saying, "health care, health care..."

for any of his supporters to be echoing...

americans are just gonna PUKE

the putzy president just DOES NOT GET IT

he doesn't UNDERSTAND american sentiment

he doesn't PERCEIVE how FLAT he's falling, how the reaction he's triggering is GAG REFLEX

if you can pass it, pass it

any way you want, any way you can

the problem is YOU CAN'T

so, by all means, keep TALKING about it

we'll take BARBARA BOXER's seat
 
Last edited:
To me this is simply a takeover or potential coup to usurp the rules. Frankly, if it does get passed, I'm hoping and praying this will go to the SCOTUS and they burn it to the ground. I mean I know they're desperate but this is over the line even for the idiots in Congress. Stuff like this gets politicians dragged into the streets and hung in the city square by their own citizens.

Hey, the liberals have been the greatest gun salesmen this country has ever seen.... maybe they will do the same thing for rope. :mrgreen:
 
To be fair - the "slaughter" angle was a bluff. There's no way any parlimentarian would even be able to think about such a move or how to support it or even institute it after the fact. It would have been killed immediately or seen as invalid. But they sure do look desperate. Obama delayed his vacation ... well, like we didn't all see that happening.
 
So why didn't you pass it when you could stop the filibuster? Because people freaking hate this bill like an al-Quaeda cell, that's why.

What do you mean stop the filibuster? And many elements of this bill are quite popular, others have been distorted beyond measure by republican LIES like the death panels.

And the filibuster has been used for a long time. It's a good thing. It prevents Congress from doing stupid things (Congress mostly should do nothing; let us do it for ourselves).
Stupid things like Civil Rights and anti-lynching laws?

Meanwhile, dear Nancy and nerdy Reid are trying with all their might to invent new rules for their sordid purposes.
You mean rules that would let a bill pass on a simple majority like the founders intended? So we wouldn't have this tyranny of the minority?

Obama/Pelosi/Reid are headed for the same historical fate as James Buchanan and Jimmy Carter. Jokes of American history. On the other hand, history will be kind to Bush. Just watch.

Obama's numbers are no worse than Reagans at this point. We'll see.
 
the slaughter solution, being utterly IMPOSSIBLE, and all, could never have been anything more than BLUFF

same with RECONCILIATION

which, if republicans ran the senate, would routinely be referred to as it used to be as the nuclear option

IF YOU CAN PASS IT, PASS IT

just SHUT UP about it already

problem is, YOU CAN'T

problem is, if obama says HEALTH CARE one more time...

america is collectively gonna VOMIT

and CALIFORNIA is gonna go RED

is that what you WANT?

LOL!

the most clueless leadership america has ever seen

completely incompetent
 
you stupid progressives should have picked a proposal that was POPULAR

LOL!

THAT's your problem

everything you push is so DESPISED

the president is a PUTZ
 
Wow, so now Nancy is going to try to pass Obamacare without allowing her House members to even vote on it?

Is there not anything beneath these people?

Isn't it interesting the lengths liberal/ progressive legislators are willing to go to get their way. If we heard about this from a congress in another country we would call it a banana republic.

When corporate execs find loopholes in tax law etc, Pelosi, Reid, Obama and their cohorts howl.

I live in a " swing" disrict. Can a democratic representative have any chance in November if something like this is allowed?
 
good question

even if it's not allowed, everything's going red

too many americans saw the stalinists TRY

most unlikable

to succeed in america you must be LIKED

LOL!
 
competence doesn't hurt, either

the SLAUGHTER SOLUTION...

LOL!
 
Prof, did you just post the last 4 out of five threads, none of them addressing anyone in particular? You're special
 
What do you mean stop the filibuster? And many elements of this bill are quite popular, others have been distorted beyond measure by republican LIES like the death panels.

hmmm.... so you're argument is that people are fooled by lies based around things that are actually in the bill; but not fooled by lies based around counting the same money twice?

well, i'd buy that; i'd think you're stretching the definition of lie...

Stupid things like Civil Rights and anti-lynching laws?

yup; and the fillibusters eventually failed there. fact is, there isn't a single instance of a successful permanent fillibuster of any major legislation that (and this part is key) the American people support. but the Fillibuster serves to keep our government (or temporary ideological faction majority) from overreaching too quickly. Lord knows we've all been frustrated by it, but I think using it to block healthcare is a use the Founding Fathers would have approved of.

mind you, using it to keep the Judicial Branch understaffed for the sole reason that we don't like the President, I think, is an Abuse of Power. Judicial nominees should (I think) be subjected to an up-or-down vote for that reason.

You mean rules that would let a bill pass on a simple majority like the founders intended?

actually that's not what they intended at all. if you look at what they thought they had established the Federal Government to cover, THEY would say that something like this would require a Constitutional Amendment.

So we wouldn't have this tyranny of the minority?

:) someone hasn't read their Federalist Papers.

Obama's numbers are no worse than Reagans at this point. We'll see.

Reagan had an advantage over Obama; he knew how to fix a recession. We shall see indeed.
 
Prof, did you just post the last 4 out of five threads, none of them addressing anyone in particular? You're special

He's just collectively rubbing your noses in your own filth. LOL

His points are valid. If you step back and take a deep breath and relive the past year of this utter abortion of process to pass this abortion of a bill, you just have to shake your head.

Has ever a party fumbled around in a more disjointed cluster*** of a process to pass something more completely despised and unpopular as this bill?

All that is left to find out which was will go off on a tirade on national TV first: Pelosi, Reid, or Obama. My money's on Obama, with Nancy about to give her biggest deer-in-the-headlights press conference ever (which is saying something).

We've never had Three Stooges like this before (four if you throw Biden in). This trainwreck is better than watching Ozzy Osbourne's reality show.
 
cbo says unequivocally that the reid bill DOUBLE COUNTS a full QUARTER TRIL

Budget Office Rebuts Democratic Claims on Medicare (Update1) - Bloomberg.com

this is in addition to the QUARTER TRIL of DOC FIX that is also UNACCOUNTED FOR

on top of the 10 years of taxes and 6 years of benefits

the 200B of unfunded mandates on already bankrupt states in the form of massive medicaid expansion

the imposition on individuals to buy for themselves that which they can't afford, with threats of fines and jail time for the recalcitrant

the HALF A TRIL cuts to medicare and medicaid while simultaneously expanding exorbitantly both already enervated entitlements

just yesterday, the jct (joint cmte on taxation) announced that ONLY SEVEN PERCENT of americans would receive subsidies under the senate bill

that means millions of americans are gonna be REQUIRED to go out and purchase a product costing thousands WITH NO HELP AT ALL from uncle obama

indeed, NINETY THREE PERCENT are actually gonna have to do the SUBSIDIZING, in addition to purchasing humana

LexisNexis News - Latest News from over 4,000 sources, including newspapers, tv transcripts, wire services, magazines, journals.

no wonder health care is dead

oh well

party on, progressives

and say goodbye to pennsylvania, delaware, colorado, nevada, dakota, arkansas, indiana, new york, california, illinois...
 
Last edited:
Back
Top Bottom