Kamala Harris Election Campaign

[thaiboxerken]

Harris makes a stupid mistake by stating she would support eliminating the filibuster to "restore abortion rights." There are several obvious problems with this, starting with the Supreme Court. Having decided that this was a states' rights issue, they seem like to find any such law lacking constitutional support. Even assuming it passes muster there, what's to prevent the next Republican administration, from banning abortion nationwide?

Again, this is the "Republicans will do ..." argument. Such thinking is unconstructive and only serves to paralyze Democrats from taking actions that need to be done.
Republicans will try to ban abortion nationwide no matter what the Democrats do. They've voiced that they will and they've taken steps towards that action.

 

[a_unique_person]

Harris makes a stupid mistake by stating she would support eliminating the filibuster to "restore abortion rights." There are several obvious problems with this, starting with the Supreme Court. Having decided that this was a states' rights issue, they seem like to find any such law lacking constitutional support. Even assuming it passes muster there, what's to prevent the next Republican administration, from banning abortion nationwide?

A large part of the dysfunction of American politics is the filibuster. Nothing happens. At least get policies in, let them work or fail. The Twilight Zone of nothingness is a dead hand on progress.

IMHO as a non American.

 

[Trausti]

They could. If it was passed by the House, Senate and signed by the President.

You're forgetting the Supremacy Clause. National laws written by and passed by the Federal government have priority over all state laws.

On what authority does the federal government regulate the practice of medicine in a state?

 

[acbytesla]

On what authority does the federal government regulate the practice of medicine in a state?

The US federal government monitors and manages the practice of medicine in a number of ways, including:
Regulation
The FDA regulates the marketing and use of medical products, such as prescription drugs, medical devices, and supplements. The FDA monitors products after they are approved to ensure they are still safe and to track any adverse events.
Reimbursement
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulates reimbursement for healthcare products and services for Medicare and Medicaid. CMS also operates the federal insurance marketplaces created by the ACA.
Funding
The federal government funds research that leads to new treatments and options for patients and providers. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) funds health programs for underserved Americans and workforce education programs.
Public health surveillance
The federal government tracks infectious disease outbreaks in the US and worldwide.
Contracts
The federal government finances contracts to encourage public health initiatives, develop state and local provider contracts, and support ongoing activities.
Cost control
The federal government controls costs by setting provider rates, capping annual out-of-pocket fees, and negotiating drug prices.

While State and local governments play a key role in the US healthcare system, including licensing health care professionals, regulating health insurance plans, and operating safety-net facilities, the Federal government has the authority through the Supremacy Clause to over-rule State Medical practices.

 

[Trausti]

The US federal government monitors and manages the practice of medicine in a number of ways, including:
Regulation
The FDA regulates the marketing and use of medical products, such as prescription drugs, medical devices, and supplements. The FDA monitors products after they are approved to ensure they are still safe and to track any adverse events.
Reimbursement
The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS) regulates reimbursement for healthcare products and services for Medicare and Medicaid. CMS also operates the federal insurance marketplaces created by the ACA.
Funding
The federal government funds research that leads to new treatments and options for patients and providers. The Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) funds health programs for underserved Americans and workforce education programs.
Public health surveillance
The federal government tracks infectious disease outbreaks in the US and worldwide.
Contracts
The federal government finances contracts to encourage public health initiatives, develop state and local provider contracts, and support ongoing activities.
Cost control
The federal government controls costs by setting provider rates, capping annual out-of-pocket fees, and negotiating drug prices.

While State and local governments play a key role in the US healthcare system, including licensing health care professionals, regulating health insurance plans, and operating safety-net facilities, the Federal government has the authority through the Supremacy Clause to over-rule State Medical practices.

The federal government can certainly try to exert pressure threw funding, but it has nothing to do with the practice of medicine. As you recognize, all healthcare providers are licensed at the state level. All quality commissions are run at the state level. The federal government has no say in that.

 

[acbytesla]

The federal government can certainly try to exert pressure threw funding, but it has nothing to do with the practice of medince. As you recognize, all healthcare providers are licensed at the state level. All quality commissions are run at the state level. The federal government has no say in that.

Yes it does. That the Federal government doesn't usually exercise that authority does not that they don't have it. If the Food and Drug Administration says that a specific drug or treatment isn’t effective or harmful it can and has made them prohibited.

I get what you're saying but you're ignoring the Supremacy Clause. Federal laws have priority over state laws. Even this Supreme Court has upheld that authority.

 

[dudalb]

On what authority does the federal government regulate the practice of medicine in a state?

Well, if a state was allowing medical practice without any licencinsg, the feds SHOULD step in.

 

[dudalb]

SOmewho I don't think the filibuster is going to be a big issue in this campaign.
I think Harris is right in wanting to get rid of it..as President of the Senate she has had a chance to see how disfucntional it is....but she should not have probably tied it to a specific issue.

 

[JoeMorgue]

On what authority does the federal government regulate the practice of medicine in a state?

The same one where they told the backwards confederate states they had to stop owning other people.

 

[acbytesla]

SOmewho I don't think the filibuster is going to be a big issue in this campaign.
I think Harris is right in wanting to get rid of it..as President of the Senate she has had a chance to see how disfucntional it is....but she should not have probably tied it to a specific issue.

This is what a majority of the voting public doesn’t understand. The general complaint is that the Federal government doesn't help them. Never mind that the rules make it almost impossible for it to do that.

 

[JoeMorgue]

I do think there is SOME legit or at least honest frustration from the American people as to how much of government process is so performatively inefficient.

I think a lot of people are sick of the "Okay fine we'll vote for something that could massively effect the life of all Americans but oopsie doodle will you look at that we're not in session for another 87 weeks, then it will be in committee, then another committee, then we'll talk about, then we'll fillibuster it, then we'll drop it back down to committee again, even though we all already know how we're going to vote for it and this is literally our job."

The insufferable "Government is inherently bad so why have one or just purposely have a bad one" people have done irreparable damage to discourse and the relationship between the US Government and its Citizenry, but I think "Some of the legislative processes could be sped up" is something that can be put on the table of discussion among sane people for at least consideration without being unreasonable.

 

[Regnad Kcin]

They could. If it was passed by the House, Senate and signed by the President.

You're forgetting the Supremacy Clause. National laws written by and passed by the Federal government have priority over all state laws.

My guess is that this Supreme Court would say: “No, Virginia, there is no Supremacy Clause.”

 

[Brainster]

I do think there is SOME legit or at least honest frustration from the American people as to how much of government process is so performatively inefficient.

To quote Senator Eugene McCarthy, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."

 

[acbytesla]

To quote Senator Eugene McCarthy, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."

 

[arthwollipot]

A large part of the dysfunction of American politics is the filibuster. Nothing happens. At least get policies in, let them work or fail. The Twilight Zone of nothingness is a dead hand on progress.

IMHO as a non American.

The filibuster isn't what it once was. Back in the day you actually had to stand up and speak in order to filibuster. Now all you have to do is threaten to do it. Very few people have had to actually carry it out.

 

[smartcooky]

SOmewho I don't think the filibuster is going to be a big issue in this campaign.
I think Harris is right in wanting to get rid of it..as President of the Senate she has had a chance to see how disfucntional it is....but she should not have probably tied it to a specific issue.

I think your 60 vote rule is stupid. Do away with it. The way you have it now is that the minority party don't even have to have all their senators in the chamber, and they can just stymie the government party by stonewalling everything. It may have worked fine when you had cross-party cooperation, but in these days of hyper-partisan tribal politics, it is no longer fit for purpose. No other western democracy has a rule like that.

If you must have a filibuster, have a real one. If the minority party want to hold up legislation, ALL their members must stay in the chamber for the whole speech and debate. But in the end, the majority is the government, and they need to govern - in the end, the majority should get to pass their legislation even if its 51-49. (or 50-50 with the VP's casting vote.)

 

[JoeMorgue]

To quote Senator Eugene McCarthy, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."

Yes stupid **** like that, that you for the example. *jerk off motion*

 

[catsmate]

To quote Senator Eugene McCarthy, "The only thing that saves us from the bureaucracy is its inefficency. An efficient bureaucracy is the greatest threat to liberty."

 

[JoeMorgue]

The filibuster isn't what it once was. Back in the day you actually had to stand up and speak in order to filibuster. Now all you have to do is threaten to do it. Very few people have had to actually carry it out.

This. I never thought it was anything but a childish "I'm going to refuse to stop talking until I get my way" thing, but back in the old days it was, if nothing else, a sign of commitment to a cause and required a sacrifice of actual time, effort, and endurance.

Now it's just a cheap procedural trick where you can just go "I refuse to technically yield the floor under subsection 2A of Paragraph 7 of the Rules of Procedures" and go **** off to the cafeteria for Taco Tuesday having sacrificed nothing.

The other elephant in the room is the simple fact that most of the times the filibuster has been actually used it was to defend something horrible. We can't just pretend that the longest and most famous use of it wasn't Thurmon reciting his grandmother's biscuit recipe for 24 straight hours because he was butthurt about black children going to school.

 

[theprestige]

I think your 60 vote rule is stupid. Do away with it. The way you have it now is that the minority party don't even have to have all their senators in the chamber, and they can just stymie the government party by stonewalling everything. It may have worked fine when you had cross-party cooperation, but in these days of hyper-partisan tribal politics, it is no longer fit for purpose. No other western democracy has a rule like that.

If you must have a filibuster, have a real one. If the minority party want to hold up legislation, ALL their members must stay in the chamber for the whole speech and debate. But in the end, the majority is the government, and they need to govern - in the end, the majority should get to pass their legislation even if its 51-49. (or 50-50 with the VP's casting vote.)

It's not "our" rule. It's the Senate's rule. The Senators have imposed it on themselves. Telling us how counter-productive it is doesn't matter; the Senators have clearly decided, as a group, that this is a part of how they will conduct the Senate's business. Go tell them they're doing it wrong.